|
Post by rational on Feb 1, 2011 5:58:03 GMT -5
You can say what you do because you do not recognize the influence of the spirit world. And I don't think you nor anyone else does either. The activity had been going on for 11+ years. Where was the 'spirit' during this time? Does the 'spirit' world only deal with things when they are known in the 'non-spirit' world? And he did this for 11+ years. As far as we know there were no complaints from this world or the 'spirit' world. And for 11+ years this was the case. It doesn't sound like this is what all people want. In this case it didn't for 11+ years. It only became an issue after it was openly known. If the spititual part is what the worry is, where was the spiritual part for the 11+ years? But why wasn't it a problem before it was known? Could it be because it was not really a spiritual issue at all? Of course there is. You can still have great teachers/leaders no matter what they do in their private lives. Perhaps they need to focus closer to home and look into keeping their own lives in alignment with their moral code. The spirit case is quite weak since for 11+ years it was not an issue.And do the actions of a person in their private lives have spiritual consequences in the spiritual lives of others? That is correct. You are responsible for your actions and will be judged for your actions. I believe a verse or two in the bible would support this. The actions of the father (and the pastor) should not be visited on the sons (followers).
|
|
|
Post by alexander on Feb 1, 2011 7:27:07 GMT -5
I believe a verse or two in the bible would support this. The actions of the father (and the pastor) should not be visited on the sons (followers). God would no longer bring a curse upon the sons and daughters, but that doesn't mean that the father's (or pastor's) own actions wouldn't be a curse to them. My wife and I are foster parents. I can guarantee you that fathers and mothers bring curses upon their kids. As I have written before, our actions have consequences. We will reap what we sow. The workers speak on this quite often. And it is good to be reminded of such.
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Feb 1, 2011 7:50:05 GMT -5
I believe a verse or two in the bible would support this. The actions of the father (and the pastor) should not be visited on the sons (followers). God would no longer bring a curse upon the sons and daughters, but that doesn't mean that the father's (or pastor's) own actions wouldn't be a curse to them. My wife and I are foster parents. I can guarantee you that fathers and mothers bring curses upon their kids. As I have written before, our actions have consequences. We will reap what we sow. The workers speak on this quite often. And it is good to be reminded of such. There is no reasoning with Rational about things spiritual and of God, he certainly loves to argue the adverse side of the equation and it really is an argument for the sake of arguing or at least that's the way it appears. Why he hangs around TMB when it is mostly about what people "believe" more then what is provable facts. Even when we give scripture to back up what we say, he still comes back with an argument that that scripture is all bogus, that the bible is nothing more then a fairy tale. He just doesn't seem to understand that his adversity towards all of us believers is going against him and not us.
|
|
|
Post by Linford Bledsoe on Feb 1, 2011 8:59:59 GMT -5
God would no longer bring a curse upon the sons and daughters, but that doesn't mean that the father's (or pastor's) own actions wouldn't be a curse to them. My wife and I are foster parents. I can guarantee you that fathers and mothers bring curses upon their kids. As I have written before, our actions have consequences. We will reap what we sow. The workers speak on this quite often. And it is good to be reminded of such. There is no reasoning with Rational about things spiritual and of God, he certainly loves to argue the adverse side of the equation and it really is an argument for the sake of arguing or at least that's the way it appears. Why he hangs around TMB when it is mostly about what people "believe" more then what is provable facts. Even when we give scripture to back up what we say, he still comes back with an argument that that scripture is all bogus, that the bible is nothing more then a fairy tale. He just doesn't seem to understand that his adversity towards all of us believers is going against him and not us. You are beginning to sound exclusive Sharon!
|
|
|
Post by ts on Feb 1, 2011 9:41:12 GMT -5
You are beginning to sound like an atheist, Linford.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Feb 1, 2011 10:54:26 GMT -5
God would no longer bring a curse upon the sons and daughters, but that doesn't mean that the father's (or pastor's) own actions wouldn't be a curse to them. It is your belief that god would punish people for rge actions of others? I think the definition of 'curses' is the sticking point. curse1. An appeal or prayer for evil or misfortune to befall someone or something. 2. The evil or misfortune that comes in or as if in response to such an appeal.Personally, I don't see how it fits. And the pastor will have to answer to whomever he believes he would have to answer to for his actions. But you believe the people in the church will have to answer to the actions of the pastor during the 11+ years?
