|
Post by Roselyn T on Apr 28, 2014 22:56:35 GMT -5
For Bert Howard Mooney Preaches - from the 70's A couple of years ago, while cleaning out a couple of long neglected drawers, we came across eight typewritten pages of a convention sermon by Howard Mooney. No date was given for this sermon, but he mentions "here in New Mexico and Texas" so obviously it was spoken at a convention in either of those two states and I'm pretty sure it's from the "70's." Anyway, I can't begin to tell you how "disappointed" I felt reading this sermon and many of its "only way", and "we are superior" messages. I really felt "troubled" as I read through this and realized how "nomal" this thinking used to be and how "abnormal" it feels now. What follows is part of the eight pages. Howard is speaking from Psalms 100. -Cheryle Winberg June 2000 Howard Mooney: "The religious world in the Bible, strange to say, was referrred to as swine. The reason why, was because a swine walks like a sheep but he doesn't have a sheep's nature, does he? If a creature would walk along during the night and leave its tracks in the sand, when you saw those tracks the next morning unless you were a real good farmer, you wouldn't know whether that was a pig or a sheep that walked by there. They leave very much the same kind of tracks. One of the things that has become a curse in the religious world is that they train their people to walk like sheep. Oh, they train them to walk to church instead of to the bar. They train them to walk to the hospital and visit the sick. They train them to walk on some of the high standards instead of the lower standards of the world, so one of the curses of false religion is that they train their people to walk like sheep but they can't give them a sheep's nature and that is why they can't produce fellowship. You put 2 or 3 of them together and the first thing you know, there is a squeal going on. There is no possibility of having fellowship under those conditions."
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 28, 2014 23:04:59 GMT -5
i believe there will be more than just the friends in heaven because of these verses:
Mar 9:38 And John answered him, saying, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name, and he followeth not us: and we forbad him, because he followeth not us. Mar 9:39 But Jesus said, Forbid him not: for there is no man which shall do a miracle in my name, that can lightly speak evil of me. Mar 9:40 For he that is not against us is on our part.
Rev_5:11 And I beheld, and I heard the voice of many angels round about the throne and the beasts and the elders: and the number of them was ten thousand times ten thousand, and thousands of thousands;
but i also believe that the further out you go from the F&W the more risk you take
|
|
|
Post by Roselyn T on Apr 28, 2014 23:36:42 GMT -5
i believe there will be more than just the friends in heaven because of these verses: Mar 9:38 And John answered him, saying, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name, and he followeth not us: and we forbad him, because he followeth not us. Mar 9:39 But Jesus said, Forbid him not: for there is no man which shall do a miracle in my name, that can lightly speak evil of me. Mar 9:40 For he that is not against us is on our part. Rev_5:11 And I beheld, and I heard the voice of many angels round about the throne and the beasts and the elders: and the number of them was ten thousand times ten thousand, and thousands of thousands; but i also believe that the further out you go from the F&W the more risk you take Risk you take with what? Does the Holy Spirit only dwell in the F&W ?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 28, 2014 23:43:17 GMT -5
i believe there will be more than just the friends in heaven because of these verses: Mar 9:38 And John answered him, saying, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name, and he followeth not us: and we forbad him, because he followeth not us. Mar 9:39 But Jesus said, Forbid him not: for there is no man which shall do a miracle in my name, that can lightly speak evil of me. Mar 9:40 For he that is not against us is on our part. Rev_5:11 And I beheld, and I heard the voice of many angels round about the throne and the beasts and the elders: and the number of them was ten thousand times ten thousand, and thousands of thousands; but i also believe that the further out you go from the F&W the more risk you take Risk you take with what? Does the Holy Spirit only dwell in the F&W ? the more risk you take with your soul. no, i believe the Holy Spirit dwells with some people who are not F&W hence my revelation 5:11 quote...
|
|
|
Post by Roselyn T on Apr 29, 2014 2:04:09 GMT -5
Risk you take with what? Does the Holy Spirit only dwell in the F&W ? the more risk you take with your soul. no, i believe the Holy Spirit dwells with some people who are not F&W hence my revelation 5:11 quote... So do you think the workers are the only ones that can preach the Gospel & save your soul ?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 29, 2014 12:21:18 GMT -5
nope...but i do believe that they are just as rare as our own workers are...
|
|
|
Post by Roselyn T on Apr 29, 2014 17:56:06 GMT -5
nope...but i do believe that they are just as rare as our own workers are... Wally you have lost me ! I don't understand what you mean ?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 29, 2014 18:30:00 GMT -5
no the workers aren't the only ones that can preach and save your soul but i believe they are rare as our own workers are rare...
|
|
|
Post by Roselyn T on Apr 29, 2014 19:07:47 GMT -5
Jesus is the only one who can save our soul ! No man can do that ! Do you mean others that preach the gospel are rare ?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 29, 2014 20:23:30 GMT -5
Jesus is the only one who can save our soul ! No man can do that ! Do you mean others that preach the gospel are rare ? okay i didn't understand your question right...correct only Jesus can save someone however like F&W's i believe that the true messangers of Christ are few. if you believe revelation 5:11 only 100 million+ are going to be in heaven that would be out of the 2 billion+ that are Christians today so less than 10% make it. i know poeple call that binary heaven and don't believe it but the numbers are there...
