|
Post by quizzer on May 21, 2012 9:41:10 GMT -5
Hot dog! rational's got it, and agreeing with us!
This is one strange red letter day!
|
|
|
Post by rational on May 21, 2012 13:54:28 GMT -5
Hot dog! rational's got it, and agreeing with us! This is one strange red letter day! With what am I being accused of agreeing?
|
|
|
Post by kencoolidge on May 21, 2012 14:05:02 GMT -5
Rat Since you touched on the subject. What do you consider heresy in the F&Ws chuch. ken You are asking the wrong person. I was looking at it from a logical point of view - what was the bigger threat? You people have more beliefs than Carter has little liver pills! I'm sure that gospel to one is heresy to another. Rat Could we agree that it is better to have beliefs than not? ken
|
|
|
Post by JO on May 21, 2012 14:54:22 GMT -5
All I was saying was that someone preaching heresy would be more dangerous to a religious organization than a child abuser. Consider Martin Luther. RAT, its the above statement that led to you being accused of agreeing with some of us. Heresy is a handy little word - it can be used to demonise anyone who doesn't fall into line with the status quo.
|
|
|
Post by rational on May 21, 2012 15:20:37 GMT -5
You are asking the wrong person. I was looking at it from a logical point of view - what was the bigger threat? You people have more beliefs than Carter has little liver pills! I'm sure that gospel to one is heresy to another. Rat Could we agree that it is better to have beliefs than not? ken Ken, If that is what you believe - go with it.
|
|
|
Post by rational on May 21, 2012 15:23:21 GMT -5
All I was saying was that someone preaching heresy would be more dangerous to a religious organization than a child abuser. Consider Martin Luther. RAT, its the above statement that led to you being accused of agreeing with some of us. Heresy is a handy little word - it can be used to demonise anyone who doesn't fall into line with the status quo. I see - Thanks! You do know that, not believing in any potential eternal punishment, that I would go after the child abuser. The child is being harmed. The rest is just a matter of belief.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 21, 2012 15:48:20 GMT -5
RAT, its the above statement that led to you being accused of agreeing with some of us. Heresy is a handy little word - it can be used to demonise anyone who doesn't fall into line with the status quo. I see - Thanks! You do know that, not believing in any potential eternal punishment, that I would go after the child abuser. The child is being harmed. The rest is just a matter of belief. Your position about going after a child abuser wasn't the point,and I think most people already knew that your position would be in favour of the child. We're all grateful for that. What observers are happy with is that you can see how the problem of heresy can supplant the problem of child abuse in a religious organization. It is this condition that has created so much angst regarding the CSA subject on the TMB forum. Many here are deeply concerned about how hairdos and the reputation of religious leaders are more important than child protection. We're glad you join in that concern.
|
|
|
Post by sacerdotal on May 21, 2012 16:45:46 GMT -5
I like Bert's agenda, "to defend the truth". My agenda is also to defend the truth. Its tough though. Sometimes political expediency gets in the way of truth. Sometimes good people, our friends, get in the way of truth. They try to cover up truth out of fear. The light of truth often exposes ugly things. Sometimes good people, our friends, ally themselves with the wrong things and the wrong people. We need to stand for truth even when we're despised by good people for doing so. Standing for truth is not the way to be popular. Popularity comes from going with the flow, and truth often goes against the flow. Aligning ourselves with truth is the narrow way. Though all thy friends should turn away And bid thee shun the narrow way, 'Tis not worthwhile that thou shouldst be An outcast through eternity. Hey Bert: there might be something in the above that you can take out of context for your Bertie list? +1. I too post on this board to defend the fellowship known as the Truth. Truth can bear scrutiny and in fact, demands that it be brought to the light so that its deeds may be known by all.
|
|
|
Post by quizzer on May 21, 2012 16:57:25 GMT -5
Hot dog! rational's got it, and agreeing with us! This is one strange red letter day! With what am I being accused of agreeing? You are being accused of agreeing that you understand that a belief system is considered more important than the victims within the belief system. ...and I don't think you're going to get your case tossed out of court for a while...
|
|
|
Post by rational on May 21, 2012 17:03:18 GMT -5
With what am I being accused of agreeing? You are being accused of agreeing that you understand that a belief system is considered more important than the victims within the belief system. ...and I don't think you're going to get your case tossed out of court for a while... I am going to go for dismissal based on the fact I am not a believer!
