Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 19, 2010 16:45:28 GMT -5
Well Ram and Matt, who else? They are sure spinning a grand tale are they not!! Snow, Mock ye not. Mine is no idle tale but the truth. As truthful as tales of virgin births, that the 2x2 church is from the beginning and that in 1910 the terms 'Eire' and 'Great Britain' were virtually synonymous. Matt10
|
|
|
Post by snow on Apr 19, 2010 16:47:10 GMT -5
Well Ram and Matt, who else? They are sure spinning a grand tale are they not!! Snow, Mock ye not. Mine is no idle tale but the truth. As truthful as tales of virgin births, that the 2x2 church is from the beginning and that in 1910 the terms 'Eire' and 'Great Britain' were virtually synonymous. Matt10 Oh I know, I know. I understand, why yes I sure do!!
|
|
|
Post by StAnne on Apr 19, 2010 17:35:07 GMT -5
Nope. Not responding until you give a "yes" or "no answer to the question (twice) asked of you. ~~ The answer is Yes. Jesus was talking to Peter. Now, can you answer my question What KEYS of the kingdom of heaven was given to Peter that Jesus talking about?. Not to be picky, but this was the question...~~ Do you believe Jesus was also given the KEYS (binding/bounding) to the kingdom of heaven to the 11 apostles, Paul, Barnabas, and all of His followers as well?Where in scripture does it verbatim say the 11 were given the keys as it says verbatim Peter was given the keys?
|
|
|
Post by jason on Apr 19, 2010 17:58:45 GMT -5
It turns out and looks very apparent that YOU and everyone else that LAUGHED at your op ARE laughing AT those who find it a serious situation, a serious dirty prank. Sharon, have you ever heard of the two-faced god Janus? Let us imagine there is a hypthetical prankster on a board. Let us imagine that a hypothetical participant condemns him mercilessly on one board, but that same hypothetical person thinks his prank is screamingly funny on the other - and loves that a simpleton (perhaps somebody like me) has wound up being the butt of the joke. Such a person would be contemptible. But I thank my God always for his protection over my life, and for his merciful providence. He sent me not one, but two warnings about this person and her antics from surprising sources. Surely the Living God cares for his own people, and does not allow them to be mocked and mistreated, or to follow a path into the snare. To the praise of his glory, and for the love of his Son Jesus Christ, I see with ever greater clarity that he truly provides for his own. And with such knowledge, I see that those who have no conscience condemn themselves out of their own mouths: Assuredly, he is not.
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Apr 19, 2010 18:54:45 GMT -5
It turns out and looks very apparent that YOU and everyone else that LAUGHED at your op ARE laughing AT those who find it a serious situation, a serious dirty prank. Sharon, have you ever heard of the two-faced god Janus? Let us imagine there is a hypthetical prankster on a board. Let us imagine that a hypothetical participant condemns him mercilessly on one board, but that same hypothetical person thinks his prank is screamingly funny on the other - and loves that a simpleton (perhaps somebody like me) has wound up being the butt of the joke. Such a person would be contemptible. But I thank my God always for his protection over my life, and for his merciful providence. He sent me not one, but two warnings about this person and her antics from surprising sources. Surely the Living God cares for his own people, and does not allow them to be mocked and mistreated, or to follow a path into the snare. To the praise of his glory, and for the love of his Son Jesus Christ, I see with ever greater clarity that he truly provides for his own. And with such knowledge, I see that those who have no conscience condemn themselves out of their own mouths: Assuredly, he is not. Seems the pranster(s) are out for revenge for what they themselves have suffered due to some of the less appealing facts of the fellowship...that said, there goes this thought for me... Rom 12:19 Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but [rather] give place unto wrath: for it is written , Vengeance [is] mine; I will repay, saith the Lord Why they want to put the vengence on those who are still within the fellowship and/or on the fence about it is beyond my comprehension....for IF they'll stop to think, I can almost say nearly 100 per cent of those still alive in the fellowship have been under the same deceit as they think they were....some people are not able to separate that out for themselves yet and some do not think it is necessary to pay heed to it.....and I think it needs to be left in God's hands to take care of...as the verse above says...IF Vengence is necesarry then let God do it for then it will be applied where, when, how, and to whom it needs to be done! Otherwise when someone seeks to make cruel fun at others, often they play into the hands of a more evile source....I can truthfully tell Ram and others who have found this prank hilarious that they have really caused more AFFIRMATION of faith in the fellowship then doubt because it just plays into the indoctrination that "when one is persecuted for their beliefs then it has to be right." Simply because Jesus was persecuted, His Apostles were persecuted, etc. Come on guys....let's be more humane? Please! Don't mock that which you don't want, just let it go, let others live like you want to be let live!
