|
Post by prue on May 29, 2006 9:42:10 GMT -5
Hi Gene. er... thanks for dredging up past posts of mine. I don't think you have written to me/us before? Without me going through my/our own posts, didn't I/we ask you some question that you didn't answer? Are you only responding to criticise?
|
|
|
Post by Greg Lee unplugged on May 29, 2006 9:43:31 GMT -5
sorry, my speed typing again. I used to be a typist once So then, Prue did not write this, though it be posted under her name. I wonder, is your partner "Mildly Curious"?
|
|
|
Post by junia on May 29, 2006 9:44:55 GMT -5
I'm getting reeeely confused now. In one post you claim to be a speed typist, and now you're saying you type with 2 fingers? This reminds me of the games Nathan used to play.
|
|
|
Post by Rob O on May 29, 2006 9:45:42 GMT -5
Prue wrote:
Prue wrote:
Allegedly, some is from her partner. Some is from Prue. There are no discernible differences in style. No way to distinguish that two people are writing.
I do not believe it.
Why no mention of a partner until now?
Why initially deny that he/she is a male?
Why first pretend that it was a typo, if in fact it was a partner?
WHY NOT JUST BE HONEST TO START WITH?
I believe Prue has been caught out in a clear slip and is now desperately playing catch up. Unfortunately one deceit compounds into another. Your credibility is way past shot.
|
|
|
Post by Greg Lee inplugged on May 29, 2006 9:51:13 GMT -5
Hi Gene. er... thanks for dredging up past posts of mine. I don't think you have written to me/us before? Without me going through my/our own posts, didn't I/we ask you some question that you didn't answer? Are you only responding to criticise? « Last Edit: Today at 10:44am by Prue aka MC » Prue and/or Prue's partner, I think you are now becoming defensive and attempting to defend an indefensible position. As far as we know, all of your posts may have been mostly and maybe even 100% of your partner's thoughts.
|
|
|
Post by Roy on May 29, 2006 10:00:14 GMT -5
Prue, what is your relationship to this partner? Because you didn't express this partner as husband or wife, I would expect this partner to be some other relationship. Please come clean on who this partner is.
My post originated as scripture relating to the act of Professing. It has degraded into it appears "the closet". I would ask that bleach be applied and come clean to the Profession.
|
|
|
Post by Rob O on May 29, 2006 10:01:21 GMT -5
Prue, post #7
"As a boy, I used to think in terms of an unbroken line "
Prue post #10:
"sorry, my speed typing again. I used to be a typist once"
Prue post #25:
" I am a lady.....my partner helps me."
Prue post #27:
"yes. that is my partner. i can only type with 2 fingers "
So initially the "boy" comment is a typo. Then it becomes a partner.
So are Prue and partner being deceptive in trying to pass themselves off as one person? Or is Prue just one person now trying to pass himself off as two people?
"The tangled webs we weave when first we practice to deceive."
|
|
|
Post by about Prue on May 29, 2006 10:09:39 GMT -5
I think Prue is long for "P" which is somehow short for Alan.
|
|
|
Post by junia on May 29, 2006 10:19:23 GMT -5
It would be funny if it weren't so pathetic. I really don't care if someone wants to play games but it becomes repulsive when it comes from those who state they are defending "truth".
People like this do as much or more to discredit 2x2ism than any ex ever could. Come to think of it, I can't recall a single staunch 2x2 defender who's kept their credibility. There are many credible 2x2s but they're the ones who aren't system defenders.
|
|
|
Post by Rob O on May 29, 2006 10:25:06 GMT -5
My thoughts exactly Junia. The games in and of themselves are irrelevant and mostly amusing. It is the fact that the game players are usually zealous 2x2 systemites (to coin a word) who harp on about truth and righteousness and how all the exes are deceived and wrong, and they turn out to be nothing but hypocrites.
|
|
|
Post by Roy on May 29, 2006 10:39:28 GMT -5
It will be interesting if Prue will come clean. The question of "Professing" protocol simmering down to this level is really something to behold.