|
|
|
Post by quizzer on May 21, 2012 17:09:48 GMT -5
You are being accused of agreeing that you understand that a belief system is considered more important than the victims within the belief system. ...and I don't think you're going to get your case tossed out of court for a while... I am going to go for dismissal based on the fact I am not a believer! You believe your own statement - I'm thinking that's enough for conviction....and now there's another thread on this subject... Have fun typing!
|
|
|
Post by JO on May 21, 2012 19:47:23 GMT -5
I too post on this board to defend the fellowship known as the Truth. Truth can bear scrutiny and in fact, demands that it be brought to the light so that its deeds may be known by all. WE post to defend the values we were raised with, the values and principles that could make the fellowship strong. System-minded people seem less concerned about righteousness and justice than appearances, a form of godliness that is little more than an empty shell. ====== =========== ============== =========== 2 Corinthians 5:11 Since, then, we know what it is to fear the Lord, we try to persuade others. What we are is plain to God, and I hope it is also plain to your conscience. 12 We are not trying to commend ourselves to you again, but are giving you an opportunity to take pride in us, so that you can answer those who take pride in what is seen rather than in what is in the heart.
|
|
|
Post by JO on May 21, 2012 19:49:27 GMT -5
Jeremiah 6:14 They dress the wound of my people as though it were not serious. ‘Peace, peace,’ they say, when there is no peace. 15 Are they ashamed of their detestable conduct? No, they have no shame at all; they do not even know how to blush. So they will fall among the fallen; they will be brought down when I punish them,” says the Lord.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 25, 2012 9:12:57 GMT -5
Jack Oliver complained about "social networking". He stated that he feared that God's Way could become a denomination someday due to social networking.
|
|
|
Post by dlb5674 on May 25, 2012 16:59:40 GMT -5
At no time have I said that is appropriate. Can you say this? "It is inappropriate to have a known child sex offender as a Sunday AM elder. All sex offenders who are Sunday AM elder meeting hosts should be required to step down." Clearday, might be slim pickins' when it comes to those who want the responsibility of the position of elder. I know a 2 or 3 who have meetings in their home that would rather not have the meeting but there are no other options. It's possible that this man was their only option.
|
|
|
Post by Scott Ross on May 25, 2012 17:16:41 GMT -5
Can you say this? "It is inappropriate to have a known child sex offender as a Sunday AM elder. All sex offenders who are Sunday AM elder meeting hosts should be required to step down." Clearday, might be slim pickins' when it comes to those who want the responsibility of the position of elder. I know a 2 or 3 who have meetings in their home that would rather not have the meeting but there are no other options. It's possible that this man was their only option. If there are other people that come there for a meeting, then how can there be no other options? Do these other folks live in a car?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 25, 2012 18:21:49 GMT -5
Some meetings are too far away for a man to be able to come in and lead the meeting. But if that is the case, the women can do just as good a job leading it. Better have a good woman than a perverted elder.
|
|
|
Post by dlb5674 on May 25, 2012 20:48:21 GMT -5
Clearday, might be slim pickins' when it comes to those who want the responsibility of the position of elder. I know a 2 or 3 who have meetings in their home that would rather not have the meeting but there are no other options. It's possible that this man was their only option. If there are other people that come there for a meeting, then how can there be no other options? Do these other folks live in a car? In the area we attended meetings, it seemed that folks preferred not to have meeting in their home. It was placed in the home of a single woman who was rarely ever home and meeting was shuffled from place to place. The elder was also absent frequently so it was often questionable who would lead the meeting. Perhaps this is unusual but I've known a few personally who commented that they would rather not have meeting at their home. There may have been a time that having meeting in the home was considered a privilege but seems that folks are busier today than ever and meetings are more of an inconvenience to many.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 26, 2012 4:42:18 GMT -5
Clearday, might be slim pickins' when it comes to those who want the responsibility of the position of elder. I know a 2 or 3 who have meetings in their home that would rather not have the meeting but there are no other options. It's possible that this man was their only option. If there are other people that come there for a meeting, then how can there be no other options? Do these other folks live in a car? Personally I would question the wisdom of anyone wanting to put or retain a meeting in the home of a known child sexual offender AND also the mind of the known cso. It may be a sign of acceptance and recognised repentance by the workers as well as an attraction by the offender to see himself accepted by the church leaders, but nevertheless imo these these would be misguided and inappropriate circumstances. This is not about lack of forgiveness, repentance, acceptance, etc. Nor is it unChristian. It is about the "confidence" of the members of the fellowship in respect of the person in question; where they are attending for meeting and most importantly, the decision making abilities of the leaders.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 26, 2012 10:58:54 GMT -5
I think one of the challenges to having meeting in your home is that usually one of the two living there will think that the house has to be spotless and so spend the whole day cleaning (and harassing the other person to help clean). I'm not of the uber clean school but spouse is, and I know of several other couples who have the same split in "dust-consciousness."