|
|
|
Post by snow on Apr 19, 2010 19:37:32 GMT -5
Peter was an angry unstable man prone to temper tantrums abd Paul wasn't much better imo. No wonder we have such mixed up, convoluted crazy ideas in religions today if those two are who we look to for sane ideas. ~~ What do you think of Jesus then? He took the whip and drove people out of the temple courts saying you people made my Father's house a den's of thieves. Was he Crazy for saying, " I am the way, the truth, and LIFE no man comes to the Father but through me." Was Jesus a lunatic? or telling the truth that believing in My way or the highway!I don't see Jesus as any different from any other more enlightened master that has walked this earth. In some ways I believe Jesus was quite wrong, but he was a product of the Jewish nation and had his own unique quirks about him, just like Buddha and others. I don't think that we need Jesus as a middle man to have a relationship with god. He might be a good example of how to do that, but he is not the only way. Not in my understanding anyway.
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Apr 19, 2010 20:01:15 GMT -5
~~ What do you think of Jesus then? He took the whip and drove people out of the temple courts saying you people made my Father's house a den's of thieves. Was he Crazy for saying, " I am the way, the truth, and LIFE no man comes to the Father but through me." Was Jesus a lunatic? or telling the truth that believing in My way or the highway! I don't see Jesus as any different from any other more enlightened master that has walked this earth. In some ways I believe Jesus was quite wrong, but he was a product of the Jewish nation and had his own unique quirks about him, just like Buddha and others. I don't think that we need Jesus as a middle man to have a relationship with god. He might be a good example of how to do that, but he is not the only way. Not in my understanding anyway. Snow, I'm just wanting to let you know why some people find it okay for Jesus to have done certain things and that is because some of us believe Jesus is God the Son who was in heaven with God the Father before the world began and also that HE IS OUR CREATOR! So since He knows all things, then perhaps His anger, His other emotions are fully justified, since He can see all hearts and minds involved in the particular situation? I take it you don't believe that and I am not knocking you an ability to relate closely to your God, I find that admirable...I just wanted to explain that in case you didn't understand that...thank you!
|
|
|
Post by snow on Apr 19, 2010 20:18:34 GMT -5
I don't see Jesus as any different from any other more enlightened master that has walked this earth. In some ways I believe Jesus was quite wrong, but he was a product of the Jewish nation and had his own unique quirks about him, just like Buddha and others. I don't think that we need Jesus as a middle man to have a relationship with god. He might be a good example of how to do that, but he is not the only way. Not in my understanding anyway. Snow, I'm just wanting to let you know why some people find it okay for Jesus to have done certain things and that is because some of us believe Jesus is God the Son who was in heaven with God the Father before the world began and also that HE IS OUR CREATOR! So since He knows all things, then perhaps His anger, His other emotions are fully justified, since He can see all hearts and minds involved in the particular situation? I take it you don't believe that and I am not knocking you an ability to relate closely to your God, I find that admirable...I just wanted to explain that in case you didn't understand that...thank you! Would that be the same thing as the catholic trinity concept. I do wonder why god would have the same emotions as a human but possibly it is explained by him being a human/god? I find the whole concept rather bewildering actually.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 20, 2010 2:14:58 GMT -5
Sharon wrote:
Otherwise when someone seeks to make cruel fun at others, often they play into the hands of a more evile source....I can truthfully tell Ram and others who have found this prank hilarious that they have really caused more AFFIRMATION of faith in the fellowship then doubt because it just plays into the indoctrination that "when one is persecuted for their beliefs then it has to be right." Simply because Jesus was persecuted, His Apostles were persecuted, etc.
Come on guys....let's be more humane? Please! Don't mock that which you don't want, just let it go, let others live like you want to be let live!
