|
Post by snow on Apr 17, 2010 21:12:36 GMT -5
Sharon I am seeing your side of this. I understand because I was in a similar situation when I found out. I was trying to point out that Nathan knew better than to believe it and therefore was not falling for it and therefore was not hurt in this instance. He is certainly asked to correct me if I am wrong here. If he was hurt, then I am sorry for that. I think he caught on right away.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 17, 2010 21:17:53 GMT -5
I think Nathan is still not certain about the truth of this letter, or he has upped the ante on the humour!
|
|
|
Post by snow on Apr 17, 2010 21:23:21 GMT -5
I think Nathan is still not certain about the truth of this letter, or he has upped the ante on the humour! Looks like I'm wrong again. Hmm oh well... I could have sworn he knew it was a hoax
|
|
|
Post by jason on Apr 17, 2010 21:36:56 GMT -5
Sharon, I'm sorry to have to say this, but I see a gross exaggeration in your reaction. If not then there exists a huge issue of sensitivity, in which case your reactions may be based on something quite different from my post. I appreciate there will be a few that will line up behind you, but heck they'll have their own issues. Please consider who is likely to rally behind you. Ram, over the years I have seen repeatedly that in your world if other people do not get onboard with your ideas, beliefs and (in my view, questionable) brand of comedy, then you resort to accusing them of "issues", "over-sensitivity" etc. You are quick to suggest that other people are somehow defective; and I see it again here - the gradual slide into personal attack and abuse. I make this point: Ram, if your humour is always predicated on leaving someone else bleeding, might I suggest that it is not particularly funny?
|
|
|
Post by jason on Apr 17, 2010 21:42:58 GMT -5
When I saw the letter I did some soul-searching. I read it carefully, but could find little that might really disqualify it as genuine except for a few quirks, and then began to seriously consider that there might be a wider historical foundation for the Fellowship. I considered how I would need to re-evaluate my faith if this proved to be true. I spent maybe two hours going through the letter in great detail.
For me these issues are important. Therefore I feel justly angered that somebody else has got kicks out of producing a fradulent letter for some twisted idea of humour. Issues of faith are serious; when you start playing silly buggers with people's beliefs you can't expect to just clap your hands, "it's a joke - I'm a comedian!" and bow to an applauding audience. It's not that simple.
|
|
|
Post by jason on Apr 17, 2010 21:48:33 GMT -5
Sharon, let me assure you, I have nothing at all against Nathan. I am very fond of the guy. Yes he was more than obviously primed beforehand. That's why he stated in his first response that he thought Ram was having fun! Lack of niceties doesn't enter into it. A questionable sense of humour? Perhaps, but it is appreciated by many. Well, if enough people like something then it must be ethical. "I didn't mean any harm" - ergo, none was done. "Compared to other gross liars and deceivers, this was a small, humourous deception" - that's like a tinpot African dictator saying that his genocide was a lot smaller than Stalin's. Please refrain.
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Apr 17, 2010 21:49:00 GMT -5
When I saw the letter I did some soul-searching. I read it carefully, but could find little that might really disqualify it as genuine except for a few quirks, and then began to seriously consider that there might be a wider historical foundation for the Fellowship. I considered how I would need to re-evaluate my faith if this proved to be true. I spent maybe two hours going through the letter in great detail. For me these issues are important. Therefore I feel justly angered that somebody else has got kicks out of producing a fradulent letter for some twisted idea of humour. Issues of faith are serious; when you start playing silly buggers with people's beliefs you can't expect to just clap your hands, "it's a joke - I'm a comedian!" and bow to an applauding audience. It's not that simple. Amen!
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Apr 17, 2010 21:53:27 GMT -5
Sharon I am seeing your side of this. I understand because I was in a similar situation when I found out. I was trying to point out that Nathan knew better than to believe it and therefore was not falling for it and therefore was not hurt in this instance. He is certainly asked to correct me if I am wrong here. If he was hurt, then I am sorry for that. I think he caught on right away. Snow, Nathan said this just before this post of yours...it clues me into knowing that Nathan has considered the seriousness of the possibility of the letter being real and he does not want to discount anything..Ram's refusal to give a yes or no about the questions asked in regards to the letter would put grave concerns in someone's mind who might just be trying to decide for a certainty HOW MUCH of the letter is real and how much of it is pure spoof as there often can be either one found in such things as this...the answer that Nathan and Jason both wanted was in regards to the author of the letter besides someone made up.... I'd say Nathan didn't miss the prank played on him and anyone else that is struggling for the "truth" about the truth's fellowship! That would almost guarantee some tender feelings. Nathan also said it "is no laughing matters".
