|
Post by calleduntoliberty on Aug 2, 2016 16:14:17 GMT -5
Anytoll, I never referred to Finlandia's post though with hitting the "Quote' button her post was included, This gave you the impression I supported her comment. I apologise for this, I should've edited her post out. I now understand some of your comments in a different light, however my posts was just addressing what you added to the scripture or what I understood you added. Maybe I stand to be corrected on that too, which I am happy to receive. To get back to 1 Sam 28:12. I would like to understand where you come from. 1.) where do you read that the witch never expected to see Samuel? Where do you read about her scam? 2.) Do you believe the Bible is wrong when it states that the witch saw Samuel? I'm sorry if I misinterpreted your response to be defending finlandia's comment as against mine, which is how it seemed to me. I didn't add anything to the Scripture. I interpreted a human's responses based on what the Bible says elsewhere and what I know about human nature and the universe. It is possible that I could misjudge a person's responses. However, I don't believe there is anything the Bible that supports the notion that a witch has the power to bring forth a dead person -- this passage included. The passage does not say that the witch brought up Samuel. It says that Saul went to the woman to, in his words, "enquire of her", and he asked the witch to bring up Samuel. It may be that Saul believed the witch had that power. The account does not say that she did. The account says that she saw Samuel and she cried out to Saul, as if just realizing that he was Saul and fearing for her life. How did she suddenly realize he was Saul? I don't know exactly, however, it seems that she saw something that she wasn't expecting to see and this gave her quite a shock. Maybe seeing something that she didn't expect made her realize she wasn't in control of the situation, made her question who was with her, which made her realize somehow that he was Saul and think that perhaps he was trying to trick her. She was probably already afraid of Saul because of Saul having previously sent people like her out of the land. The verses before show that she was already thinking about Saul. It might even be the case that she recognized Saul when he first arrived, but knew he was there in disguise, and that was why she trusted his oath that no punishment would come to her. It that case perhaps when she saw Samuel she thought Saul had something to do with that and trying to trick her in some way. I'm not saying this is what the Bible says. These are just possible reasons for the behavior she exhibited. I do believe that her reaction indicated fear and surprise. I don't think that's some kind of heretical belief like you made it out to be. It's just using common sense to analyze human behavior in a way that is consistent with the text. I believe this answers both of your questions. No, the Bible is not wrong when it states that the witch saw Samuel and that Samuel spoke to Saul. God had the power to bring up Samuel and he used that power to bring a message to Saul. Of course the witch saw Samuel. The question is how he got there. Looking carefully at her reaction can help us understand that.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 2, 2016 18:27:08 GMT -5
Can I say how sorry I am for mentioning the witch at Endor. I was simply replying to a question as to how Percy Fletcher (a UK overseer who died a number of years ago) would have reacted to a worker giving an interview on the radio. My point was that there is no way of knowing the answer to that question (although my feeling - from what people say about him - is that Percy would have been very pleased with the way Peter H conducted himself). And no-one can recall Percy F (or a spirit representing him) from the dead to ask him that question now. With the benefit of hindsight, I would have excluded the reference to the witch at Endor (which I had inserted to illustrate the pointlessness of the original question). Apologies.
|
|
|
Post by pa on Aug 2, 2016 20:02:57 GMT -5
Finlandia, no apologies needed, by grace we understood what you meant.
