|
Post by rational on Jul 29, 2012 16:43:52 GMT -5
That does not alter what was said. I didn't say it did. Ouchy today? But then, did I say you did? Ouchy today?!?
|
|
|
Post by SharonArnold on Jul 29, 2012 16:46:44 GMT -5
I have experienced two (what seemed to me at the time – because of the person I was) quite significant betrayals in my life by people who I loved, respected and trusted. Both of these experiences triggered quite extensive processes of forgiveness for me that were life altering and transformative. Interestingly, both of these processes took 7 years from the initiating event to a point where I felt there was complete resolution. The resolution point was where I realized that I wanted nothing, expected nothing, needed nothing, from the individual and all that remained (unexpectedly - to my great surprise) was a pure and unconditional love. From where I sit now, even if I had the ability to change things in my past, I would change nothing. I feel gratitude for the lessons learned, for the new ways of being, and the clarity that it has bought into my life.
I sense the pain that many feel as a result of the LW situation, and other similar sorts of situations. There is a part of me that would like to spare others, to shield them from this kind of pain. I know how much it can hurt. But, in the words of Gibran “Your pain is the breaking of the shell that encloses your understanding.” I have also come to experience the serenity that he talks of further in the same passage – and I wouldn’t trade that for anything.
Some of the lessons I have learned:
You do not need an apology or acknowledgement of wrong doing from anyone. The work is yours alone (legal requirements from society, need for professional counselling aside). For the first forgiveness process I went though, it took me 3 -4 years before I gave up my need for an apology. Looking back, this was the point where everything shifted for me and the real healing began. For the second process, I was much smarter and relinquished my need/desire for an apology after 3 -4 weeks.
The offense may be so great that you may be incapable of understanding or forgiving. You may even be incapable of praying to be understanding and forgiving. However, there is always something you are capable of praying for – perhaps praying to be willing to be a certain way. Or willing to be willing, etc…. there is always an entry point somewhere – and it WILL be transformative. Trust me.
We have such a need to put white cowboy hats and black cowboy hats on people. The good guys and the bad guys. Perhaps this goes back to our tribal roots where identifying friend or foe was paramount to one’s survival. This is no longer necessary for most of us. I now find it easy to accept that the "nicest" people can do some not great things. Or even the "worst" sort of people can do some pretty admirable things. That’s just the way it is.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jul 29, 2012 16:52:44 GMT -5
Not sure what you mean Rational. Love and harmony is everyone's responsibility. I was only referring to the so called 'masters' like Buddha and Jesus, because that is what most people relate to when we talk about those things. I was referring to the ken's post about submitting. Those requiring submission do not themselves submit to God. kinda ironic I think
|
|
|
Post by stargazer on Jul 29, 2012 16:54:30 GMT -5
;D ;D ;D Snow, you and Stargazer are better then this! good grief... not getting into it with you Sharon. I had no problem with the content of the post, I had a problem reading it. If Troubled is bothered by my post, then I'll apologize to Troubled.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jul 29, 2012 17:02:43 GMT -5
Snow, you and Stargazer are better then this! good grief... What could be better than paragraphs?
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jul 29, 2012 17:37:50 GMT -5
Not sure what you mean Rational. Love and harmony is everyone's responsibility. I was only referring to the so called 'masters' like Buddha and Jesus, because that is what most people relate to when we talk about those things. I was referring to the ken's post about submitting. Those requiring submission do not themselves submit to God. kinda ironic I thinkOh, Okay. I never understood who was submitting to who in this statement. Thick today I guess. Hmmm, maybe I'm thick everyday because I clearly remember saying this before...