|
|
|
Post by Roselyn T on Apr 30, 2014 4:12:33 GMT -5
So is a worker that commits CSA a true messenger of Christ ? Do you believe the workers are modern day apostles ?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 30, 2014 14:56:03 GMT -5
i have no scripture for this but up until they commit CSA they are, after that they are apostates.for those that committed CSA before they were in the work they were always apostates...no the apostles were the twelve along with the 70...
|
|
|
Post by rational on Apr 30, 2014 16:19:10 GMT -5
i have no scripture for this but up until they commit CSA they are, after that they are apostates.for those that committed CSA before they were in the work they were always apostates...no the apostles were the twelve along with the 70... You might use Judas as the example.
|
|
|
Post by Roselyn T on Apr 30, 2014 20:29:04 GMT -5
i have no scripture for this but up until they commit CSA they are, after that they are apostates.for those that committed CSA before they were in the work they were always apostates...no the apostles were the twelve along with the 70... What about the ones that are committing CSA, are still in the work & know one knows about it ? Or the ones that were in the work committed CSA left and still go to meetings ?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 30, 2014 20:41:22 GMT -5
i have no scripture for this but up until they commit CSA they are, after that they are apostates.for those that committed CSA before they were in the work they were always apostates...no the apostles were the twelve along with the 70... What about the ones that are committing CSA, are still in the work & know one knows about it ? Or the ones that were in the work committed CSA left and still go to meetings ? we have two paedophiles that attend meetings they are watched and not allowed near the children...it should be the same for the ex-workers...as to the what if "and no one knows it" i can't see them as anything but apostate. if the federal gov't doesn't get them God will...
|
|
|
Post by Roselyn T on Apr 30, 2014 20:45:26 GMT -5
Well in my opinion if they are a known paedophile they should not be allowed to attend meetings. If you knew a child as being abused would you report if to the Police or just say "God will get them" ?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 30, 2014 20:54:06 GMT -5
Well in my opinion if they are a known paedophile they should not be allowed to attend meetings. If you knew a child as being abused would you report if to the Police or just say "God will get them" ? The law is very clear here in the USA your suppose to report CSA as soon as you find out about it otherwise you yourself could get in trouble as it should be...
|
|
|
Post by Roselyn T on Apr 30, 2014 20:55:15 GMT -5
Well in my opinion if they are a known paedophile they should not be allowed to attend meetings. If you knew a child as being abused would you report if to the Police or just say "God will get them" ? The law is very clear here in the USA your suppose to report CSA as soon as you find out about it otherwise you yourself could get in trouble as it should be... I agree, but here in Australia that isn't the case, even though it is changing now !
|
|
|
Post by Dubious Disciple (xdc) on May 1, 2014 16:26:09 GMT -5
Is reform possible for a pedophile? I ask because I would not call a person a felon just because they once had a felony offense.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 1, 2014 18:22:26 GMT -5
Is reform possible for a pedophile? I ask because I would not call a person a felon just because they once had a felony offense. that is a valid question. the two pedophiles we have seem to have reformed...at least no one has reported anything in the last few years(10)?...
|
|
|
Post by Dubious Disciple (xdc) on May 1, 2014 18:41:29 GMT -5
Is reform possible for a pedophile? I ask because I would not call a person a felon just because they once had a felony offense. that is a valid question. the two pedophiles we have seem to have reformed...at least no one has reported anything in the last few years(10)?... Note the subtle difference: A felon is a person who has been convicted of a felony. A pedophile is a person sexually attracted to children. I can't bring myself to call a person a felon who has reformed, even though he fits the dictionary definition. How much less should we be inclined to call someone a pedophile! We typically have no idea whether they really are or not, especially if the conviction is many years old. Since the term is SO inflamatory, it only seems right to drop it from our vocabulary. It's like that nasty word "pervert," which to me, says much more about the person saying it than the person it is said about. Better to say "a person who has in the past been convicted of child sexual abuse," and if you can't truthfully say that, better to say nothing at all.
|
|
|
Post by snow on May 1, 2014 18:57:22 GMT -5
Is reform possible for a pedophile? I ask because I would not call a person a felon just because they once had a felony offense. From what I was told when I worked for Corrections Canada, it is a very low probability of a diagnosed pedophile to be rehabilitated. However, there are those that have committed CSA that are not pedophiles.
|
|
|
Post by magpie on May 2, 2014 3:54:58 GMT -5
DEAR SNOW,YOU ARE SO RIGHT. IT IS MENTAL DISORDER,NOT CURABLE BUT CAN BE PARTIALLY/FULLY CONTROLLED IN SOME CASES . BUT SOME SUJEST CARSTRATIONS PHYSICAL OR CHEMICAL DOES NOT WORK,IT IS A "MENTAL DISORDER/IMBALANCE. VICTIMS PRE-PUBESENT, YOUTH,VULNERABLE,AND NON HUMAN VICTIMS. IF ONE IS NOT A PAEDOPHILE AND COMMITS CRIMINAL SEXUAL ABUSE ON A CHILD THEIR CRIME IS WORSE? THEY ARE MONSTERS WITH NO MENTAL HEALTH EXCUSE,FOR THEIR VILE CRIME? SO WHY THE DEBATE AS TO WETHER A MALE/FEMALE WORKER MAY NOT BE A PAEDOPHILE WHEN IT IS WORSE IF THEY ARE NOT.