|
|
|
Post by rational on Feb 1, 2011 11:03:21 GMT -5
There is no reasoning with Rational about things spiritual and of God, he certainly loves to argue the adverse side of the equation and it really is an argument for the sake of arguing or at least that's the way it appears. I question statements when they are presented as facts. I habe no desire to argue the validity of beliefs when, by definition, they are based on faith, unsupported by material or logical proof. This particular discussion is about the misdeeds of 'many', 'most', or 'all' workers and is was presented as fact. TS has since admitted it is a hunch he has and the facts are far and few between. I believe the term was historical novel. And how do you respond when I counter with references that are backed by actual data? You dismiss them because they do not align with your beliefs. Not sure how it goes against anyone. It is a matter of not having a few rumors and hunches being presented as facts to the determent of the people it is about. I understand that [many, some, few, all, most] have had run-ins with the workers but that does not make them all evil.
|
|
|
Post by alexander on Feb 1, 2011 12:04:15 GMT -5
It is your belief that god would punish people for rge actions of others? I think the definition of 'curses' is the sticking point. curse1. An appeal or prayer for evil or misfortune to befall someone or something. 2. The evil or misfortune that comes in or as if in response to such an appeal.Personally, I don't see how it fits. No, I do not believe that God punishes people for the actions of others. Why does God get blamed for the curses, anyway? It is sin that brings the curse. Sin. Sin. Sin. Sin. Sin. If you don't learn anything else about Christianity, Rational, repeat after me, "God is light and in Him is no darkness at all." What kind of world did God create. A darn good one. Everything was good. But then sin entered the picture and brought curses that could probably explain every evil in the world today. And as Christians, we are looking for the new heaven and new earth and new bodies that won't be subject to the curse of sin EVER again. Is it any wonder that God hates sin? It is strange that the devil doesn't get blamed for the bad in the world, some folks foolishly want to blame God. When sin entered the world, curses entered the world. Immediately. First the serpent was cursed to crawl in the dust. Next, God told Adam that the ground would be cursed for his sake, and that "in sorrow shall thou eat of it all the days of thy life." Genesis 3. Those curses continue to this day. Proverbs 3:33 - "The curse of the LORD is in the house of the wicked: but he blesseth the habitation of the just." What do you suppose the curse of the Lord in the house of the wicked is? I say it is sin.
|
|
|
Post by ts on Feb 1, 2011 12:12:45 GMT -5
"I understand that [many, some, few, all, most] have had run-ins with the workers but that does not make them all evil." - Rational
I never said they were ALL evil though I do refer to workers in general without qualifiers. Like "workers are God's servants." I also do not believe that ALL workers are God's servants.
Now that is interesting that you would use that term "evil". What does evil mean to you? Simply a person who breaks the law? I say that the workers are evil because they have introduced a moral standard into the work that is not godly. It is a standard that has come from Satan himself and, as such, is evil. The standard that the workers are leaning on to justify themselves is the standard of civil law. Civil law does not recognize that consensual sex between unmarried adults is wrong. The overseers are demonizing people for pointing out that the standard has been let down and that the moral fiber of the work and meetings is eroding.
|
|
|
Post by Scott Ross on Feb 1, 2011 12:24:40 GMT -5
It seems these people became overly concerned in the pastor's private life. But I can understand that the self-righteous could not see their way around the pastor keeping his job.rational, In many respects I can see why you wouldn't understand a congregation having concerns about the moral standards and actions of their pastor. After all, you don't believe in the bible or the teachings contained in it. For us Christians that do believe, the bible gives us guidance on how we should live our lives and act toward others. It also teaches us that we are to hold each other accountable for our actions. The bible also tells those in leadership positions that they are held to a higher standard than others. It even spells out some specifics concerning certain offices in the church in order to be considered for that office. While this might not make sense to you, it makes perfect sense to us that believe. It almost seems as if you feel that it doesn't matter what a person does away from their 'work', and that nobody should be held accountable if they violate the rules of their place of business. You used the example of the person fired after several years for not having a high school diploma. I would assume that when the person was hired, that they lied on their application. This shows that the person is willing to compromise on the issue of honesty. Honesty is very highly regarded in many places of employment. I know that the background checks I have had done on me were pretty thorough. In order to have a Top Secret (SCI) clearance while in Military Intelligence, they REALLY dug into my past. Those background checks took several months to complete. There were a lot of folks that were jerked out of the Defense Language Institute after months of language school and booted out of the military because they had lied on the forms we filled out. One of the more normal items they would get booted for was lying about smoking pot. For that question I had answered 'yes', so when they found out that I had, it was no big deal. Same thing when I was an armed security officer at a nuclear plant. Places of employment have every right to expect that their employees live up to the ageements they signed when hired. Scott
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 1, 2011 12:56:01 GMT -5
A pot-smoking armed security officer at a nuclear plant. Whoo boy! Might make a good Cheech and Chong comeback movie!
