|
Post by noticed on Oct 14, 2007 20:49:13 GMT -5
I bet Ron Thomke,( Kansas and Nebraska head worker) had no idea someone taped the 07 Independence KS convention. Maybe the workers will be more careful about what they say which will cause exclusive and legalistic doctrine to die away? You never know.
|
|
What proof have you
Guest
|
Post by What proof have you on Oct 14, 2007 20:54:32 GMT -5
This is quite a claim
Not saying it isn't true but where did you get this information??
|
|
|
Post by Faithful1 on Oct 15, 2007 7:04:02 GMT -5
Are there any rules here about illegal activity?
|
|
IQ
Senior Member
Posts: 942
|
Post by IQ on Oct 15, 2007 15:34:34 GMT -5
Let's hear those tapes!!!
Unless....they are illegal?
|
|
|
Post by of course on Oct 15, 2007 15:55:06 GMT -5
Legalism is illegal.
|
|
|
Post by legality on Oct 15, 2007 16:19:46 GMT -5
In some states it is illegal to record conversations in which there is a reasonable expectation of privacy without notification.
In preaching a sermon to a large group, there is no reasonable expectation that the information is private or priviledged and thus recording would be perfectly legal in any locale. No permission needed.
|
|
IQ
Senior Member
Posts: 942
|
Post by IQ on Oct 15, 2007 19:15:41 GMT -5
Okay, can we hear the tapes that are advertised.
|
|
IQ
Senior Member
Posts: 942
|
Post by IQ on Oct 15, 2007 19:16:21 GMT -5
I bet Ron Thomke,( Kansas and Nebraska head worker) had no idea someone taped the 07 Independence KS convention. Maybe the workers will be more careful about what they say which will cause exclusive and legalistic doctrine to die away? You never know. Are you gonna share the tapes?
|
|
|
Post by nitro on Oct 15, 2007 19:21:44 GMT -5
Don't hold your breath.I would put this down as a good story and no tapes
|
|
|
Post by Cant believe it on Oct 15, 2007 20:24:57 GMT -5
Come on now, legality. I think the Fed. Gov. jumped in and put the kabosh on a lot of the recording law. It used to be you could record a phone conversation and knew you were being recorded cause of the beeps but they are no more. Can't believe recording at conv. is against the law. It is open to the public but normally not many "public" people come. I myself have recorded special meetings if a certain speaker that was good was there. Shame on me right. I still have the tapes and the old worker(s) are gone.
|
|
|
Post by eyedeetentee on Oct 16, 2007 0:05:11 GMT -5
Sell copies on 2x2 Ebay. Send them to a recording studio and ask Zondervan (or whoever it is) if they want in on the action. 2x2's might be more likely to buy them from their hymnal and bible sellers than from a private naughty recorder.
|
|
i have two law degrees
Guest
|
Post by i have two law degrees on Oct 16, 2007 0:08:32 GMT -5
Only illegal if there is a reasonable expectation of privacy.
When I call a place of business like me insurance or credit carrier I have an expectation of privacy, so they have to tell me if the conversation is recorded.
If I give a lecture there is no expectation of privacy on my part and people are free to tape at will.
If I ever encounter this sneaky group again, you can bet I will capture the encounter using my digital voice recorder. They better learn to be careful about what they say.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 16, 2007 0:16:53 GMT -5
Yeah. Someone taped a religion show on TV and asked me about it. Some inclusivist minister was trying to get his Jewish and Muslim counterparts to agree with him that all ways lead to God. Pretty sad, really. No-one knew what that minister stood for.
|
|
|
Post by noidea on Oct 16, 2007 0:17:55 GMT -5
Yeah. Someone taped a religion show on TV and asked me about it. Some inclusivist minister was trying to get his Jewish and Muslim counterparts to agree with him that all ways lead to God. Pretty sad, really. No-one knew what that minister stood for. what does this have to do with ron and independence convention?
|
|
|
Post by tapedoesnotmater on Oct 16, 2007 0:19:03 GMT -5
I bet Ron Thomke,( Kansas and Nebraska head worker) had no idea someone taped the 07 Independence KS convention. Maybe the workers will be more careful about what they say which will cause exclusive and legalistic doctrine to die away? You never know. what will the tape show that we do not already know? we know the teachings of the 2x2 fellowship, how will a tape change anything?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 16, 2007 0:23:36 GMT -5
quote - "what does this have to do with ron and independence convention?"