Sharon, as far as I can see, the people I have been in contact with are certainly not laughing or poking fun at you or anyone else. It was a fun story and that is what is amusing people. It is not a thing to be taking personally.
You call this joke "persecution?" I think I'm now the one that's persecuted? Try and see the letter for what it is, a bit of fun. It's the contents of the letter that people are amused by, not peoples' reactions. They are actually quite disgusted by that.
As for the letter affirming peoples' faith. Maybe you want to try trawling out the other side of the boat. One thing I never intended, but which has been pointed out to me is the "taste of your own medicine" principle for those who belittle those who were very much duped by the Apostolic Succession "pranks!" which carried a far more serious, far more wide-reaching and far more devastating outcome. At least I came clean very soon after my episode.
Yesterday you wrote on another thread:
When I left, I sent an exit letter to all that were immediately concerned so they would know why I was no longer there....what did I experience IMMEDIATELY? One sister worker, no less, forwarded my letter to her to another worker with a full discourse on MY EVILS! All that she supposed I'd done wrong, even to the point of speculating that the overseer had asked me to quit! He never did. How I know what she did...she accidentally or maybe on purpose forwarded it to me, instead of forwarding it to who she addressed alll her speculations and judgments against me.
Make no mistake. I sympathise very much with what happened to you here, but I cannot but help see parrallels here with how these workers reacted to your letter and how you have reacted to the Dorothy Irvine letter.
|
|
|
Post by kiwi on Apr 20, 2010 3:03:45 GMT -5
So you think it fine to let the Master down in something which is easily controlled ? You are the one who brought the Master into the equation. I didn't say it is ever fine to let our Master down. I asked, if according to your logic, it has been, and is, okay to knowingly perpetuate or allow perpetuation of misleading information. Is that according to my logic? Oh just to let you know I don't
|
|
|
Post by kiwi on Apr 20, 2010 3:05:26 GMT -5
I cannot say that there was or there was not any physical connection because I plainly don't know, so I'm not saying there was or there was not nor am I concerned in any way about that. But I can say this that the connection in the Spirit does go back to the shores of Galilee and if you don't recognise that you can't have of His Spirit. For in the sense you are driving at I have never heard nor read of any such thing preached, spoken of or written of in our fellowship it has always been in the spiritual sense. There we are pinky For in the sense you are driving at I have never heard nor read of any such thing preached, spoken of or written of in our fellowship it has always been in the spiritual sense.Sorry to inform you. You're waaaay outnumbered in those who testify otherwise.Inform all you like I still have never heard nor read of any such thing preached, spoken of or written of in our fellowship it has always been in the spiritual sense.
|
|
|
Post by jason on Apr 20, 2010 6:12:05 GMT -5
Sharon, as far as I can see, the people I have been in contact with are certainly not laughing or poking fun at you or anyone else. It was a fun story and that is what is amusing people. It is not a thing to be taking personally. That's the problem with humour - especially when its based on the subjects of politics and religion - it hurts people. I marvel at the the legions of people you always claim to have on your side; sending you alleged piles of email and permitting you to speak on their behalf. Frankly, I do not know which is worse: the attempt at comedy, or this sequence of justifications. It seems to boil down to the argument that because other people have done worse things, ergo, you are fine. The tendency of the sinner toward comparison with other sinners is always within the breast of the human heart (for none of us are better than any other). Yet comparison with other humans is not the standard given in Scripture, is it? We may have committed less evil than Stalin, but that does not mean all our actions are acceptable before God. I know I pray for forgiveness for my many sins. He who does not have a heart that cries to the LORD, " Abba, Father! Deliver me from my trespasses and sins!", he who has never had his heart crushed under the realisation of his own dependence and helplessness before the Lord, he who has never been broken in heart, is a man who is bound with chains to the path of justification, excuse, and self-reliance. God deliver me from all such things. (And I trust in my God that he will; he has delivered and will continue to deliver). " They deserve it; others have done worse; I 'fessed up soon afterwards." You seem immune to the fact that you duped some people, not with the letter (which was suspect to all), but with the representation of yourself. Frankly, I thought you would never do such a thing as to try and lead someone up the garden path. I trusted you, and because I gave you more credibility than you seem to warrant, I took your letter at face value, just as you presented it.