|
|
|
Post by ronhall on Feb 1, 2011 13:07:38 GMT -5
A pot-smoking armed security officer at a nuclear plant. Whoo boy! Might make a good Cheech and Chong comeback movie! Smoked pot once, always smoke pot. Sounds sorta' familiar -- like the once saved always saved argument.
|
|
|
Post by Annan on Feb 1, 2011 14:31:12 GMT -5
I find it interesting that the pastor was not given the chance to admit his sin to his congregation and be forgiven... if indeed he was sorrowful. Of course one has to wonder how long the affair would have continued had the pastor not been found out. It often seems that a person is only sorry when they are found out. Like my mom always asks... If God forgives, why not man? I'm willing to bet the former Pastor's congregation has it's share of sinful secrets. Reminds me of a particular verse that says something about sin and casting stones...
|
|
|
Post by rational on Feb 1, 2011 14:56:47 GMT -5
No, I do not believe that God punishes people for the actions of others. Why does God get blamed for the curses, anyway? Well, who would bring curses on the people who were led by the pastor who was having a sexual relationship with a woman?So when the man sins (remember that a sin is against god) the people will be cursed? And who is cursing these people? Let's work this through. A sin brings curses. Sin is the deliberate disobedience to the known will of God. Sin cannot, of itself, bring a cruse. So who is going to bring the curse? The curse would not be from satan. It would be against satan's best interest. He wants people to sin (at that is what I gather). Isn't it from god since the sin would be offending god? What is even stranger is that many theists consider god to be omniscient and omnipotent and give him credit for being in control of all things. When a good thing happens people say god's will has been done and god is thanked. But when it is something that people view as not good they don't say it is god's will and thank god. That is what I find strange. Yes. Adam and Eve disobeyed god and god cursed them. Kicked them out of the garden. But you say god is not the source of the curse. Who was? So it was god doing the cursing. No - sin is the reason god curses people. For the serpent the curse was that it would crawl on the dust (although there are serpents that live in trees and in the water - you would think an omniscient being would have known that). For Adam the curse was a life of hard labor and for Eve it was painful childbirth and being made subservient to her husband.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Feb 1, 2011 15:26:35 GMT -5
I find it interesting that the pastor was not given the chance to admit his sin to his congregation and be forgiven... if indeed he was sorrowful. Of course one has to wonder how long the affair would have continued had the pastor not been found out. It often seems that a person is only sorry when they are found out. Like my mom always asks... If God forgives, why not man? I'm willing to bet the former Pastor's congregation has it's share of sinful secrets. Reminds me of a particular verse that says something about sin and casting stones... I think it is: Launch not projectiles of sedimentary or igneous materials if thou shalt dwell in houses of amorphous silica.
|
|
shushy
Royal Member
Warning
50%
Posts: 8,009
|
Post by shushy on Feb 1, 2011 16:25:38 GMT -5
I believe a verse or two in the bible would support this. The actions of the father (and the pastor) should not be visited on the sons (followers). God would no longer bring a curse upon the sons and daughters, but that doesn't mean that the father's (or pastor's) own actions wouldn't be a curse to them. My wife and I are foster parents. I can guarantee you that fathers and mothers bring curses upon their kids. As I have written before, our actions have consequences. We will reap what we sow. The workers speak on this quite often. And it is good to be reminded of such. Unfortunately another area of concern is the effects of generational sin visiting on the children up to the 3rd and 4th generation. It is real. But how often is it preached and delt with in prayer within this fellowship. In this instance they have not allowed the scriptures to be a lamp to their feet and a light to their path. These sins can be broken and people set free and healed with this acknowledgement. Jesus came to set us free and heal us he is our healer and our deliverer.