|
|
|
Post by Alan Vandermyden on Jul 29, 2012 20:48:54 GMT -5
I have experienced two (what seemed to me at the time – because of the person I was) quite significant betrayals in my life by people who I loved, respected and trusted. Both of these experiences triggered quite extensive processes of forgiveness for me that were life altering and transformative. Interestingly, both of these processes took 7 years from the initiating event to a point where I felt there was complete resolution. The resolution point was where I realized that I wanted nothing, expected nothing, needed nothing, from the individual and all that remained (unexpectedly - to my great surprise) was a pure and unconditional love. From where I sit now, even if I had the ability to change things in my past, I would change nothing. I feel gratitude for the lessons learned, for the new ways of being, and the clarity that it has bought into my life. I sense the pain that many feel as a result of the LW situation, and other similar sorts of situations. There is a part of me that would like to spare others, to shield them from this kind of pain. I know how much it can hurt. But, in the words of Gibran “Your pain is the breaking of the shell that encloses your understanding.” I have also come to experience the serenity that he talks of further in the same passage – and I wouldn’t trade that for anything. Some of the lessons I have learned: You do not need an apology or acknowledgement of wrong doing from anyone. The work is yours alone (legal requirements from society, need for professional counselling aside). For the first forgiveness process I went though, it took me 3 -4 years before I gave up my need for an apology. Looking back, this was the point where everything shifted for me and the real healing began. For the second process, I was much smarter and relinquished my need/desire for an apology after 3 -4 weeks. The offense may be so great that you may be incapable of understanding or forgiving. You may even be incapable of praying to be understanding and forgiving. However, there is always something you are capable of praying for – perhaps praying to be willing to be a certain way. Or willing to be willing, etc…. there is always an entry point somewhere – and it WILL be transformative. Trust me. We have such a need to put white cowboy hats and black cowboy hats on people. The good guys and the bad guys. Perhaps this goes back to our tribal roots where identifying friend or foe was paramount to one’s survival. This is no longer necessary for most of us. I now find it easy to accept that the "nicest" people can do some not great things. Or even the "worst" sort of people can do some pretty admirable things. That’s just the way it is. A beautiful post, Sharon! It resonates with much that I learned in our own experience, which, interestingly enough, was also just short of seven years, from the time we first began to feel that something strange was occurring until the time we finally ceased all attendance at meeting - and then it was a few more months while all anger and need for "resolution" - as in apologies/acknowledgment of the wrong - dissipated. I heard a worker say years ago, "We know an experience is complete when we can thank God for it," and I have found this to hold in everything I have experienced. And yes, the need for "black and white" categorization is strong in our society, and I for one do not see the resolution of any situation coming when its addressed in this manner. A legal resolution perhaps, but the human heart is not satisfied in this manner.
|
|
|
Post by Greg on Jul 29, 2012 21:49:57 GMT -5
When I first found out about William Irving and realized that “the truth” could not be traced all the way back to Jesus as I had been taught all my life, I was devastated. I contacted some overseers who were not willing to discuss the matter with me and who avoided me like the plague once I mentioned William Irvine’s name, so I went to Leslie searching for the truth, and he gave me the answers I needed to hear. It would be helpful if you could be more specific as to (i) what it was that you were searching for and (ii) what were the answers LW gave you that you needed to hear. I'd say many around here were equally devastated to learn of the William Irvine palava and never got the answers they were looking for. Matt10 I am guessing the concern was of what happened with Irvine in Ireland and the response LW was one acceptable to troubled, but perhaps not a legitmate explanation....one not acceptable to many or most who would ask. So, there would be little profit in relaying such here.
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Jul 30, 2012 8:21:58 GMT -5
It would be helpful if you could be more specific as to (i) what it was that you were searching for and (ii) what were the answers LW gave you that you needed to hear. I'd say many around here were equally devastated to learn of the William Irvine palava and never got the answers they were looking for. Matt10 I am guessing the concern was of what happened with Irvine in Ireland and the response LW was one acceptable to troubled, but perhaps not a legitmate explanation....one not acceptable to many or most who would ask. So, there would be little profit in relaying such here. I would think LW's answer would be much like any other worker if they were to stop and consider it...and that was "God has raised up prophets all throughout the biblical times." Some might go on to say that"God can raise up children for Himself from stones." That was John the Baptist's answer to the scribes and Pharisees that came to him to be baptized.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 30, 2012 13:02:24 GMT -5
I am guessing the concern was of what happened with Irvine in Ireland and the response LW was one acceptable to troubled, but perhaps not a legitmate explanation....one not acceptable to many or most who would ask. So, there would be little profit in relaying such here. You mean that your guess is that LW fobbed her off with a traditional piece of 2x2 codswollop which, if she was to share it here, most of us would immediately recognise it as a traditional piece of 2x2 codswollop and what profit would there be in that? I suggest that we all stop guessing and leave it to troubled to share with us the facts. Then we can all judge LW on his honesty and integrity as regards this matter rather than having to rely on another's word. Matt10
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jul 30, 2012 15:29:39 GMT -5
Then we can all judge LW on his honesty and integrity as regards this matter rather than having to rely on another's word. Matt10 Do you think LW will respond here?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 30, 2012 16:16:39 GMT -5
I suggest that we all stop guessing and leave it to troubled to share with us the facts. Then we can all judge LW on his honesty and integrity as regards this matter rather than having to rely on another's word. Matt10 Do you think LW will respond here? I guess anything is possible. So long as we get the facts from one party to the discussions referred to ...... Matt10
|
|
|
Post by lazarus66 on Aug 2, 2012 13:01:21 GMT -5
I think that the letter, that this post is all about, has wonderful sentiment and a desire for a peaceful resolution to this entire matter.