|
|
|
Post by jason on Apr 20, 2010 6:17:37 GMT -5
Peter was an angry unstable man prone to temper tantrums abd Paul wasn't much better imo. No wonder we have such mixed up, convoluted crazy ideas in religions today if those two are who we look to for sane ideas. I observe your "live and let live" approach dies periodically whenever you speak of Christianity. That does not surprise me. All human beings that have not been regenerated by God harbour hatred for his revelation and his people; whether active or passive; whether acted upon or merely dormant; it is there. I also observe that you are unable to justify or explain your religious perspective, defend it, or deal with illogical elements in debate. Therefore I find it amazing that you would suggest that the theological thought of Peter and Paul was "crazy"; I confess to having similar thoughts reading some of your rather predictable commentary on Christian subjects. Yet, should one not put their house first in order before they criticise somebody else's? I am therefore curious. Upon what do you base your enlightened opinion about two of the most influential religious figures in human history?
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Apr 20, 2010 6:54:20 GMT -5
Snow, I'm just wanting to let you know why some people find it okay for Jesus to have done certain things and that is because some of us believe Jesus is God the Son who was in heaven with God the Father before the world began and also that HE IS OUR CREATOR! So since He knows all things, then perhaps His anger, His other emotions are fully justified, since He can see all hearts and minds involved in the particular situation? I take it you don't believe that and I am not knocking you an ability to relate closely to your God, I find that admirable...I just wanted to explain that in case you didn't understand that...thank you! Would that be the same thing as the catholic trinity concept. I do wonder why god would have the same emotions as a human but possibly it is explained by him being a human/god? I find the whole concept rather bewildering actually. I think the bible says it plainly when it says God made man in his image...okay...that would seem to include various emotions....I think the difference of how those emotions get expressed is we see so little of the actual picture when we let loose with our emotions and God sees the whole picture when He has let through with His emotions...thus I believe God is justified when His different emotions and feelings come throughj....HJe's usually right on the top of the whole thing and is justified to do whatever He does. JMO
|
|
|
Post by jason on Apr 20, 2010 8:26:44 GMT -5
God made man in his "moral image". That image was destroyed with the Fall of man into sin.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Apr 20, 2010 9:38:27 GMT -5
Peter was an angry unstable man prone to temper tantrums abd Paul wasn't much better imo. No wonder we have such mixed up, convoluted crazy ideas in religions today if those two are who we look to for sane ideas. I observe your "live and let live" approach dies periodically whenever you speak of Christianity. That does not surprise me. All human beings that have not been regenerated by God harbour hatred for his revelation and his people; whether active or passive; whether acted upon or merely dormant; it is there. I also observe that you are unable to justify or explain your religious perspective, defend it, or deal with illogical elements in debate. Therefore I find it amazing that you would suggest that the theological thought of Peter and Paul was "crazy"; I confess to having similar thoughts reading some of your rather predictable commentary on Christian subjects. Yet, should one not put their house first in order before they criticise somebody else's? I am therefore curious. Upon what do you base your enlightened opinion about two of the most influential religious figures in human history? Jason I don't hate Christianity or any other religion for that matter. I just think that we have really messed up in our interpretations of what god is and it shows. I don't have any doctrine other than god is all loving and all inclusive. I do think that religions that don't protray that are a little off base, but that's okay. Am I not allowed to have an opinion without you thinking I am hating something? If you really look at the words of these two, it is rarely what I would refer to as loving and it is quite damaging in spots. You see it different because you are a christian. However, those who do not see it as a very loving religion, do view it in quite a different light. Your inability to see the dangers of some of Christianities beliefs is interesting, yet understandable. I have no need to defend my beliefs for they are very simple. God is love and all inclusive. End of story.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 20, 2010 10:30:34 GMT -5