|
|
|
Post by pa on Aug 2, 2016 20:29:29 GMT -5
Anytoll, I never referred to Finlandia's post though with hitting the "Quote' button her post was included, This gave you the impression I supported her comment. I apologise for this, I should've edited her post out. I now understand some of your comments in a different light, however my posts was just addressing what you added to the scripture or what I understood you added. Maybe I stand to be corrected on that too, which I am happy to receive. To get back to 1 Sam 28:12. I would like to understand where you come from. 1.) where do you read that the witch never expected to see Samuel? Where do you read about her scam? 2.) Do you believe the Bible is wrong when it states that the witch saw Samuel? I'm sorry if I misinterpreted your response to be defending finlandia's comment as against mine, which is how it seemed to me. I didn't add anything to the Scripture. I interpreted a human's responses based on what the Bible says elsewhere and what I know about human nature and the universe. It is possible that I could misjudge a person's responses. However, I don't believe there is anything the Bible that supports the notion that a witch has the power to bring forth a dead person -- this passage included. The passage does not say that the witch brought up Samuel. It says that Saul went to the woman to, in his words, "enquire of her", and he asked the witch to bring up Samuel. It may be that Saul believed the witch had that power. The account does not say that she did. The account says that she saw Samuel and she cried out to Saul, as if just realizing that he was Saul and fearing for her life. How did she suddenly realize he was Saul? I don't know exactly, however, it seems that she saw something that she wasn't expecting to see and this gave her quite a shock. Maybe seeing something that she didn't expect made her realize she wasn't in control of the situation, made her question who was with her, which made her realize somehow that he was Saul and think that perhaps he was trying to trick her. She was probably already afraid of Saul because of Saul having previously sent people like her out of the land. The verses before show that she was already thinking about Saul. It might even be the case that she recognized Saul when he first arrived, but knew he was there in disguise, and that was why she trusted his oath that no punishment would come to her. It that case perhaps when she saw Samuel she thought Saul had something to do with that and trying to trick her in some way. I'm not saying this is what the Bible says. These are just possible reasons for the behavior she exhibited. I do believe that her reaction indicated fear and surprise. I don't think that's some kind of heretical belief like you made it out to be. It's just using common sense to analyze human behavior in a way that is consistent with the text. I believe this answers both of your questions. No, the Bible is not wrong when it states that the witch saw Samuel and that Samuel spoke to Saul. God had the power to bring up Samuel and he used that power to bring a message to Saul. Of course the witch saw Samuel. The question is how he got there. Looking carefully at her reaction can help us understand that. Ok, question one you answered by what you read "between the lines" ("interpret") and what you read elsewhere (wherever that is), in other words what was written in your mind, OK I accept this is your reality, however when I read your response about a "scam" it cast doubt on the rest of the verses about seeing Samuel and Samuel speaking to Saul. It took away from the power of the written Word of this account for me and this was what I reacted too. When these interpretations is "preached from the platform"/added to the scriptures, written by "friends" into notebooks and regurgitated in meetings then it becomes part of the views and doctrine. This was why I tried to correct you when you added about the scam,etc and asked you where you read this. You accused poor Finlandia about a false doctrine of faithful souls that can be brought back from the dead, when she only made a small comment to a witch. She never ever wrote anything about that. You accused me of supporting that doctrine when I did not write about that at all. You interpreted those farfetched ideas from Finlandia/my writings when we never wrote them and was surprised when you learnt that I did not believe your imagined doctrine. Here is a good example of your interpretation being way off the mark. I confess that I did think some of your writings cast doubt on the scriptures which may not have been your intentions. So I will leave it there, however it goes to show how our interpretations can be way off in the here and now, and so much more if we embellish scriptures with things that is not written there. Let both of us take note not to add to the written Word of God as I am sure we will be held accountable.