Actually, a lot of this isn't about Ron and Independence Convention, and I was addressing that.
statement 1 - I bet Ron Thomke,( Kansas and Nebraska head worker) had no idea someone taped the 07 Independence KS convention.
statement 2 - Maybe the workers will be more careful about what they say which will cause exclusive and legalistic doctrine to die away? You never know. This grammatically and theologically crude statement refers to "exclusive" (as opposed to all ways lead to God) and "legalistic" (the standards the bible says we must maintain.)
|
|
|
Post by Roy unlogged on Oct 16, 2007 14:12:02 GMT -5
If I remember correctly, Paul wrote in 1Cor 17 that workers sermons were to be listened to but not recorded as this is a sin against the law. I don't remember the exact verse.
|
|
|
Post by Yes on Oct 16, 2007 14:22:27 GMT -5
If I remember correctly, Paul wrote in 1Cor 17 that workers sermons were to be listened to but not recorded as this is a sin against the law. I don't remember the exact verse. That is very true. Even the letters of Paul were not to be copied. A early Roman court put a restraining order to stop the copies but the Greeks requested a Higher Court. If I recall, Paul while in prison said, not to copy his letters because anyone wanting to know what he said had to hear him in person. It never was resolved because the Lawyers could not get enough money to cover their costs. Wait does that mean we are wrong for reading Pauls Epistles?
|
|
|
Post by Scott Ross on Oct 16, 2007 14:28:59 GMT -5
Howdy Roy, You're funnier than a flood in a fizzy factory.... ;D Scott
|
|
|
Post by coulditb on Oct 16, 2007 17:22:37 GMT -5
Hey Bert, Is that your real picture? It looks like some of my family. ;D
|
|
|
Post by wanttobewithGod on Oct 16, 2007 18:08:25 GMT -5
yes, that very famous picture, is, in fact, bert. (bert you must be very old now!) Heh. j/k I know you were jokin...
|
|
|
Post by to roy on Oct 16, 2007 19:59:01 GMT -5
If I remember correctly, Paul wrote in 1Cor 17 that workers sermons were to be listened to but not recorded as this is a sin against the law. I don't remember the exact verse. LOL! This is great! You got me and good! I read your post and grabbed for my bible in a flash thinking what the hell? Threw the bible open to the end of 1 Cor and thought aww hell. Hook, line, sinker, even the damn pole. Dang near had a fisherman for supper! Thanks Roy, you made my day.
|
|
|
Post by ATTENTION BERT on Oct 16, 2007 20:06:02 GMT -5
This grammatically and theologically crude statement refers to "exclusive" (as opposed to all ways lead to God) Stop. Bert, you do this all the time. Talk about "theologically crude"! You claim "exclusive" to be the opposite of "all ways lead to God". You know better. Don't be an ass, sir. "Not exclusive" does not necessarily mean "all ways lead to God" and you know good and well that it is not used that way by people here. "Not exclusive", as it is used by people here, means "more than one denomination or religious organization, within Christianity, leads to God". You, sir, are being an ass. You know better than what you preach yet you continue to preach falsely. You are a liar, a fool, and a false prophet. Stop. Repent.
|
|
|
Post by in order on Oct 16, 2007 21:44:39 GMT -5
Accepting everything posted by bert, git, nathan, et al, would require the willful suspension of disbelief.
|
|
|
Post by gloryintruth on Oct 17, 2007 7:46:41 GMT -5
Bert, you do this all the time. Talk about "theologically crude"!
Actually, I think Bert raises a very valid point. The alternative to an "excluvistic" approach to faith is an "inclusivistic" one. You cannot sit in comfortable ambiguity with this one!
You claim "exclusive" to be the opposite of "all ways lead to God".
Or at least standing in contradistinction to the view that "many ways lead to God".
"Not exclusive", as it is used by people here, means "more than one denomination or religious organization, within Christianity, leads to God".
Let's answer some simple questions then.
Is God's Holy Spirit at work among Muslims, Hindus, and Buddhists? If so, who are you to say that there is not truth in those religions?
You claim that more than one denomination leads to God. We claim no denomination leads to God - we claim only the Way that is Jesus leads to God. But which denominations are leading to God and which are not?
Most would say the Mormons are not. But who else? Where do we set the limits?
The point of these rhetorical questions is that we have to draw a line or a cicle in the sand somewhere and say, "OK, what is within this line is true, and what is outside is false". But where is YOUR line?
You, sir, are being an ass. You know better than what you preach yet you continue to preach falsely. You are a liar, a fool, and a false prophet.
He who says to his brother, "Thou fool" shall be in danger of hellfire.
Stop. Repent.
I would advise the same.
|
|
|
Post by He IS on Oct 17, 2007 7:52:19 GMT -5
I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 17, 2007 7:56:32 GMT -5
quote - ""Not exclusive", as it is used by people here, means "more than one denomination or religious organization, within Christianity, leads to God". Ooh... we might be onto something, finally. I keep asking people here what Christian denominations are not going to "make it" and I get no answer. Want to have a go at it?
|
|
|
Post by ok sure on Oct 17, 2007 8:33:04 GMT -5
ok sure.
2x2ism does not lead to God.
There, I had a go at it.
|
|