|
|
|
Post by snow on Apr 17, 2010 22:14:55 GMT -5
Sharon I am seeing your side of this. I understand because I was in a similar situation when I found out. I was trying to point out that Nathan knew better than to believe it and therefore was not falling for it and therefore was not hurt in this instance. He is certainly asked to correct me if I am wrong here. If he was hurt, then I am sorry for that. I think he caught on right away. Snow, Nathan said this just before this post of yours...it clues me into knowing that Nathan has considered the seriousness of the possibility of the letter being real and he does not want to discount anything..Ram's refusal to give a yes or no about the questions asked in regards to the letter would put grave concerns in someone's mind who might just be trying to decide for a certainty HOW MUCH of the letter is real and how much of it is pure spoof as there often can be either one found in such things as this...the answer that Nathan and Jason both wanted was in regards to the author of the letter besides someone made up.... I'd say Nathan didn't miss the prank played on him and anyone else that is struggling for the "truth" about the truth's fellowship! That would almost guarantee some tender feelings. Nathan also said it "is no laughing matters". Well, I understand like I said, but Nathan just replied a couple of posts up and assured me he did know it was a hoax. So I don't know. I think it is unfortunate people did get hurt. I never take that lightly.
|
|
|
Post by kiwi on Apr 17, 2010 22:50:40 GMT -5
Since some people have found my posting of Dorothy's letter offensive, I shall refrain from posting the reply apparently sent to her by the acting Editor of the Impartial Reporter. This document gives an appropriate response. It is not that it was offensive it is a Christian you have let your Master down in the practice of deceit and that is what hurts, to think of the one who gave His all for all, shed His blood for you/all and this is how you treat Him. It is so sad that you and others find it funny and then have the gall to call us and our fellowship into question. I think you would be very hard pressed to find any genuine person in our fellowship would have even considered such a thing.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 18, 2010 12:26:32 GMT -5
When I saw the letter I did some soul-searching. I read it carefully, but could find little that might really disqualify it as genuine except for a few quirks, and then began to seriously consider that there might be a wider historical foundation for the Fellowship. I considered how I would need to re-evaluate my faith if this proved to be true. I spent maybe two hours going through the letter in great detail. For me these issues are important. Therefore I feel justly angered that somebody else has got kicks out of producing a fradulent letter for some twisted idea of humour. Issues of faith are serious; when you start playing silly buggers with people's beliefs you can't expect to just clap your hands, "it's a joke - I'm a comedian!" and bow to an applauding audience. It's not that simple. Amen! Only a week or two ago Jason created a thread about this "BOARD BEING DEAD." He appealed for someone to liven it up. There is an old saying in life, "be careful what you wish for, you might get it!"
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 18, 2010 12:29:26 GMT -5
Kiwi wrote:
I think you would be very hard pressed to find any genuine person in our fellowship would have even considered such a thing.
I hope you are wrong here. This implies that on what we now know, it may be far easier to find a paedophile than a prankster within the fold.
|
|
|
Post by StAnne on Apr 18, 2010 13:47:52 GMT -5
Since some people have found my posting of Dorothy's letter offensive, I shall refrain from posting the reply apparently sent to her by the acting Editor of the Impartial Reporter. This document gives an appropriate response. It is not that it was offensive it is a Christian you have let your Master down in the practice of deceit and that is what hurts, Using your logic... On a scale of deceit, where might it then place any who ( knowingly) perpetuated the actual and/or apostolic "back to the shores of Galilee" teachings? For any who maintain this wasn't so taught, where might the scale of deceit apply for those in authority who allowed persistent, incorrect perceptions to exist and spread. ( Incorrect perceptions would apply for all of us who have testified we were taught "back to the beginning" in the actual or apostolic sense).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 18, 2010 14:56:53 GMT -5
5) Why have the Irish TMB contingent remained generally silent over this matter? Knowledge of truth perhaps? Ram, I have stayed silent on this issue only because Dorothy Irvine was my great grandmother on my mother’s side (I am one eighth Scottish and therefore entitled to wear a kilt, stand for election to the Scottish Parliament and partake in the annual re-enactment of the Battle of Bannockburn) and her close relationship with William Irvine was obviously a source of much embarrassment to the family, particularly after Irvine went to Jerusalem and became of unsound mind. Indeed it is only recently that our relationship to Irvine has been talked about openly and even then only in whispered tones and with the door firmly closed. For those interested in such things Dorothy married an Irish engineer (my great-grandfather) in 1911 when they went to live for a while on the Scottish Gaelic island of Skcollob before he returned to Ireland early in 1912 to work on the final fitting of the Titanic. He also carried out repair work on the Lusitania before enlisting in the British Army where he was in charge of operations at the battle of the Somme. Fortunate to survive, he then moved to the United States in 1920 to enter the liquor trade before moving into the stock market in 1929. He left the United States early in 1945 to take up German nationality and live in Berlin. He was last heard of shortly before setting off on a short holiday to Korea in the summer of 1950. My grandmother maintains that he was a good friend of Lord Lucan who, apparently, professed around the same time as Princess Victoria. Which really is interesting as my great-grandfather also worked on the Princess Victoria before it sank. Inevitably. Matt10
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 18, 2010 15:48:48 GMT -5
Matt, I cannot express adequately enough the depth of my gratitude to you in coming forward with this information about Dorothy Irvine and the embarrassment her close relationship with William was to your ancestors. It helps me to understand why Dorothy has been erased from the Irvine family records.
I truly hope you find peace and solace with this highly delicate matter and that your family can move forward, having now obtained closure on this family stain.