|
|
|
Post by calleduntoliberty on Aug 2, 2016 23:08:56 GMT -5
Ok, question one you answered by what you read "between the lines" ("interpret") and what you read elsewhere (wherever that is), in other words what was written in your mind, OK I accept this is your reality, however when I read your response about a "scam" it cast doubt on the rest of the verses about seeing Samuel and Samuel speaking to Saul. It took away from the power of the written Word of this account for me and this was what I reacted too. When these interpretations is "preached from the platform"/added to the scriptures, written by "friends" into notebooks and regurgitated in meetings then it becomes part of the views and doctrine. This was why I tried to correct you when you added about the scam,etc and asked you where you read this. You accused poor Finlandia about a false doctrine of faithful souls that can be brought back from the dead, when she only made a small comment to a witch. She never ever wrote anything about that. You accused me of supporting that doctrine when I did not write about that at all. You interpreted those farfetched ideas from Finlandia/my writings when we never wrote them and was surprised when you learnt that I did not believe your imagined doctrine. Here is a good example of your interpretation being way off the mark. I confess that I did think some of your writings cast doubt on the scriptures which may not have been your intentions. So I will leave it there, however it goes to show how our interpretations can be way off in the here and now, and so much more if we embellish scriptures with things that is not written there. Let both of us take note not to add to the written Word of God as I am sure we will be held accountable. I have no problem with truth being preached from a platform and written down into notebooks. Not everything preached has to be a direct quote from the Bible, either. We are allowed to think about the Scriptures and their meaning. I do not think my interpretation takes away from the power of the written word of God. Rather it emphasizes the power of God. It may have been a scam from the perspective of a witch but for God it was a situation which he used for his purposes. God's power is not diminished, but emphasized, by contemplation of how he can work his will even through the evil works of men and women. We can see the same thing magnified to much greater proportion if we look at the crucifixion. From the perspective of the act itself, it was a very cruel and terrible murder, a wicked, heinous sin against a man and God. But from God's perspective it was the means by which he had chosen to bring salvation to those who put their faith and trust in him. I did not accuse finlandia of anything. I merely pointed out what he wrote and the consequences of it. Obviously he (or she) was not intending to teach doctrine but was only making a brief reference in the context of another discussion. However the topic is important enough that it warranted a discussion about the consequences of believing that the witch could do that. I'm sure that in re-reading my posts you would (or did) notice that I never contradicted the Biblical account. When you attack someone's words so harshly it does give the impression that you disagree with them. Add to that the fact that in your attack you failed to actually state what you did believe [about whether and how Samuel was brought up; in your first reply]. All you did was denounce what I had written. What is your interpretation? Who do you believe brought up Samuel? Do you believe the witch did it? Did she expect to see him coming up? Or do you agree with my interpretation that God brought Samuel up? Or do you have a different interpretation? And aye, you are correct about how far wrong interpretations can go and how easy it is to misunderstand one another. And especially let us be careful indeed not to add to the Scriptures.
|
|
|
Post by pa on Aug 3, 2016 2:12:31 GMT -5
I do not read of a scam in the account.
Google... scam
skam/Submit
nouninformal
noun: scam; plural noun: scams
1.
a dishonest scheme; a fraud.
"an insurance scam"
synonyms: fraud, swindle, fraudulent scheme, racket, trick, diddle; More
verb
verb: scam; 3rd person present: scams; past tense: scammed; past participle: scammed; gerund or present participle: scamming
1.
swindle.
"a guy that scams old pensioners out of their savings"
I read she was approached by Saul in disguise and asked to render a service and she did it. No fraud, trick, swindle. I don't know how she did in other cases as we have no further record of her, however in this case she did it. Obviously God was working through her as we have proof by the fact that she saw Samuel and Saul perceived (KJV) Samuel who spoke a message from God to him. The bible tells me that Samuel spoke to Saul and by faith I believe that.
Her surprise? Saul was disguised, she told told him of what Saul did to people like her as she did not know it was him, she basically told Saul that she fears for her life. Then when she sees Samuel she did not cry" Oh my, I see Samuel and I am so shocked by the sight because I have never been able to do this". 1 Sam 28:12. In KJV it says she cried with a loud voice and then a colon followed by what she said to Saul about her dismay at him deceiving her. She cried out as here was the very man who killed others revealed before her, her worst nightmare. This is why Saul's very next words are do not fear.
Did she expect him to come up, I don't know. She was an evil woman in the service of the devil who has power too. We read of people coming out of graves in the bible, so who would know what the devil is capable of to keep people in his power. Things to dark and evil for me to even contemplate. I believe that the devil cannot get a faithful soul back from the dead, however as the body of the dead stays here on earth, who knows what the devil can do with the body to keep people in his power??