|
|
shushy
Royal Member
Warning
50%
Posts: 8,009
|
Post by shushy on Feb 1, 2011 16:31:39 GMT -5
ps: yes Rational sin does bring a curse from God. But that curse can be broken with repentence bz Christ became the curse for us.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Feb 1, 2011 16:56:46 GMT -5
rational, In many respects I can see why you wouldn't understand a congregation having concerns about the moral standards and actions of their pastor. After all, you don't believe in the bible or the teachings contained in it. Where you get your moral standards has nothing to do with having moral standards. His teachings have been fine up until now. He has not changed his moral standards. He has not changed his actions. They have not caused a problem up to now. But the point is that for 11+ years everyone was happy with what they had, The only thing that changed was that everyone knows what is going on. Consider this: You have been married in a wonderful marriage for 20 years. It is perfect. Loving. Sensual/sexual. Absolutely perfect. Your partner dies and you learn that for the last 19 years they had been having a relationship with another person. Does that mean your marriage was not perfect for the past 20 years? Sure there is the emotional shock but if it was perfect before you discovered what had been happening does learning the truth change the past? Were you not happy? Does the knowledge change the past? But aren;t these specifics concerning the interaction of the leaders with the followers and not what they do in their private lives? OK. It does indeed. While the rule may be no smoking in the workplace, if you smoke elsewhere that is your issue. People should be held accountable for their actions while they are preforming their job. The pastor was obviously doing his job. He held the position for 11+ years. From what was posted it was not clear with whom he had the relationship. But isn't that between the pastor and the other person? Yes it does. But have they been lying? They have worked for 10 years without any evidence of lying of being dishonest. My DOD took 6 months. The FBI certainly surprised my family and neighbors! Would it have been better for the pastor to have been upfront? I was not aware that the pastor has signed agreements.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Feb 1, 2011 17:00:16 GMT -5
Unfortunately another area of concern is the effects of generational sin visiting on the children up to the 3rd and 4th generation. It is real. Of course the bible also says the sins of the fathers will not be visited on the children so which verse do you trust? I guess the one that supports your argument of the moment!
|
|
|
Post by rational on Feb 1, 2011 17:25:30 GMT -5
I never said they were ALL evil though I do refer to workers in general without qualifiers. Like "workers are God's servants." I also do not believe that ALL workers are God's servants. You used a lot of quantifiers. I stick with standard definitions unless other wise noted. evil - Morally bad or wrong. Where do you live? In many places the relationship between the participants may well make it illegal. A professor and a student, for example. Sex between an overseer and a worker under their control may not be considered consensual because of their 'employment' relationship. All people? Some people? One person? Yourself? You need to put down that broad brush!
|
|
|
Post by rational on Feb 1, 2011 17:28:48 GMT -5
ps: yes Rational sin does bring a curse from God. But that curse can be broken with repentence bz Christ became the curse for us. I was responding to Alexander: Why does God get blamed for the curses, anyway?Maybe you two theists should have a sidebar!
|
|
|
Post by ts on Feb 1, 2011 18:22:11 GMT -5
I never said they were ALL evil though I do refer to workers in general without qualifiers. Like "workers are God's servants." I also do not believe that ALL workers are God's servants. You used a lot of quantifiers. I stick with standard definitions unless other wise noted. evil - Morally bad or wrong. Where do you live? In many places the relationship between the participants may well make it illegal. A professor and a student, for example. Sex between an overseer and a worker under their control may not be considered consensual because of their 'employment' relationship. All people? Some people? One person? Yourself? You need to put down that broad brush! ........and pick up a roller.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Feb 1, 2011 18:28:25 GMT -5
You used a lot of quantifiers. I stick with standard definitions unless other wise noted. evil - Morally bad or wrong. Where do you live? In many places the relationship between the participants may well make it illegal. A professor and a student, for example. Sex between an overseer and a worker under their control may not be considered consensual because of their 'employment' relationship. All people? Some people? One person? Yourself? You need to put down that broad brush! ........and pick up a roller. Spray can? Airless sprayer?