May you find peace and contentment brother.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 18, 2010 17:13:00 GMT -5
Does that mean Matt is still allowed to paddle over the Giant's Causeway and take part in the re-enactment of the Battle of Bannockburn? (playing on the English side only of course)
|
|
|
Post by snow on Apr 18, 2010 17:20:32 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Apr 18, 2010 17:38:34 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by jason on Apr 18, 2010 17:40:57 GMT -5
It is not that it was offensive it is a Christian you have let your Master down in the practice of deceit and that is what hurts, Using your logic... On a scale of deceit, where might it then place any who ( knowingly) perpetuated the actual and/or apostolic "back to the shores of Galilee" teachings? For any who maintain this wasn't so taught, where might the scale of deceit apply for those in authority who allowed persistent, incorrect perceptions to exist and spread. ( Incorrect perceptions would apply for all of us who have testified we were taught "back to the beginning" in the actual or apostolic sense). The same could be said for the ahistorical claim that Peter was the "first pope", and that the Roman Catholic Church goes back to the "shores of Galilee".
|
|
|
Post by snow on Apr 18, 2010 17:50:49 GMT -5
Well Ram and Matt, who else? They are sure spinning a grand tale are they not!!
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Apr 18, 2010 17:52:10 GMT -5
Well Ram and Matt, who else? They are sure spinning a grand tale are they not!! Well, I wondered IF that was the fat lady that sang! ;D
|
|
|
Post by snow on Apr 18, 2010 17:54:56 GMT -5
Well Ram and Matt, who else? They are sure spinning a grand tale are they not!! Well, I wondered IF that was the fat lady that sang! ;D LOL, could be! I was just laughing at the last couple of posts. Jumping up and down with glee, looking into my crystal ball to see if I can see what they'll come up with next and letting them know they're busted. We're on ta them, yup we are!!
|
|
|
Post by StAnne on Apr 18, 2010 18:00:27 GMT -5
Using your logic... On a scale of deceit, where might it then place any who ( knowingly) perpetuated the actual and/or apostolic "back to the shores of Galilee" teachings? For any who maintain this wasn't so taught, where might the scale of deceit apply for those in authority who allowed persistent, incorrect perceptions to exist and spread. ( Incorrect perceptions would apply for all of us who have testified we were taught "back to the beginning" in the actual or apostolic sense). The same could be said for the ahistorical claim that Peter was the "first pope", and that the Roman Catholic Church goes back to the "shores of Galilee". The same could be said for the ahistorical claim that Peter was the "first pope"Not unless one disregards Jesus' words to Peter in Matthew 16:18.And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church...
|
|
|
Post by Happy Feet on Apr 18, 2010 20:33:17 GMT -5
The same could be said for the ahistorical claim that Peter was the "first pope", and that the Roman Catholic Church goes back to the "shores of Galilee". The same could be said for the ahistorical claim that Peter was the "first pope"Not unless one disregards Jesus' words to Peter in Matthew 16:18.And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church...Yes, he said upon this rock I will build my church. Have you reinterpreted this to mean the Roman Catholic church? Interesting how people interpret this to mean their denomination. The 2x2s say their church, the catholics say their church, the JWs say their church, etc. Where did Jesus say he came to build a particular denomination? I say Jesus' church is made up of all born again believers regardless of denomination. I say His church is made up of Baptists, Catholics, brethren, Missionary Alliance, etc. His spirit dwells in the believer, regardless of their denomination.
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Apr 18, 2010 20:37:54 GMT -5
I say His church is built upon Himself...the chief cornerstone!
|
|
|
Post by StAnne on Apr 18, 2010 20:47:44 GMT -5
The same could be said for the ahistorical claim that Peter was the "first pope"Not unless one disregards Jesus' words to Peter in Matthew 16:18.And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church... Yes, he said upon this rock I will build my church. Have you reinterpreted this to mean the Roman Catholic church? Interesting how people interpret this to mean their denomination. The 2x2s say their church, the catholics say their church, the JWs say their church, etc. Where did Jesus say he came to build a particular denomination? I say Jesus' church is made up of all born again believers regardless of denomination. I say His church is made up of Baptists, Catholics, brethren, Missionary Alliance, etc. His spirit dwells in the believer, regardless of their denomination. Peter was the rock, the authority upon which Jesus chose to build His church. And so I say to you, you are Peter (rock), and upon this rock I will build my church...
|
|
|
Post by StAnne on Apr 18, 2010 21:12:35 GMT -5
Peter was the rock, the authority upon which Jesus chose to build His church. And so I say to you, you are Peter (rock), and upon this rock I will build my church... ~~ How about Paul? He did more establishing and building up Jesus New Testament church than Peter wouldn't you say? Peter's preaching mostly to the Jews and Paul to the Gentiles. You will have to ask Jesus why he said those words to (Simon) Peter instead of Paul.
|
|
|
Post by pinky on Apr 18, 2010 21:39:14 GMT -5
Diversions aside, St Anne makes a good point.
I hope Kiwi comes back and answers the question.
|
|