Hope this answers your questions.
|
|
otto2
Junior Member
Posts: 59
|
Post by otto2 on Aug 3, 2016 4:45:17 GMT -5
I thought Peter handled the interview well too; it all sounded quite appealing really yet it is my experience that the workers in general (including Peter H at a funeral a couple of years ago) don't preach the same gospel as I read in my bible. It's very similar at first glance but doesn't quite stand up under scrutiny.
I like the story of the Righteous churchman who when he arrived at the gates of heaven was asked to give a reason as to why he should be allowed in. The man thought and thought for a long time and after much deliberation he had to confess that there was none, other than by the Grace of God.
That sounds like the gospel to me, but I doubt if Peter H would subscribe to it.
|
|
|
Post by calleduntoliberty on Aug 3, 2016 9:04:30 GMT -5
Thanks, that's good. You really believe that a witch had the power to bring up a person who had died? Yes, God allowed the witch of Endor to summon Samuel in order to let Saul know about his future defeat/death. The story of the witch of Endor summoning Samuel is the only biblical account of someone being visited by someone who was deceased. God also miraculously gave Samuel an appearance (age/clothing) to enable Saul to perceive who the spirit was. The whole account definitely does not mean that it is possible for witches/mediums to speak with the dead - God allowed it in this one exception to achieve his purpose. Hope this helps. Ross, the question was whether the witch herself had the power to do so. You said yes, then you say God allowed it as an exception, which is inconsistent. If she had the power then it wasn't an exception. I say no, the witch did not have that power. Only God had that power and it was he who brought up Samuel to speak with Saul.
|
|
|
Post by calleduntoliberty on Aug 3, 2016 17:43:56 GMT -5
Sorry for any confusion. The witch did not have the power but God allowed her to do it (allowed her to have the power temporarily) as a one-off to carry out His purposes. Yes, only God has the power to do what was done in this passage. Hmm. Well, I still think that's off. I wouldn't say the power resided with the witch at all, even temporarily. I believe God retained the power solely to himself and he did the work himself.
|
|
|
Post by calleduntoliberty on Aug 4, 2016 10:30:51 GMT -5
Hmm. Well, I still think that's off. I wouldn't say the power resided with the witch at all, even temporarily. I believe God retained the power solely to himself and he did the work himself. The witch clearly called the dead forth. There is no doubt in my mind that it was God's work, even though it cannot be proved from this piece of text alone. God allowed the witch of Endor to summon the prophet Samuel in order to give King Saul the news of his coming defeat and death. Of course there are other views which I am open to. The attached commentary is a good one in my opinion. www.zianet.com/maxey/reflx80.htmNo, the Bible does not say what you claim it says. It does not say the witch had the power to bring up Samuel. God is the one who has that power. I suppose he could give a person powers that person didn't otherwise possess but the account does not say he did that. The commentary at zianet, while discussing two opposing theories, strongly suggests that Samuel did not actually appear, but that it was a trick, an illusion. The Biblical account says "When the woman saw Samuel" and "Samuel said to Saul", so I believe it was Samuel. That's what the Bible says. So Samuel came up and spoke to Saul. Only God had the power to bring up.
|
|
|
Post by calleduntoliberty on Aug 4, 2016 10:31:50 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 4, 2016 20:35:47 GMT -5
When I mark something as "like," it is because I find the premise contained a sound possibility. Nothing more nothing less. Unjust and unfair of you Anytoll to try to put a spin up it to reinforce what you believe true upon a mere "like" is reflective to me of how much you desire to control the thinking and thoughts of others. That just will not work with me.
There is another possibility to this account which none of you have mentioned. It, btw, happens to be what I perceive about this topic. I have gotten as many opinions from companions as I have had them to ask. One kind of leaned toward the perception I hold, several others simply had no answer.
May I return to my basic assumption? That is, My "God" has not been created in my mind after human image, most certainly not after any of us here! My God is a Spirit, and except for appearance as Yahu'shuah, in whom the fullness of That Spirit/Godhead now dwells, human flesh is totally separate. But then, I DO believe in the supernatural.