I am having to lean very heavy with Rational on this one.
First of all, there are victims and they can deal with being a victim. They can get help and alleviate some of the trauma of being a victim, but to state that one can choose to be a victim is too much "wishful thinking". When one wakes from nightmares from being a victim, or will not return to an area that they were victimized in, that is not a personal choice. Some react and recover faster, but that makes them no less of a victim.
I feel like oldsoul that wrote the letter has good motives and would like to see things concluded with a "feelgood" attitude from all. While that is admirable, it is not realistic.
Let me preface this with this thought. If Leslie received a speeding ticket, he would need to go to the courts that handle upholding the law, and dispensing the appropriate sentence or fine that would accompany the violation of the law.
Leslie has options that he should consider. On the premise that he has been falsely charged, he could and should return to the place where the allegations took place and he could either submit to questioning or he can also request a polygraph. While a Polygraph is generally not allowed in a court of law, I personally have been accused of a crime where I took the polygraph, and was exonerated immediately. Where the thought of having this all being taken care of by LW repenting and meeting with the accusers, is a lovely thought and in a perfect world, may be the answer, here, there is the fact that Rational points out where the accusations have been made, the accused has responded by denying the accusations, and it now is being investigated. I hope I don't cause Rational to have a stroke, but I feel like he is the voice of reason here, and has for the most part kept this out of an emotional arena.
While I can see for those that do not share Rational's beliefs regarding God, or the lack thereof, that brings that point to being discussed later in this post.
At this point, anyone should see that since this has been taken to the authorities, it really needs to be dealt with from this standpoint and handled to the conclusion of the investigation. At this point, LW can co-operate by making himself available, informing the authorities in charge of his whereabouts, if he has not done so, and let himself be questioned and co-operate fully with their requests. He has resources and an attorney to protect him from blundering and making mistakes by not knowing the system, and in my humble opinion this would go a long way in the "restoration" solution, and would show those involved as accusers and those both in and outside the fellowship a lot of goodwill on his part. Although I have quite a bit of information from different sources, I will set that aside for now for this purpose. I truly feel that any casual observer, with the simple facts that he was accused, and by more one person (which, I agree with Rational it does not make one case stronger to make him guilty of an unrelated incident) I do not feel like he is helping his cause, by not making himself available, (from what I understand, but for sake of argument can we just agree that it does not appear that he is in full co-operation mode?). I believe that if he were to show more of an appearance of co-operating, and since he has denied the allegations, he should feel more comfortable in working with the authorities. I think that, at least he would put himself in a better light, and would ease the mind of those that support him and feel like he is innocent. I am very familiar with how the courts can make a mess of things, but in this case, I believe that the authorities have shown the proper restraint, and are being very thorough in their restraint and fairness, and seem to be gathering all of the information that they can, without any rush to judgment. That being the case, I believe that LW should feel that justice should be served fairly and if he is to be vindicated, they are showing plenty reason for LW to be confident in their abilities and fairness. I applaud Rational's remarks and thoughts on this and feel like he is being objective and fair.
Now as for the spiritual side which Rational has stayed out of, and since his beliefs do not include for God in this matter, I think the few remarks that he has addressed are appropriate for the responses to those that have dragged him into certain need to respond.