Sharon, as far as I can see, the people I have been in contact with are certainly not laughing or poking fun at you or anyone else. It was a fun story and that is what is amusing people. It is not a thing to be taking personally. That's the problem with humour - especially when its based on the subjects of politics and religion - it hurts people. I marvel at the the legions of people you always claim to have on your side; sending you alleged piles of email and permitting you to speak on their behalf. Frankly, I do not know which is worse: the attempt at comedy, or this sequence of justifications. It seems to boil down to the argument that because other people have done worse things, ergo, you are fine. The tendency of the sinner toward comparison with other sinners is always within the breast of the human heart (for none of us are better than any other). Yet comparison with other humans is not the standard given in Scripture, is it? We may have committed less evil than Stalin, but that does not mean all our actions are acceptable before God. I know I pray for forgiveness for my many sins. He who does not have a heart that cries to the LORD, " Abba, Father! Deliver me from my trespasses and sins!", he who has never had his heart crushed under the realisation of his own dependence and helplessness before the Lord, he who has never been broken in heart, is a man who is bound with chains to the path of justification, excuse, and self-reliance. God deliver me from all such things. (And I trust in my God that he will; he has delivered and will continue to deliver). " They deserve it; others have done worse; I 'fessed up soon afterwards." You seem immune to the fact that you duped some people, not with the letter (which was suspect to all), but with the representation of yourself. Frankly, I thought you would never do such a thing as to try and lead someone up the garden path. I trusted you, and because I gave you more credibility than you seem to warrant, I took your letter at face value, just as you presented it. Give me humour over arrogance any day. You have hurt multitudes in the past with your manner. Considerably more than my humour has done. There is no contest there. I concede defeat. Jason, if you wish to express urine then please go to a suitable receptacle. You "trusted" me? Several times in the past you have stated you rarely if ever agreed with me or put credibility in my posts. Now wish to give me credibility prior to you being duped? One thing's sure, you ain't what you try to portray either. Remember, YOU claimed this board was dead. You asked for someone to liven it up. You got what you wanted. Now you complain?
|
|
|
Post by StAnne on Apr 20, 2010 15:48:05 GMT -5
You don't what? I see you can't really answer the question, kiwi. Peace be with you. Stanne.... did you miss this question from page 7? ~~ I already answered your question with a Yes answer. Can you answer this question for me, please.
1) What' are KEYS of the kingdom of heaven was given to Peter that Jesus talking about? What are the KEYS of the kingdom of heaven? Sorry Nathan. I see you have moved the question to the vatican thread. I have responded there. Not with the answer you're looking for at this time, but a response nevertheless.
|
|
|
Post by kiwi on Apr 21, 2010 1:32:45 GMT -5
Is that according to my logic? Oh just to let you know I don't You don't what? I see you can't really answer the question, kiwi. Peace be with you.Are you some sort of a dipstick? First of all you have to ask a question Hey and don't forget to answer my question Is that according to my logic?You asked, if according to your logic, it has been, and is, okay to knowingly perpetuate or allow perpetuation of misleading information,without a question mark. My answer I don't So sort yourself out because the answer was there all the time
|
|
|
Post by StAnne on Apr 21, 2010 2:31:01 GMT -5
You don't what? I see you can't really answer the question, kiwi. Peace be with you. Are you some sort of a dipstick? First of all you have to ask a question Hey and don't forget to answer my question Is that according to my logic?You asked, if according to your logic, it has been, and is, okay to knowingly perpetuate or allow perpetuation of misleading information,without a question mark. My answer I don't So sort yourself out because the answer was there all the time Yes. It was. My apologies. I misread, I guess. Christ's peace be with you.
|
|
|
Post by jason on Apr 21, 2010 5:14:23 GMT -5
Give me humour over arrogance any day. You have hurt multitudes in the past with your manner. Considerably more than my humour has done. There is no contest there. I concede defeat. Ram, you can sling around speculations all you wish. I have long ceased to be impressed. If you think that comparing yourself continually with other people is a source of validity or justification, then I pity you. It seldom takes long to arrive at the toilet with some people. When I wrote that "I trusted you", I meant that in the relative sense; I trusted your presentation (and representation) of this alleged letter. On the other hand, objectively speaking you are correct: as a person I am not sure I would trust you. This statement is a lie: I never " asked for someone to liven it up"; I said, " maybe we need a plan to revive it". Had you posted a plan, your claim might have some measure of validity. As it stands, it is just another empty excuse. While it might be a comfort for you to believe that your prank, coming over a month after I changed my thread's title from " This board is dead" to " This board is alive" (a change I made within three days), is somehow justified, I assure you that nobody with a shred of intelligence would see this as cause and effect. I think you are very clever at inventing escape hatches. Furthermore, whenever I make suggestions, this does not mean that I condone open slather in response; I never applaud what I regard as unethical behaviour. As you continue with your campaign to redeem yourself, which, as in the past, will descend ever further into personal vilification and self-pity, I place you on notice: you have no longer any power over me. None. No power to rouse me to anger with your nastigrams; none to rouse me to frustration; none to irk or worry me at all. By the grace of God, who defends his people from the snares of the trapper, I am set free from this shackle that in the past has arrested my soul. So do your worst.