DJ
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 4, 2016 22:44:26 GMT -5
Well, Anytoll, have you nothing to say, no apology at all? You were wrong in what you said, and you need to admit it.
Okay, I accept your apology...
To abate your curiosity, I repeat:
For some questioning, may I ask, what was there about Saul's appearance that identified him over all others of that Kingdom?
Now if that witch did know who he was by that well known sign, surely she would have known more of his life story. Could it not be that, what seemingly shocked her, was the vision she had and related to Saul. Now, where did THAT vision come from? No big shocker to me!
Does this offer a possibility to your question, Anytoll? If you need more, just ask.
DJ
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 5, 2016 5:13:41 GMT -5
Ross, the question was whether the witch herself had the power to do so. You said yes, then you say God allowed it as an exception, which is inconsistent. If she had the power then it wasn't an exception. I say no, the witch did not have that power. Only God had that power and it was he who brought up Samuel to speak with Saul. Sorry for any confusion. The witch did not have the power but God allowed her to do it (allowed her to have the power temporarily) as a one-off to carry out His purposes. Yes, only God has the power to do what was done in this passage. Yes, here is an example of : what God does not hinder, He allows.
|
|
|
Post by calleduntoliberty on Aug 5, 2016 15:02:47 GMT -5
When I mark something as "like," it is because I find the premise contained a sound possibility. Nothing more nothing less. Unjust and unfair of you Anytoll to try to put a spin up it to reinforce what you believe true upon a mere "like" is reflective to me of how much you desire to control the thinking and thoughts of others. That just will not work with me.
There is another possibility to this account which none of you have mentioned. It, btw, happens to be what I perceive about this topic. I have gotten as many opinions from companions as I have had them to ask. One kind of leaned toward the perception I hold, several others simply had no answer.
May I return to my basic assumption? That is, My "God" has not been created in my mind after human image, most certainly not after any of us here! My God is a Spirit, and except for appearance as Yahu'shuah, in whom the fullness of That Spirit/Godhead now dwells, human flesh is totally separate. But then, I DO believe in the supernatural.
DJ Thank you for that explanation, however you should know that partaker's post contained more than simply an expression of a point of view. It was basically a direct accusation of heresy, and it was inexplicable. Yes, I wrote something about you that was apparently wrong, and here is my explanation. I had written "If that's your imitation of love, you're not fooling anyone.". However, as I pondered that and observed that two people seemed to have "liked" the post, I had to admit that perhaps those two might have been convinced by what seemed to be a false claim of "love" which was really quite hateful sounding "rubbish", to use his word. So I was trying to correct a possible inaccuracy in my comment and at the same time suggest that maybe you weren't really fooled. I see now that you might have only liked part of the post. But why mark that you "like" a post when it contains such rubbish? That said, I should have left off speculating as to your reasons (yours and Ross's). I could have simply noted the facts as possible exceptions. However, I do of course notice that you consider yourself free to speculate on my intentions and to represent your vain speculations as truth. Oh, how natural it is to defend self by criticizing others! Perhaps we both have beams in our eyes, brother. I would like to read about the other possibility that you were thinking of.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 5, 2016 15:26:47 GMT -5
Well, Anytoll, have you nothing to say, no apology at all? You were wrong in what you said, and you need to admit it.
Okay, I accept your apology...
To abate your curiosity, I repeat:
For some questioning, may I ask, what was there about Saul's appearance that identified him over all others of that Kingdom?
Now if that witch did know who he was by that well known sign, surely she would have known more of his life story. Could it not be that, what seemingly shocked her, was the vision she had and related to Saul. Now, where did THAT vision come from? No big shocker to me!
Does this offer a possibility to your question, Anytoll? If you need more, just ask.
