Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Really?
Jul 4, 2015 19:59:20 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Jul 4, 2015 19:59:20 GMT -5
Well wonderful, then, "lad." (That's what workers called me when I was your age! So surely that should not bother you!) You can learn from them!
When people, like you, quit bringing those memories from the past, why, then, they will quit being part of the present, won't they? If it is so important they not be brought up in the present, then, obviously you need to do your part also. Now if you want things left in the past, for goodness sakes, LEAVE THEM THERE! Give it a try, you might be surprised and quit blaming others for reaping from your own deeds, words and actions. BTW, who, what gives you the right to call ME by a diminutive?
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Jul 4, 2015 20:54:47 GMT -5
Dennis, I notice a pattern to your postings, numerous old grievances, from many decades still repeatedly feature in your posts. You don't listen long enough to get the whole picture.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jul 4, 2015 21:11:34 GMT -5
I have wondered the same.Let's hope some good convention stew will finally get to him & mellow him somewhat, -for the sake of those poor people at convention having to listen to him.I had thought the days of convention "fire & brimstone" preaching were over. Has it just been replaced by "sarcasm" I wonder? Sarcastic humor has always been an acceptable ingredient of exceptionally good preaching' Why is that I wonder? Is the purpose in preaching sarcastic remarks meant to cut others down in order to gain control over people?
Making "fun" of a person or type of person, -especially by leaders, (read preachers) -causes the listeners to want to be careful not act like that person being satirized.
I gave this reference before, ( but darn, it got deleted for some odd reason ) I found that what I had originally thought was people who use sarcasm to put others down are often unsure of themselves.
"It’s not surprising that the origin of the word sarcasm derives from the Greek word “sarkazein” which literally means “to tear or strip the flesh off.” Hence, it’s no wonder that sarcasm is often preceded by the word “cutting” and that it hurts. What’s more, since actions strongly determine thoughts and feelings, when a person consistently acts sarcastically it usually only heightens his or her underlying hostility and insecurity. After all, when you come right down to it, sarcasm is a subtle form of bullying and most bullies are angry, insecure, cowards." www.psychologytoday.com/.../think-sarcasm-is...
Psychology Today Clifford N Lazarus Ph.D. on Jun 26, 2012
|
|
|
Post by slowtosee on Jul 4, 2015 21:42:05 GMT -5
The thing to do, it seems to me, is to prepare yourself so you can be a rainbow in somebody else's cloud. Somebody who may not look like you. May not call God the same name you call God - if they call God at all. I may not dance your dances or speak your language. But be a blessing to somebody. That's what I think.
Maya Angelou
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jul 4, 2015 23:09:13 GMT -5
Well wonderful, then, "lad." (That's what workers called me when I was your age! So surely that should not bother you!) You can learn from them! Somewhat presumptive, of you isn't it? Wasn't it you that posted the memories @dennisj? I doubt @review005 knows your memories.And his part would be not to mention anything that would cause you to post your memories?From what I have read, the only things from the past regarding you were from posts you made.You mean like you blaming others for 'making' you post? Come on @dennisj.It is a right everyone has. No one has to give it. What gives you the right to question it?
|
|
|
Really?
Jul 4, 2015 23:10:18 GMT -5
Post by BobWilliston on Jul 4, 2015 23:10:18 GMT -5
Sarcastic humor has always been an acceptable ingredient of exceptionally good preaching' Why is that I wonder? Is the purpose in preaching sarcastic remarks meant to cut others down in order to gain control over people?
Making "fun" of a person or type of person, -especially by leaders, (read preachers) -causes the listeners to want to be careful not act like that person being satirized.
I gave this reference before, ( but darn, it got deleted for some odd reason ) I found that what I had originally thought was people who use sarcasm to put others down are often unsure of themselves.