|
|
|
Post by jason on Apr 21, 2010 5:17:22 GMT -5
I observe your "live and let live" approach dies periodically whenever you speak of Christianity. That does not surprise me. All human beings that have not been regenerated by God harbour hatred for his revelation and his people; whether active or passive; whether acted upon or merely dormant; it is there. I also observe that you are unable to justify or explain your religious perspective, defend it, or deal with illogical elements in debate. Therefore I find it amazing that you would suggest that the theological thought of Peter and Paul was "crazy"; I confess to having similar thoughts reading some of your rather predictable commentary on Christian subjects. Yet, should one not put their house first in order before they criticise somebody else's? I am therefore curious. Upon what do you base your enlightened opinion about two of the most influential religious figures in human history? Jason I don't hate Christianity or any other religion for that matter. I just think that we have really messed up in our interpretations of what god is and it shows. I don't have any doctrine other than god is all loving and all inclusive. I do think that religions that don't protray that are a little off base, but that's okay. Am I not allowed to have an opinion without you thinking I am hating something? If you really look at the words of these two, it is rarely what I would refer to as loving and it is quite damaging in spots. You see it different because you are a christian. However, those who do not see it as a very loving religion, do view it in quite a different light. Your inability to see the dangers of some of Christianities beliefs is interesting, yet understandable. I have no need to defend my beliefs for they are very simple. God is love and all inclusive. End of story. Perhaps you do not defend your beliefs because you know, deep down, they cannot stand cold scrutiny. Those who say they "have no need to defend" are often those, in my experience, who have muddled concoctions of beliefs. I believe the heart is exceedingly sinful; it knows when its persuasions are idols. I make the point that for someone who has such an inclusive god, you are pretty exclusive in your claims!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 21, 2010 9:52:29 GMT -5
Jason,
Yes, I do have a set of golf clubs. It's years since I had a round. Why do you ask? Also. Cricket? Can't stand the game. I know the Ozzies and the English are all for it, but as for myself, well I just don't care for the game.
The 9.30 at Ascot? Sorry, wrong man. I'm not a gambling man!
You wrote:
This statement is a lie: I never "asked for someone to liven it up"; I said, "maybe we need a plan to revive it". Had you posted a plan, your claim might have some measure of validity. As it stands, it is just another empty excuse.
What pedantic p-i-s-h!
Okay, I didn't "liven" it up, I "lie-vened" it up! You did state the board was "dead" though, didn't you? All this nonsense because your ego was dismantled by a little fairy story!
|
|
|
Post by snow on Apr 21, 2010 10:48:38 GMT -5
Jason I don't hate Christianity or any other religion for that matter. I just think that we have really messed up in our interpretations of what god is and it shows. I don't have any doctrine other than god is all loving and all inclusive. I do think that religions that don't protray that are a little off base, but that's okay. Am I not allowed to have an opinion without you thinking I am hating something? If you really look at the words of these two, it is rarely what I would refer to as loving and it is quite damaging in spots. You see it different because you are a christian. However, those who do not see it as a very loving religion, do view it in quite a different light. Your inability to see the dangers of some of Christianities beliefs is interesting, yet understandable. I have no need to defend my beliefs for they are very simple. God is love and all inclusive. End of story. Perhaps you do not defend your beliefs because you know, deep down, they cannot stand cold scrutiny. Those who say they "have no need to defend" are often those, in my experience, who have muddled concoctions of beliefs. I believe the heart is exceedingly sinful; it knows when its persuasions are idols. I make the point that for someone who has such an inclusive god, you are pretty exclusive in your claims! Why would you feel the need to "coldly scrutinze" my beliefs about god? Why do you feel that my beliefs are not valid? In what way am I exclusive? Why do you perceive me in this way? I do believe in "live and let live", and would never advocate that any religious belief systems be outlawed (unless they were very harmful of course). I do have opinions and state them from time to time, but I'm pretty sure that doesn't make me exclusive. Why are you so upset about me voicing my beliefs? Do I not have that right? I believe god is love and all inclusive, what kind of cold scrutiny will disprove that? Why do you want my beliefs to be shown to be wrong? What is wrong with believing in a god of love and inclusiveness? I don't feel I need to defend a loving god who loves everyone and I don't see why I can't say that's what I believe. And I don't understand where idols come into my beliefs when all I believe in is god, no churches, no books, nothing but my relationship with god. I really don't understand you Jason.