On the spiritual side, for those that believe in God and the judgment. I can see where they have appealed to LW as a sinner, and even though they are not branding him as guilty, which is fine, but are suggesting that this be handled totally within the "fellowship", I feel like to expect that to be the total answer, is naive to say the very least. Yes, there is much that LW could do with in the system of fellowship in which he has been an overseer, worker and has preached for many years and many think highly of him in his past as a worker. LW should absolutely make himself available to those that expect a spiritual solution, but there is a lot there. Assuming that he has been involved in some wrongdoing, first, he needs to come to terms with God and be repentant and that should show very clearly to all that he is around. Next he should make a complete moral inventory, which has been suggested, and he should be willing to "take the wrong" in cases where he has been accused, as my experience in the "church" was that I was to take the wrong in matters where there was a dispute, and since that was the advice given to me in several cases that involved considerable amounts of money, this does not involve money, but the principle involved here should be much simpler. He could simply take the wrong, apologize, and that would give him a lot of good will towards those in the church he has been a preacher in for so many years, and he would certainly tip the balance of the scales in God's eyes as a man that took the wrong and was gracious about it, but did it to have peace within the "kingdom". That would be very similar to what Jesus did, and LW is supposed to be following that example. Both Paul and Jesus were confronted by the legal system in their time, and Paul stood up for his rights and still remained spiritually sound and dealt with the matter according to the law. Jesus' account required a different response ( no response being required to fulfill the scriptures). I think that this shows that LW is bound by the legal system and needs to follow the example of those in the bible that he preaches from and bases his beliefs on. According to LW's church and teaching, repentance is very key, and accepting false accusations from others, according to what I was taught in that same church, require the people in the church that were falsely accused to accept it, and pray for those that falsely accuse, so if LW is being falsely accused, as his fellow overseer, (another overseer in another state,but same position) Tharold Slyvester was fond of telling people that if it was not true, to not worry about it, it didn't matter. I have spoken to at least another 6 or more workers that agree that their position was to follow Jesus' example, and just accept false accusations, and forgive those that are accusing, be it false or not.
Having all of this done in love is a wonderful idea, and if it can be done in that manner, then fine.
I will not go into the things many have encountered in being excommunicated, shunned and treated pretty poorly from the church claiming to be "God's true church" and " the only way", but I think that if this is to be handled with love conquering all, it will be a good start, and maybe set a pattern to follow more closely in the future.
Still in all of this, when all is said and done, the fact that this needs to be handled by the authorities that it was reported to, and let their conclusions and either punishment or vindication, stand with their decision, that too can be done in love, if LW is willing to accept his role completely one way or the other in this matter.
I believe that if is continues as it has, so far, I think it will only hasten the end of the church that LW represents, and bring it down much faster because it will open the door to those that engage in the behavior, which he accused of, and give them a pattern on how to avoid any culpability in these matters.
I have just posted my thoughts, and I feel I have been totally fair in not judging and not accusing anyone of anything.
I feel like this is a more realistic solution, that removes the original letter's total ideal of having this resolved by emotion, and using compassion and common sense that needs to be done in order to have this settled to satisfy all parties in all ways. 1.) It should settle the F&W's issues. 2.) It should settle the courts issues with this and all legalities. 3.) It should also settle the issues for the exes, except for the possibility of remuneration or some form of help for therapy, should the outcome find LW guilty.
I have tried to remove the overwhelming emotion to leave it to common sense, but also leave room for those that operate more on their emotions. Just my ideas........................Dale/Lazarus66/Pianoman/Glen
|
|
|
Post by rational on Aug 2, 2012 13:19:28 GMT -5
Do you think LW will respond here? I guess anything is possible. So long as we get the facts from one party to the discussions referred to ...... Matt10 That is not exactly not the same as hearing LW's statement first hand.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 3, 2012 14:49:00 GMT -5
I guess anything is possible. So long as we get the facts from one party to the discussions referred to ...... Matt10 That is not exactly not the same as hearing LW's statement first hand. I fear I may be losing the gist of this ..... what exactly is not exactly not the same as hearing LW's statement first hand? Matt10
|
|
|
Post by rational on Aug 3, 2012 15:25:53 GMT -5
That is not exactly not the same as hearing LW's statement first hand. I fear I may be losing the gist of this ..... what exactly is not exactly not the same as hearing LW's statement first hand? Matt10 You said : So long as we get the facts from one party to the discussions referred to That one party may not correctly relate what the other person said.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 3, 2012 15:41:11 GMT -5
That is not exactly not the same as hearing LW's statement first hand. I fear I may be losing the gist of this ..... what exactly is not exactly not the same as hearing LW's statement first hand? Matt10 I wondered that too. Don't TWO negatives make a positive?