DJ
|
|
|
Post by calleduntoliberty on Aug 5, 2016 16:27:58 GMT -5
Your observation about Saul's distinctive appearance makes sense. Earlier I mentioned the possibility that the witch recognized Saul sooner but did not say so, and your observation is consistent with that possibility. If she hadn't recognized him immediately when he arrived and began talking to her, why would she suddenly recognize him when she saw Samuel? It was not until then that she expressed what seems to have been surprise. From that, it does seem that the surprise was related to seeing Samuel, suggesting that she did not expect to see Samuel. So it seems that you are suggesting basically the same possibility that I already mentioned, with the addition of an observation about Saul's distinctive height, and if not, then I'm afraid I do have to ask you to explain further. What are you suggesting, if not that?
|
|
|
Post by toparrow on Aug 6, 2016 12:33:20 GMT -5
I must make a comment why I feel angry about Peter Hingeley radio interview. In the year 1973 I was told T V and radio was not to be used by professing people. At that time I was attending sporting venues. I had not spoke of this to anyone who attended meetings. After a length of time approx 18 months I was challenged by the workers and told I must cease from activities of this nature. I asked them how did they know about what I had been up to. All they would tell me was I had been seen by some of the friends. I was not prepared to give up the only pleasure I had at that time and was barred from attending any more meetings. So the tale tellers and back stabbers had won. Since that time I have watched the decline of this way. Great cities of the North West of England the Midlands and London where many friends and meetings where and I went as boy are no more. Many friends children do not attened or have lost intrest. The foliowing conventions have closed since 1950. Rowton near Craven Arms Findochty Moray Scotland Debenham Suffolk Curry Rivel Somerset West Hanney Oxford had to close and give way to smart new venue at Yorkley Gloucestershire . So you can the magnitude of the decline here in the United Kingdom. It will take more than radio appearances by Ben Crompton and Peter Hingeley to reverse the decline. I am so thankfull I saw the light and never returned. It will more than the likes of Ben Crompton to save anyone from a lost eternity.
|
|
|
Post by elizabethcoleman on Sept 7, 2016 8:15:20 GMT -5
I have not been able to listen to the interview because it has been removed. It may simply have expired. I do know that they are in damage control over there, trying to pass themselves off as being ministers of just another (non-exclusive) Christian denomination. I have it in writing that "Peter H" threatened the local Baptist Minister with police action over "defamation" of his tent meeting, when he discovered one of the Baptist church members had been querying the real nature of the "tent meeting" group online. Nice one, Peter. Is this Hinchley or Hingeley? Are these two different workers in the same area? The newspaper article of July 22, 2014 referenced Peter Hinchley in the Norfolk area.
|
|
|
Post by penguin on Sept 11, 2016 3:37:57 GMT -5
Elizabeth Coleman As I understand it the trouble with the Baptists was that at the end of a church website article to do with a tent mission several years ago there was an argument in a blog going on between members of various denominations and a baptist layman, none of whom were in attendance at such a tent mission, about issues of doctrines, and it sank to a low level. It did not at all involve the participation of any workers or friends, and it got completely out of control. So in order to put a stop to it I was told the friends and workers went to the editors and to the Baptist church and recommended the discussion be closed. If you have something in writing to say the authorities of law would get involved it would perhaps be interesting to share?