|
|
|
Post by jason on Apr 22, 2010 5:06:32 GMT -5
I'm clarifying the record. What you claimed I wrote was not accurate, and therefore the conclusions you derived were also wrong. I grow tired of your effort to make me responsible for your actions. Whether you can accept it or not, I did not ask you to invent fictitious materials and pretend they were genuine for a prank. Incidentally, I have received email from members of this board and the TLC - genuine email, not the invented kind - who think your actions (and subsequent efforts to exonerate yourself) were inappropriate also. This one statement provides an interesting glimpse into your personality, in my opinion. Your automatic assumption is that I was annoyed because of egotism; I need to say nothing more in response than that you are totally wrong. This litany of disgraceful excuses are shameful to read. It would have better if you had written, "Prank. Live with it." But this ceaseless effort to make yourself holy; the blameless sacrificial victim; the comments on the TLC; the silly nonsense that because others have done worse you are ipso facto excused! If this is your thinking in the real world, then surely, it helps me to make better sense of the revelations you have posted here about your personal life.
|
|
|
Post by jason on Apr 22, 2010 5:07:47 GMT -5
Okay, settle down you two. If you indeed are Christian brothers... We are not. We stand on two very different foundations.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 22, 2010 12:11:32 GMT -5
The following is all that I have posted about this matter on TLC. Someone started a thread about humour. This is what Jason is getting his knickers in a twist about. Ultra super sensitive? I ask you!
The Missing Link
My name is Dorothy Irvine and I'm a sister of William Irvine.....................
Oh forget it. I've decided not to do humour any more.
However, I do not reject Jason as a brother in Christ. No matter how oft he offends me. The command of 70 x 7 comes to mind.
For the record. I am aware there is an "axis" of personalities who span both TMB and TLC.
|
|
|
Post by faune on Jan 30, 2014 11:58:44 GMT -5
BEWARE! THIS IS A JOKE, NOTHING MORE. (modified to include this warning on 11th May 2010 so that no more people take this seriously!)At long last we have some kind of support for the long-held tenuous claims of a link between William Irvine, his faith, his organisation and his sister's connection. May this put to rest the doubts of his accusers whom I hope will show a measure of circumspect as they consider this enlightening material. That his sister Dorothy was a prolific writer to editors of religious periodicals is a well attested fact. Her valiant efforts to the editor of the Impartial Reporter newspaper, though going unheeded, should nevertheless be recognised. It says a lot for that journal that she did not appear to have received even the courtesy of a reply? Anyway, I feel it is worth reprinting this effort for the benefit of those reading here. I have the permission of Mrs Molly Keddle, great granddaughter of Eilleen Dover, who knew Christina Box, close friend of Dorothy Irvine, a sister to the late William Irvine. Therefore, reprinting rights are not an issue. 15 Main Street Kilsyth Scotland
30th August 1910
Dear Sir,
I am a sister of William Irvine and this is my third letter to you in recent times in response to the regular articles appearing in "The Impartial Reporter and Farmers' Journal" concerning the non-denominational Christian sect which you incorrectly refer to as "the Cooneyites" and by other inappropriate names.
It appears to me that you have chosen to completely ignore my previous letters as to date I have received no reply and neither of my letters have appeared in your journal. I would have thought in the interests of fairness and "impartiality" that you would have given air to my concerns, especially since I have pointed out the incorrect, biased and grossly offensive manner of your reporting?
On this occasion I am compelled to take issue with your most recent portrayal titled "The Tramp Preachers," published on page 8 of the August 25th issue of your journal. In this somewhat extensive article, purported to be the reproduction of an account by an annonymous former member, detailing the doctrine and beliefs of our sect, many, many false claims are made. It would take at least one full edition of the Impartial Reporter to even begin to address my many concerns. Let your readers be aware, this whole article is a complete fabrication and could not have been written by any person who possessed intimate day to day knowledge of our sect.