"It’s not surprising that the origin of the word sarcasm derives from the Greek word “sarkazein” which literally means “to tear or strip the flesh off.” Hence, it’s no wonder that sarcasm is often preceded by the word “cutting” and that it hurts. What’s more, since actions strongly determine thoughts and feelings, when a person consistently acts sarcastically it usually only heightens his or her underlying hostility and insecurity. After all, when you come right down to it, sarcasm is a subtle form of bullying and most bullies are angry, insecure, cowards." www.psychologytoday.com/.../think-sarcasm-is...
Psychology Today Clifford N Lazarus Ph.D. on Jun 26, 2012 It's the showman in them. There's nothing like a little joke to keep the congregation awake, and the there's nothing like audience appreciation to enhance a speaker's style of presentation.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Jul 4, 2015 23:23:26 GMT -5
Dennis, Yes I learn. I learn from people who have been wronged and mistreated. They took it to God; casting all their cares upon him and got peace and freedom in their spirit. Because of that they never had a need to broadcast it to any 3rd party at the time nor decades afterwards. That's not your problem. You're problem is that you appear to have no concept whatsoever that a person who offends others has any responsibility at all. That's abuse, pure and simple, and people who fail to accept responsibility for offending and hurting others are abusers, otherwise known as bullies, whether they know it or not. I've never read anywhere that you thought any such abuser among the friend/workers was ever at fault for anything. Everything that happens to everyone is not always their fault -- despite the fact that you pretend that nothing anyone ever says to you has any effect on you. And no one is sufficiently numb or hard shelled that a continuous pounding won't hurt them. And for good measure, telling people that they shouldn't talk about their abuse is an abuse in itself. [/font]
|
|
|
Post by Greg on Jul 5, 2015 7:19:32 GMT -5
Bob, Thanks for telling me: a) "That's not your problem." and b) " You're (sic) problem is that you appear......" In writing "Thanks," do you really appreciate what Bob wrote? Seems like you would not, unless you do see some constructive criticism in it which will help you.
|
|
|
Post by Greg on Jul 5, 2015 9:27:46 GMT -5
Greg, I was trying to be a bit PC. I quess I could have written "Bob I acknowledge your post which I find to be reasonably illogical and containing numerous errors." I didn't do that because I have no interest in 'banging my head against a brick wall' in trying to explain lack of logic and numerous errors to Bob. If he is happy with it and thinks it is logical and has no errors then that is quite ok with me. Okay, thanks. And I do mean that. Not trying to be a bit PC. I appreciate you responding and responding as you did (for the most part). Hard to know where to start in some of this. An issue seems to be Dennis and others bringing up past hurts along with past and continued pain. Yet some could counter with "that's not the real issue, the real issue is review005 and others like him do not appreciate their church/fellowship (and their whatever) being cast into the light and having the faults of leadership/faith/traditions/what-have-you being exposed. And likely there would be counter-countering and back and forth and more countering and more rehashing. I think we cannot simplify all issues or incidents and explain them away with one verse or one admonition. Seems, if I remember correctly, there are teachings of what should be done in the matter of offenses. If one is offended, the one should go to the offender. If one has offended, the one should make things correct. Yet I recall that some have taught that taking offense is a fault. And then as review005 has indicated, take the offense to God and all will be well. Part of this is the continuance of the wrong or the continuance of affect from the wrong. Continued pain from an offense might mandate the recalling of the offense, especially if there was no apology or attempt by the offender to make things right and if the same offenses/failings continue in the lives of others. Perhaps the bedrock teaching should be "forgive them 7 times 70". Yet some might ask "what does that mean? Just say 'that's okay' to the offender 490 times?" Then, does that remove any consequence for the offender? Or is that not the offended's concern? Yet should I be my brother's keeper and help with the failings that cause offenses to come?
|
|
|
Really?