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Feb 1, 2011 18:36:24 GMT -5
No, I do not believe that God punishes people for the actions of others. Why does God get blamed for the curses, anyway? Well, who would bring curses on the people who were led by the pastor who was having a sexual relationship with a woman?So when the man sins (remember that a sin is against god) the people will be cursed? And who is cursing these people? Let's work this through. A sin brings curses. Sin is the deliberate disobedience to the known will of God. Sin cannot, of itself, bring a cruse. So who is going to bring the curse? The curse would not be from satan. It would be against satan's best interest. He wants people to sin (at that is what I gather). Isn't it from god since the sin would be offending god? What is even stranger is that many theists consider god to be omniscient and omnipotent and give him credit for being in control of all things. When a good thing happens people say god's will has been done and god is thanked. But when it is something that people view as not good they don't say it is god's will and thank god. That is what I find strange. Yes. Adam and Eve disobeyed god and god cursed them. Kicked them out of the garden. But you say god is not the source of the curse. Who was? So it was god doing the cursing. No - sin is the reason god curses people. For the serpent the curse was that it would crawl on the dust (although there are serpents that live in trees and in the water - you would think an omniscient being would have known that). For Adam the curse was a life of hard labor and for Eve it was painful childbirth and being made subservient to her husband. actuallt, rational, according to the bible, the pastor who was having an affair was NOT sinning against anyone more then he was sinning against himself! That scriptural!
|
|
|
Post by rational on Feb 1, 2011 19:03:06 GMT -5
Is the pastor doing his job? Seriously? Isn't the job of a spiritual leader to lead in spiritual things both in word and deed? Is an example of adultery a good way to lead people to heaven? Let's try to put the emotions aside and look at the facts. 1) Nothing has been said about adultery. 2) For 11+ years the pastor has been leading the people and, as far as we know, no one has been led astray. 3) Seriously. No one had complained. How can you say he was not doing his job?
|
|
|
Post by rational on Feb 1, 2011 19:21:48 GMT -5
actuallt, rational, according to the bible, the pastor who was having an affair was NOT sinning against anyone more then he was sinning against himself! That scriptural! You can only sin against god. You cannot sin for someone else. In fact, without god there is no sin. Which scripture were you referring to? It is a matter of each person being responsible for their own actions, and that is scriptural. The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin.Deuteronomy 24:16 Of course this also scriptural: Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them (idols), nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me.Exodus 20:5 Which contradicts the above. So the transferability of sin is not very clean. With Adam and Eve, of course, god blames all people for a sin they did not commit and for a sin that they cannot correct. Most religions in the world do not support the idea of transferring sin as well as the punishment that it entails from the person who committed the sin to the innocent. Tough to set your moral compass to that sort of belief.
|
|
|
Post by ts on Feb 1, 2011 19:27:32 GMT -5
Is the pastor doing his job? Seriously? Isn't the job of a spiritual leader to lead in spiritual things both in word and deed? Is an example of adultery a good way to lead people to heaven? Let's try to put the emotions aside and look at the facts. 1) Nothing has been said about adultery. 2) For 11+ years the pastor has been leading the people and, as far as we know, no one has been led astray. 3) Seriously. No one had complained. How can you say he was not doing his job? Same goes with IH. He was not convicted of anything. He was doing a good enough job to be made overseer. Obviously the majority liked him there. Ray Hoffman said that the bad that he had done did not diminish the good. Why isn't IH still overseer? He did nothing illegal as far as our legal system is concerned.
|
|
|
Post by reply on Feb 1, 2011 19:34:40 GMT -5
Same goes with IH. He was not convicted of anything. He was doing a good enough job to be made overseer. Obviously the majority liked him there. Ray Hoffman said that the bad that he had done did not diminish the good. Why isn't IH still overseer? He did nothing illegal as far as our legal system is concerned. I have wondered that. Christianity is about love, mercy, and forgiveness, among other things. If IH repented of all and spoke to all, why not continue in the work? Maybe he did not speak to and of all involved and just wanted out of the public eye as much as possible. Whatever, I guess. Did the overseers who were informed of IH and did nothing face any consequences?
|
|