In view of this I will concentrate on the initial "false" claim by this supposed former member, who states, "William Irvine, the FOUNDER and SUPREME AUTHORITY of what is known as Cooneyism."
Firstly, there is no such thing as Cooneyism. Secondly, we take no name for ourselves.
My good brother most definately was not the FOUNDER of our group, though in a sense it could be agreed that he was the FINDER.
Let me introduce you to a brief background out of which our group emerged. It is sad that our "quiet" presence in history has gone unnoticed and that as a result of our recent revival, all of recognised Christendom in Eire and Great Britain has sought to destroy us on account of the many people who are flocking to us due to the dissatisfaction they are experiencing with the traditional churches and their wrong portrayal of the Gospel message, claiming that we are some kind of new thing when in reality we precede them all.
As you know there were ascetic missionaries and communities existing in Eire centuries before the invasion of the Romish faith from which the many Protestant churches sprung forth.
During the days when the Romish faith gained authority and power, these primitive peoples enjoying simplicity in worship were heavily persecuted and scattered, just as we read of what happened to the early Christian church in Acts of the Apostles.
Some were forced to leave their homelands and headed for the remoter regions in Europe such as the Alps and Pyranees, etc. Others fled to the deep glens of the McGillycuddy Reeks in the south of Eire, where they obtained refuge from the simple aborigenes who stayed there. They continued to worship in their homes, all the time maintaining a low profile in society for centuries.
Alas, during the poverty times in Eire during the 19th century, resulting from the potato blight which brought much famine during which many hundreds of thousands of people starved to death, the numbers of our ancestral group also diminished rapidly. Some lucky ones set off to Europe and joined our brethren who were still existing in the remoter regions in much the same way as they had continued to survive in the lower regions of McGillycuddy's Reeks.
During the early 1890's my late sister Margaret went to work as a housemaid for a family who owned a considerable tract of land in the Reeks' region. After a short time she met a small community of worshippers (about four-six families) who met in their homes every Sabbath and during weekdays. On one occasion they were visited by worshippers from the same sect who had travelled over from Switzerland. They too had suffered from many hardships over the years and were down to about three families at the most. However, they were very skilled at making sounding instruments from the horns of cattle and sheep and were able to survive better than most in those harsh days.
My sister later told my brother William about these simple people and the way they worshipped. Some time later my brother became a Superintendent with the Faith Mission and was sent to labour as a faith worker in the south of Eire for a number of years. During this time William visited these people, who quite naturally on account of all they had suffered in the past, beseached him to keep their existence and whereabouts secret.
William continued to visit these families in between his gospel missions and gradually saw that his way was wrong and that their way of worship was right. He remained true to his promise not to disclose any information about these few families, even to his fellow christian colleagues. Nevertheless, a work had begun in William. He had to break away from the Faith Mission and somehow continue the way he'd learned in the glens of the Reeks. A few years later, his connection with the Faith Mission ceased and after a short while he took up the torch of faith and carried it forward.
Now you can see how my brother was not the founder of this way of faith, but he clearly was the finder. Those few families in the Reeks region have diminished even further due to age, but nowadays there is little risk to them. Nevertheless, they desire to live in quietness and simplicity and cherish the fact that my brother is secretly carrying forward their faith which began on the shores of Gallilee some 2000 years ago.
If you have prevailed with me thus far you will see just how far off course that even the beginning of your article is. I crave desperately that you will publish this letter in order that everyone will know the truth of our sect and put an end to all the controvery and wrong reporting of our group.
Yours FaithfullyDorothy Irvine signed ======================== edit by mod3, to prevent further misunderstanding:TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN. PLEASE DO NOT TREAT THE CONTENTS OF THE ORIGINAL POST (INCLUDING THE LETTER BY DOROTHY IRVINE) ON THIS THREAD, MADE BY MYSELF, WITH ANY SERIOUSNESS AS THE WHOLE THING WAS PRESENTED AS A JOKE. Ram ~ So this is where this interesting story behind William Irvine's sister actually begun and became part of the legendary history of the Truth fellowship? By the length of this thread, you really captivated an audience this time around?
|
|