Jul 5, 2015 16:15:13 GMT -5
via mobile
snow likes this
Post by whyisitso on Jul 5, 2015 16:15:13 GMT -5
Greg, I was trying to be a bit PC. I quess I could have written "Bob I acknowledge your post which I find to be reasonably illogical and containing numerous errors." I didn't do that because I have no interest in 'banging my head against a brick wall' in trying to explain lack of logic and numerous errors to Bob. If he is happy with it and thinks it is logical and has no errors then that is quite ok with me. Okay, thanks. And I do mean that. Not trying to be a bit PC. I appreciate you responding and responding as you did (for the most part). Hard to know where to start in some of this. An issue seems to be Dennis and others bringing up past hurts along with past and continued pain. Yet some could counter with "that's not the real issue, the real issue is review005 and others like him do not appreciate their church/fellowship (and their whatever) being cast into the light and having the faults of leadership/faith/traditions/what-have-you being exposed. And likely there would be counter-countering and back and forth and more countering and more rehashing. I think we cannot simplify all issues or incidents and explain them away with one verse or one admonition. Seems, if I remember correctly, there are teachings of what should be done in the matter of offenses. If one is offended, the one should go to the offender. If one has offended, the one should make things correct. Yet I recall that some have taught that taking offense is a fault. And then as review005 has indicated, take the offense to God and all will be well. Part of this is the continuance of the wrong or the continuance of affect from the wrong. Continued pain from an offense might mandate the recalling of the offense, especially if there was no apology or attempt by the offender to make things right and if the same offenses/failings continue in the lives of others. Perhaps the bedrock teaching should be "forgive them 7 times 70". Yet some might ask "what does that mean? Just say 'that's okay' to the offender 490 times?" Then, does that remove any consequence for the offender? Or is that not the offended's concern? Yet should I be my brother's keeper and help with the failings that cause offenses to come? When someone (like Me - an ex member) is hurt by what has happened to me in the past and feels like someone (like My friend Emma - a current member) does not show any empathy openly to me it can be hurtful. It's hard for a person (like Emma) who Is a very 'hardline' church member to not automatically defend her church. It's hard for a person (like Emma) to not think that any time I bring up my hurt that I'm not 'attacking' her church in some way and that I might be 'bitter' when in actual fact I might just want her to say 'I can see how that's been really tough for you, can I pray for you?'. It's an emotional issue with lots of why's & how's and if 'Emma' was to admit her church had wronged me she might feel disloyalty to her church. On the other hand, 10 years ago I might have had an accident on my bike. A hit and run. Badly physically hurt which takes a toll on my mental & emotional health as well. It's left me with lots of outward scars and a limp. My friend 'Emma' has no problem showing empathy to me as she can see how badly I've been hurt and still suffer, but there's no responsibility on her shoulders to defend anyone. She can still pray for me for good health too! Maybe it's just more prayers that are needed if that's where your faith takes you.
|
|
|
Post by whyisitso on Jul 5, 2015 16:22:43 GMT -5
whyisitso you wrote: "I would've put him to shame with the goody two shoes I was after 4 days at convention!!"
Luke 18.11 comes to mind. I sincerely hope you will come to know of the justification of Christ that repentant sinners know. The justification of comparing yourself with another sinner is worthless pharisee justification. My FULL comment was intended to be tongue in cheek however I did try hard to be very good after I'd left convention. It was often spoken by the f&w as the start of a new year etc etc. same as a lot of people have New Years resolutions. Looking back at my attitude then I would absolutely agree it was 'worthless Pharisee justification '. Most of my comparing myself with 'the world' and all 'the evils of the world' was. I'm glad that's not how I see things now. We are all equal in the eyes of God. I'm thankful for that.
|
|
|
Really?
Jul 5, 2015 16:26:24 GMT -5
Post by BobWilliston on Jul 5, 2015 16:26:24 GMT -5
Bob, Thanks for telling me: a) "That's not your problem." and b) " You're (sic) problem is that you appear......" Don't thank me. I learned all that from folks like you.
|
|
|
Really?
Jul 5, 2015 16:31:11 GMT -5
Post by BobWilliston on Jul 5, 2015 16:31:11 GMT -5
If I may offer a suspicion on my part:
I think Review committed himself a long time ago to something involving Dennis and he abruptly panicked when he thought it might be discussed.
Something rattled in the closet.
|
|