|
|
|
Post by rational on Aug 3, 2012 15:53:38 GMT -5
I fear I may be losing the gist of this ..... what exactly is not exactly not the same as hearing LW's statement first hand? Matt10 I wondered that too. Don't TWO negatives make a positive? Ahhh, I see. I wonder if I can spin my way out of this?!? Hearing the words that LW spoke from another who was present is not exactly not the same as hearing LW's statement first hand. Nope - it is an error! Hearing the words that LW spoke from another who was present is not exactly not the same as hearing LW's statement first hand. One too many nots! Perhaps it was the knotty pine wainscoting. Sorry.
|
|
|
Post by quizzer on Aug 3, 2012 16:53:33 GMT -5
I fear I may be losing the gist of this ..... what exactly is not exactly not the same as hearing LW's statement first hand? Matt10 I wondered that too. Don't TWO negatives make a positive? Only if you multiply them.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 3, 2012 17:58:20 GMT -5
I fear I may be losing the gist of this ..... what exactly is not exactly not the same as hearing LW's statement first hand? Matt10 You said : So long as we get the facts from one party to the discussions referred to That one party may not correctly relate what the other person said. This is true. And of course the other person may not correctly relate what they themselves said either ... even if it is in the form of a statement signed by LW's own fair hand. However if we get the facts from one party to the discussions referred to, then it doesn't really matter whether the other party correctly relates what anyone said or not. Not. Matt10
|
|
|
Post by rational on Aug 3, 2012 19:08:03 GMT -5
You said : So long as we get the facts from one party to the discussions referred to That one party may not correctly relate what the other person said. This is true. And of course the other person may not correctly relate what they themselves said either ... even if it is in the form of a statement signed by LW's own fair hand. However if we get the facts from one party to the discussions referred to, then it doesn't really matter whether the other party correctly relates what anyone said or not. Not. Matt10 It seems like you are saying that if two people have a conversation that the facts related by one of them should be sufficient. Don't see that as true.
|
|
|
Post by rose62 on Nov 9, 2013 9:43:46 GMT -5
Do you, or anyone else here, believe and practice this? I believe this very much and I do try to live that way. It is hard because I have been programmed to be hurt by others. It's hard because we have egos that we want to protect. It's hard because we're scared. But if you have no personal attachment to what others think you are truly free. Suffering comes from attachment to what others think of us. Trying to argue to get someone to see things you're way usually is a waste of energy. Being the change you want to see usually works better. So yes I believe in what CD posted and I do try to live it. I am not good at it, but I do believe it's true. I don't claim to follow any particular path, but have recognized the 4 agreements as so valuable, and see such wisdom in their practice, that I find myself quoting them, remembering them, using them as a tool, often. I have particularly found them helpful at work in counseling folks who have interpersonal issues with others.