|
|
|
Post by quizzer on May 26, 2012 12:07:08 GMT -5
If there are other people that come there for a meeting, then how can there be no other options? Do these other folks live in a car? In the area we attended meetings, it seemed that folks preferred not to have meeting in their home. It was placed in the home of a single woman who was rarely ever home and meeting was shuffled from place to place. The elder was also absent frequently so it was often questionable who would lead the meeting. Perhaps this is unusual but I've known a few personally who commented that they would rather not have meeting at their home. There may have been a time that having meeting in the home was considered a privilege but seems that folks are busier today than ever and meetings are more of an inconvenience to many. I've been in the situation when the meeting was in a single woman's home, and three elders from other meetings rotated the responsibility. I guess I don't see how flexibility in the meetings is not preferable to protecting others, especially children.
|
|
|
Post by kencoolidge on May 26, 2012 15:56:20 GMT -5
Rat Could we agree that it is better to have beliefs than not? ken Ken, If that is what you believe - go with it. Rat I believe it was a question to you. yes/no ken
|
|
|
Post by Dubious Disciple (xdc) on May 27, 2012 17:58:01 GMT -5
Some meetings are too far away for a man to be able to come in and lead the meeting. But if that is the case, the women can do just as good a job leading it. Better have a good woman than a perverted elder. laverdad, you sure love that word "perverted." Just an odd observation...
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on May 27, 2012 18:11:03 GMT -5
I like Bert's agenda, "to defend the truth". My agenda is also to defend the truth. Its tough though. Sometimes political expediency gets in the way of truth. Sometimes good people, our friends, get in the way of truth. They try to cover up truth out of fear. The light of truth often exposes ugly things. Sometimes good people, our friends, ally themselves with the wrong things and the wrong people. We need to stand for truth even when we're despised by good people for doing so. Standing for truth is not the way to be popular. Popularity comes from going with the flow, and truth often goes against the flow. Aligning ourselves with truth is the narrow way. Though all thy friends should turn away And bid thee shun the narrow way, 'Tis not worthwhile that thou shouldst be An outcast through eternity. Hey Bert: there might be something in the above that you can take out of context for your Bertie list? +1. I too post on this board to defend the fellowship known as the Truth. Truth can bear scrutiny and in fact, demands that it be brought to the light so that its deeds may be known by all. Why would anyone continue to call the 2x2 fellowship "The Truth fellowship"? After all of the CSA and other immorality have been discovered which has permeated everything the 2x2 fellowship is and has been. Jesus is Truth and I do not nor will I ever again equate the 2x2 fellowship or any other manmade religion with "the Truth" as it is seen in Jesus!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 27, 2012 18:57:04 GMT -5
Some meetings are too far away for a man to be able to come in and lead the meeting. But if that is the case, the women can do just as good a job leading it. Better have a good woman than a perverted elder. laverdad, you sure love that word "perverted." Just an odd observation... He's working on his tabloid journalism skills.
|
|
|
Post by Dubious Disciple (xdc) on May 27, 2012 19:49:58 GMT -5
Jesus is Truth and I do not nor will I ever again equate the 2x2 fellowship or any other manmade religion with "the Truth" as it is seen in Jesus! What an odd statement. Jesus was a man.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 27, 2012 19:56:03 GMT -5
Jesus was/is GOD!
|
|
|
Post by Dubious Disciple (xdc) on May 27, 2012 20:04:04 GMT -5
It just seemed funny to me. Sharon rejects the belief that the f&w religion is founded in heaven, and then selects a man as the founder of her religion, believing him to be more. So are we supposed to belief stuff or not?
|
|