|
|
|
Post by elizabethcoleman on Sept 11, 2016 9:05:48 GMT -5
Elizabeth Coleman As I understand it the trouble with the Baptists was that at the end of a church website article to do with a tent mission several years ago there was an argument in a blog going on between members of various denominations and a baptist layman, none of whom were in attendance at such a tent mission, about issues of doctrines, and it sank to a low level. It did not at all involve the participation of any workers or friends, and it got completely out of control. So in order to put a stop to it I was told the friends and workers went to the editors and to the Baptist church and recommended the discussion be closed. If you have something in writing to say the authorities of law would get involved it would perhaps be interesting to share? I'd love to share the letter, but it's not my correspondence, and I therefore don't think it's appropriate to put it on a public website. However, I affirm that Peter H said he had "spoken to the police" and was threatening further action. If anyone wants to ask Peter H about this, and tell him it's me that's making these comments, he should know exactly what I'm talking about. I'd personally love to talk to him about this correspondence, if anyone can provide a postal or email address for him. I'm happy to provide an address via PM if he wants to write to me directly. I didn't follow much of the online discussion that was closed down, so can't comment on that. It is very unfortunate if it sank to a low level. I know that Peter H accuses me of "saying untrue things" about the meetings. I can't even find a copy now of what I initially wrote in that online forum, but my frustration is this: the workers continue to present themselves in communities in a purposely deceptive way - claiming no organisation or attachment to a broader group. They hide all associations and pretend to be non-denominational and non-exclusive. It is deceptive and insidious and people deserve to know more - or at least have the option to find out more for themselves if they wish. I pointed viewers where to find out more about the history and origins of this particular group. If Peter H could kindly point out what I said that was untrue, that would be a start. If you're able to act as any kind of a go-between, penguin, it would be appreciated.
|
|
|
Post by toparrow on Sept 11, 2016 10:16:43 GMT -5
Peter H Is a real cheat economical with the truth.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 11, 2016 15:16:32 GMT -5
Peter H Is a real cheat economical with the truth. Is that your assessment of the man? Care to elaborate and give us an idea as to how you have arrived at that conclusion, so we know that you are not just maligning the man's character because of a personal grudge/dislike or something similar? It is very easy to make such statements about other people we do not favour.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 11, 2016 17:25:45 GMT -5
Peter H Is a real cheat economical with the truth. Is that your assessment of the man? Care to elaborate and give us an idea as to how you have arrived at that conclusion, so we know that you are not just maligning the man's character because of a personal grudge/dislike or something similar? It is very easy to make such statements about other people we do not favour. I quit posting here for various reasons however I did listen to this radio interview and felt moved to comment. Perhaps it is one of the Gods speaking. Obviously I can't answer for toparrow but I understand fully how he/she feels. For a man who works for an organisation which has preached much on the evils of radios and (at least according to toparrow who I've no reason to disbelieve) who himself has called on members to remove radios from their cars, to be then found using the radio to promote his work seems to me like unto a man who warns people not to sleep with prostitutes and then is one day found working as a prostitute himself. Having listened to the radio clip I would say that being economical with the truth is a fair description. While no lies were told there was certainly much not said that could have been said and perhaps should have been. Nowhere in the interview was any attempt made to provide any clarification as to the identity of the group which would enable potential visitors to research its history or beliefs. Indeed nothing was said that would in any way give away the identity of the group to anyone other than the extremely well informed. Perhaps this was inadvertent rather than deliberate but how are we to know? Why not identify your church when you have the opportunity? Why not let people know what they might be getting into? What is it that you are so afraid of? Why not be open and honest? Why keep your light hid under a bushel? Are not two sparrows worth a farthing? If the blind lead the blind won't both fall in the ditch? I've a good mind to put a worker hat on and answer the questions as they might have been answered based on my own experience of gospel meetings if only as a lesson in openness. Matt10
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 12, 2016 3:58:26 GMT -5
Is that your assessment of the man? Care to elaborate and give us an idea as to how you have arrived at that conclusion, so we know that you are not just maligning the man's character because of a personal grudge/dislike or something similar? It is very easy to make such statements about other people we do not favour. I quit posting here for various reasons however I did listen to this radio interview and felt moved to comment. Perhaps it is one of the Gods speaking. Obviously I can't answer for toparrow but I understand fully how he/she feels. For a man who works for an organisation which has preached much on the evils of radios and (at least according to toparrow who I've no reason to disbelieve) who himself has called on members to remove radios from their cars, to be then found using the radio to promote his work seems to me like unto a man who warns people not to sleep with prostitutes and then is one day found working as a prostitute himself. Having listened to the radio clip I would say that being economical with the truth is a fair description. While no lies were told there was certainly much not said that could have been said and perhaps should have been. Nowhere in the interview was any attempt made to provide any clarification as to the identity of the group which would enable potential visitors to research its history or beliefs. Indeed nothing was said that would in any way give away the identity of the group to anyone other than the extremely well informed. Perhaps this was inadvertent rather than deliberate but how are we to know? Why not identify your church when you have the opportunity? Why not let people know what they might be getting into? What is it that you are so afraid of? Why not be open and honest? Why keep your light hid under a bushel? Are not two sparrows worth a farthing? If the blind lead the blind won't both fall in the ditch? I've a good mind to put a worker hat on and answer the questions as they might have been answered based on my own experience of gospel meetings if only as a lesson in openness. Matt10 Ok, at least you have explained your position and your assessment and does not come over as a spoilt sport with an axe to grind. I personally have not been able to hear the worker on the radio, I just could no get it (the connection) to open, tried as I might.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 12, 2016 4:37:21 GMT -5
The workers today have come a long way... They try different ways to reach the MASSES! Good for them. We read Jesus, the apostles, and disciples go to the temple court yard, the synagogues, the schools, the beach, Jails, Emperor Nero palace or anywhere people wanted to hear the gospel.