|
|
|
Post by rose62 on Nov 9, 2013 10:09:42 GMT -5
I used to. After I left the work I got involved with alternative therapy. The thought in these Toltec rules falls under the category of "New Age". Just a further effort of satan to water down the gospel and diminish the importance and power of the blood of Jesus. It's not just Toltec, it's also a key thought in Buddhism. Satan has nothing to do with it. Understanding it is the key. I'm not a great advocate of New Age, but at least they are trying to make love and harmony key. Something that is lacking in most belief systems imo. Toltec is ancient, and I think shares many common themes with Eastern thought, but is also Christ-like. What does the Blood of Christ mean to any of us? I am quite sure it is NOT a get out of hell free card. It is not anything that can be invalidated or weakened. Christ's blood can not be watered down, in my opinion, by any tool or wisdom that brings freedom or peace. If we look at scripture Christ himself said, "If they're not against, they're are for us" and when he told his disciples to "shake off the dust" of any place they're not welcomed, it effectively is about not taking things personally. Most of Christ's example is about not taking things personally. If you look at the examples of Christ's actions offending, most of his responses portrayed a "it's not about you" attitude. And, could anyone say that Christ is not "impeccable" with his word (another of the agreements)? Wisdom is not wisdom based on where it is found. Before we get off Track, just because Toltec applies to this in so many ways, in apology for any digression, LW, in any case, must be impeccable with his word in order to come to any peace, guilty or innocent, very in keeping with Satan being the father of lies.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 9, 2013 10:17:03 GMT -5
I believe this very much and I do try to live that way. It is hard because I have been programmed to be hurt by others. It's hard because we have egos that we want to protect. It's hard because we're scared. But if you have no personal attachment to what others think you are truly free. Suffering comes from attachment to what others think of us. Trying to argue to get someone to see things you're way usually is a waste of energy. Being the change you want to see usually works better. So yes I believe in what CD posted and I do try to live it. I am not good at it, but I do believe it's true. I don't claim to follow any particular path, but have recognized the 4 agreements as so valuable, and see such wisdom in their practice, that I find myself quoting them, remembering them, using them as a tool, often. I have particularly found them helpful at work in counseling folks who have interpersonal issues with others.I agree that they are very useful practices, and I have had them posted in our kitchen for several years. There is now a Fifth Agreement. It is something like "challenge your beliefs". The idea is that our beliefs are incredibly limiting features of our life and once we accept any particular belief (any belief, not just religious-oriented), it is like we have just chosen to put on rose-coloured glasses on that particular subject. We stop seeing what is actual in favour of seeing what we believe. For strongly held beliefs, we will defend them with great vigour in spite of all facts to the contrary. We are much better off being very careful about beliefs so that we will be able to move to a placing of "knowing", not just "believing". All beliefs that we do accept should be founded upon solid evidence and rational thought but we should still be prepared to adjust them when new information comes in. This idea is basically saying that the truth is far more important than a belief. I have seen this over and over.....people clinging to a belief in spite of all contrary evidence and fact and ruining their lives or their inner peace over it. I've been there myself but have learned better to allow my beliefs to be challenged in favour of allowing the truth to emerge........and it is the truth that sets us free, not a belief.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Nov 9, 2013 11:19:35 GMT -5
I agree CD, challenging our beliefs is very important if we ever wish to grow in understanding of the world around us. Clinging to something that no longer can be proven as true, or no longer really works for you is to stay in the past with no growth. If something is no longer working it needs to be rethought and then it takes courage to make the changes that are needed. Especially when the changes will impact our whole paradigm and make it shift. Some people are afraid of doing this because they believe their salvation is written in stone and cannot be veered away from. But I have learned this is not so and it is freeing.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Nov 9, 2013 15:06:39 GMT -5
We have such a need to put white cowboy hats and black cowboy hats on people. The good guys and the bad guys. Perhaps this goes back to our tribal roots where identifying friend or foe was paramount to one’s survival. This is no longer necessary for most of us. I now find it easy to accept that the "nicest" people can do some not great things. Or even the "worst" sort of people can do some pretty admirable things. That’s just the way it is. The 2x2 church would benefit greatly from an awakening to the above pearl of wisdom.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse_Lackman on Nov 9, 2013 22:22:50 GMT -5
We have such a need to put white cowboy hats and black cowboy hats on people. The good guys and the bad guys. Perhaps this goes back to our tribal roots where identifying friend or foe was paramount to one’s survival. This is no longer necessary for most of us. I now find it easy to accept that the "nicest" people can do some not great things. Or even the "worst" sort of people can do some pretty admirable things. That’s just the way it is. The 2x2 church would benefit greatly from an awakening to the above pearl of wisdom. fixit you are doing exactly what Sharon is talking about when you post things like this: The Jesses and Berts of the fellowship could make a difference if they were able to recognise that there's an issue. I hope you can awaken to that pearl of wisdom!
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Nov 9, 2013 23:51:36 GMT -5
You've lost me Jesse.
I try not to condemn people, so much as behaviours.
Hopefully the Jesses and Berts of the fellowship will one day acknowledge that behaviours in our church need to change, and until they do we have no moral high ground from which to condemn other groups.
|
|