|
|
|
Post by Roselyn T on May 2, 2014 4:09:54 GMT -5
that is a valid question. the two pedophiles we have seem to have reformed...at least no one has reported anything in the last few years(10)?... Note the subtle difference: A felon is a person who has been convicted of a felony. A pedophile is a person sexually attracted to children. I can't bring myself to call a person a felon who has reformed, even though he fits the dictionary definition. How much less should we be inclined to call someone a pedophile! We typically have no idea whether they really are or not, especially if the conviction is many years old. B. So what are we suppose to call them ? If they are paedophiles well we cannot call then something else ! A murderer is a murderer ! Since the term is SO inflamatory, it only seems right to drop it from our vocabulary. It's like that nasty word "pervert," which to me, says much more about the person saying it than the person it is said about. Better to say "a person who has in the past been convicted of child sexual abuse," and if you can't truthfully say that, better to say nothing at all. B Instead of dropping the word from our vocabulary ( reminds me of growing up & being told when a women is having a baby she is expecting not pregnant!) how about we do something for the victims of the paedophile by admitting it is happening & not sending workers from one state to the next to cover it up ! Maybe the Overseer's need to look up the meaning of the word Paedophile & do some house cleaning !
|
|
|
Post by magpie on May 2, 2014 4:53:54 GMT -5
YOU ARE RIGHT. BUT THE OVERALL 2x2s POLICY OF CASTING PEOPLE OUT THAT TREAD ON THEIR TOES,ACTUALLY IN THEIR OWN DOCTORINE CONDEMMING THEM TO HELL? HOW CAN THAT ALSO BE LESS CRUEL IN MINDS AS RAPING LITTLE CHILDREN IN THE NAME SUPPOSED AS GOD'S TRUE SERVENTS ITS EQUAL,WORSE? WHAT A SICK UN GODLY LOT.HOW CAN SOME EVEN THINK OF STANDING UP FOR THEM IN ANY WAY THEY EVEN PAY FOR CROOKED PSCHOLOGISTS TO CANCEL JUSTICE FOR VICTIMS OF THEIR SICK CRIMES TO PROTECT THEIR BUTTS. .
|
|
|
Post by rational on May 2, 2014 6:42:51 GMT -5
DEAR SNOW,YOU ARE SO RIGHT. IT IS MENTAL DISORDER,NOT CURABLE BUT CAN BE PARTIALLY/FULLY CONTROLLED IN SOME CASES . BUT SOME SUJEST CARSTRATIONS PHYSICAL OR CHEMICAL DOES NOT WORK,IT IS A "MENTAL DISORDER/IMBALANCE. VICTIMS PRE-PUBESENT, YOUTH,VULNERABLE,AND NON HUMAN VICTIMS. IF ONE IS NOT A PAEDOPHILE AND COMMITS CRIMINAL SEXUAL ABUSE ON A CHILD THEIR CRIME IS WORSE? THEY ARE MONSTERS WITH NO MENTAL HEALTH EXCUSE,FOR THEIR VILE CRIME? SO WHY THE DEBATE AS TO WETHER A MALE/FEMALE WORKER MAY NOT BE A PAEDOPHILE WHEN IT IS WORSE IF THEY ARE NOT. Because it is a medical diagnosis applying the term to anyone who commits a sexual crime against someone under 18 is wrong and misleading. The severty of the crime is not the issue. The possibility of treatment is.
|
|
|
Post by rational on May 2, 2014 6:45:39 GMT -5
Is reform possible for a pedophile? I ask because I would not call a person a felon just because they once had a felony offense. that is a valid question. the two pedophiles we have seem to have reformed...at least no one has reported anything in the last few years(10)?... The question is were they diagnosed as pedophiles or was the term simply applied out of ignorance? The majority of child sexual offenders have a recidivism rate that is equal or less of those guilty of other criminal behavior.
|
|
|
Post by rational on May 2, 2014 6:48:27 GMT -5
that is a valid question. the two pedophiles we have seem to have reformed...at least no one has reported anything in the last few years(10)?... Note the subtle difference: A felon is a person who has been convicted of a felony. A pedophile is a person sexually attracted to children. I can't bring myself to call a person a felon who has reformed, even though he fits the dictionary definition. How much less should we be inclined to call someone a pedophile! We typically have no idea whether they really are or not, especially if the conviction is many years old. Since the term is SO inflamatory, it only seems right to drop it from our vocabulary. It's like that nasty word "pervert," which to me, says much more about the person saying it than the person it is said about. Better to say "a person who has in the past been convicted of child sexual abuse," and if you can't truthfully say that, better to say nothing at all. Perhaps even learning what the correct definition of the word is and using it only when appropriate?
|
|