The workers can't reach people if they spent much of their time staying in the friends homes and expecting the friends inviting the people in the community to come to their gospel meetings. Go out the highway, streets, door to door leaving gospel invitations, do some volunteer works in the community to meet people and invite them to the gospel meetings.
Yes, I personally believe that a lot of important biblical teachings is lacking and not highlighted and visibly seen. I think that more of the following should be visibly seen and demonstrated as scripture demands:- 1./ Love is the Kingdom's banner 2./ Love one another, those within and outside the fellowship. No us an them attitude of shunning. 3./ obsevance and more attention paid to the Golden Rule: Do unto others as you would that they should do unto you. 4./ pay a lot more attention to and try to emulate the lesson learnt fronm the Parable of the good samaraton. I have observed and it had been drawn to my attention that there exists cliques within the fellowship where lots of favouratism is practiced and special treatment dispensed within groups to the exclusion of others. Kisses go by favour sort of thing. In the eyes of the Almighty, we are the same,msocial standing should not come into the equation; the poor will always be with us, and we should always try to entertain and embrace strangers, why? We may very well be entertaining angels.Help one another if you have the Christ within, let your light shine brightly so that others will see the Christ within us. Being aloof, exclusive, unfriendly and self exulted may very well end up with us being abased. Be charitable for Christ sake, He was/is generous with His love and He is our example. Love one another, do unto others as you would that they should do unto you. A good samaraton does not look to see who the victim is, he acts with love for a fellow human being and with generosity. Ps. Where one sister or brother is hurt by unreasonable, unfair and illegal action/abuse, we should all feel the pain and seek and bring pressure to bear on those in authority to seek and ensure proper redress is obtained, we cannot sit back and feel comfortable because the would place us on the same level as those worldly churches we so often condemn, and furthermore I believe that it would grieve the heart of God. Mine might very well be a voice in the wilderness, but TAKE WARNING, God speaks to us and through us.
|
|
|
Post by toparrow on Sept 15, 2016 12:02:48 GMT -5
I attended a gospel meeting conducted by Peter Hingeley. He was very critical of other people's religions. He came across as very arrogant and self satisfied person. Not as he claimed to be servant of God. Shame on him.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 15, 2016 13:30:14 GMT -5
I attended a gospel meeting conducted by Peter Hingeley. He was very critical of other people's religions. He came across as very arrogant and self satisfied person. Not as he claimed to be servant of God. Shame on him. Well i dont think that it helps him much by putting it here, perhaps you should write a letter to him pointing out his short fall and who knows, it may cause him to ponder and examine his approach, you know , give some feed back. I personally am not an exclusivist, I dont like the idea of running down other churches and exhaulting ours, because we share some of the bad and unacceptable behaviour that can be found in some other churches, which brings our church down to their level.God loves the truth. I will speak the truth and speak it ever, cost me what it will.An internal examination would be a worthwhile exercise.
|
|