I still love hymn 103: "Buy the Gold undimmed, unchanging; buy the spotless rainment white; Rich and clothed with eyes anointed, Daily walk in God's pure light."
Prue, Prayers are being said on your behalf for repentance of sin and acceptance of God's gift of Salvation. Praise be to God for those who have accepted Christ and help spread the Gospel.
|
|
|
Post by prue on May 29, 2006 12:20:38 GMT -5
Hi, er, boys? and girls? (How can we be sure? I might be deceived. Is anyone helping you? Maybe someone is looking over your shoulder? Are you cross referencing with other members? Are those names real? Can we get 100 points of ID to be sure? I might be writing to two people instead of one?) Wow, I was warned that it gets pretty personal and nasty here! Get real. You impress me with your lack of substance. Someone asked was the person of MildlyCurious and Prue one and the same. Yes. And a few posts before MildlyCurious it was a few other misc’ names – you’ll get over it. I think I should put our Prue name back to the MC moniker. The purpose of changing the name to Prue was simply to align it with our web site, now that it has an email address on it. I do typos when I am trying to second guess someone, and as my previous posts show, I rush things and typos are everywhere. Making an issue out of it just shows you are scratching for issues, doesn't it Junia and Rob? I am amazed at the number questions I raised that garnered no response, no answer of any sort, because there was no answer that could be given without embarrassment. Some of my questions were read several thousand times and it seemed as if no-one was out there. And then suddenly people pour out of the woodwork if they think they can score one over you. Surely, you can do better than that? Moral outrage? Who are you kidding? Roy - thanks, I answered this (your own thread) on the meaning of the word “professing”, and you judged me on the basis of what you think I might be in my so-called "closet." ? Clearly my answer wasn’t the answer you wanted to hear – you didn’t answer it, did you? I am sorry if I embarrassed you. Roy, are you a man or a woman? how can I know? are you married? have you had an affair? If so – who with? should I first find out? Have kids? Are they yours? Shouldn’t we all know? You were in my faith for 50 years and, like Rob, didn’t know something as simple as where our terminology comes from. You never searched these things for yourself? Never opened a concordance? Never encountered the words in a subject meeting? Never heard them in a fellowship meeting? Never listened to these things in missions and conventions? I could have replied to your question with a simple, “go read your bible” or asked why would you get an honest answer on this board? Maybe you spent those 50 years in the meeting busying yourself instead with other people’s business? That’s the real scandal, Roy.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 29, 2006 12:41:33 GMT -5
Hi, er, boys? and girls? (How can we be sure? I might be deceived. Is anyone helping you? Maybe someone is looking over your shoulder? Are you cross referencing with other members? Are those names real? Can we get 100 points of ID to be sure? I might be writing to two people instead of one?) Wow, I was warned that it gets pretty personal and nasty here! Get real. You impress me with your lack of substance. Someone asked was the person of MildlyCurious and Prue one and the same. Yes. And a few posts before MildlyCurious it was a few other misc’ names – you’ll get over it. I think I should put our MC name back to the MC moniker. The purpose of changing the name to Prue was simply to align it with our web site, now that it has an email address on it. I do typos when I am trying to second guess someone, and as my previous posts show, I rush things and typos are everywhere. Making an issue out of it just shows you are scratching for issues, doesn't it Junia and Rob? I am amazed at the number questions I raised that garnered no response, no answer of any sort, because there was no answer that could be given without embarrassment. Some of my questions were read several thousand times and it seemed as if no-one was out there. And then suddenly people pour out of the woodwork if they think they can score one over you. Surely, you can do better than that? Moral outrage? Who are you kidding? Roy - thanks, I answered this (your own thread) on the meaning of the word “professing”, and you judged me on the basis of what you think I might be in my so-called "closet." ? Clearly my answer wasn’t the answer you wanted to hear – you didn’t answer it, did you? I am sorry if I embarrassed you. Roy, are you a man or a woman? how can I know? are you married? have you had an affair? If so – who with? should I first find out? Have kids? Are they yours? Shouldn’t we all know? You were in my faith for 50 years and, like Rob, didn’t know something as simple as where our terminology comes from. You never searched these things for yourself? Never opened a concordance? Never encountered the words in a subject meeting? Never heard them in a meeting? Never listened to these things in missions and conventions? I could have replied to your question with a simple, “go read your bible” or asked why would you get an honest answer on this board? Maybe you spent those 50 years in the meeting busying yourself instead with other people’s business? That’s the real scandal, Roy. What questions haven't been answered?\\ Karl
|
|
|
Post by Greg Lee unplugged on May 29, 2006 12:43:16 GMT -5
Someone asked was the person of MildlyCurious and Prue one and the same. Yes. And a few posts before MildlyCurious it was a few other misc’ names – you’ll get over it. Already over it...and you....and the other you.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 29, 2006 12:44:25 GMT -5
You may be telling the truth, but I doubt it since 2x2 apologists have often shown deceit is completely acceptable in defense of their religion. I actually had a Friend tell me that once. Karl
|
|
|
Post by prue on May 29, 2006 13:03:15 GMT -5
Hi Karl. I asked questions about why the first church has no name. I asked questions about where do we draw a line over what is acceptable to God and not acceptable. I asked questions about the first ministry. I asked questions about whether we should be an example, or go looking for it in other people. I asked whether someone's fault was justification for our own behavior. And so on, so on, so on.
|
|
|
Post by junia on May 29, 2006 13:15:02 GMT -5
Hi Karl. I asked questions about why the first church has no name.
It's true the church had no name. Whether it has a name or not is irrelevant. Most things have a name to identify them. God named the first man Adam. He named heaven and earth. And on and on...
I asked questions about where do we draw a line over what is acceptable to God and not acceptable.
We don't draw the line. God does. Nothing we do of ourselves is acceptable to God. That's why he provided a way of escape through Jesus.
I asked questions about the first ministry.
Define "ministry". OT or NT? Is it an office?
I asked questions about whether we should be an example, or go looking for it in other people.
By definition, won't everyone who is born again and received the indwelling Spirit be an example?
I asked whether someone's fault was justification for our own behavior. And so on, so on, so on.
Is this a rhetorical question?
|
|
|
Post by prue on May 29, 2006 13:16:33 GMT -5
Thanks Junia, you made a sort-of effort to answer something. I must go
|
|
|
Post by Cherie Kropp on May 29, 2006 13:44:45 GMT -5
Prue: I sincerely would like to know where the 13 places are where you say there was no truth at all". Could you list the scripture references for me? I promise this is not a trick question--just a sincere desire for more information for myself. I've never of heard this before, so would like more details. Thanx. CK
RE: "It says in the bible that there has always been a Truth which is Eternal. We know, from that same book, that it was not eternal in a natural sense. I counted, what, 13 times when there appeared to be no truth at all? It is possible that the truth didn't last more than a few generations at a time?
|
|
|
Post by OzE on May 29, 2006 15:40:47 GMT -5
Why was Junia's answer just a "sort-of effort" Prue/Phillip? Can no one answer yous to your satisfaction? I know I couldn't. Maybe these are answers yous didn't really want to hear. Are you a "couple of workers"? Male or female? A speed typist and a two fingerer? No can't be, you said you were working on Sunday. Oh well. Things that are hidden have a way of coming to light.
|
|
|
Post by lacpastorunplugged on May 29, 2006 16:27:47 GMT -5
Hi Karl. I asked questions about why the first church has no name. I asked questions about where do we draw a line over what is acceptable to God and not acceptable. I asked questions about the first ministry. I asked questions about whether we should be an example, or go looking for it in other people. I asked whether someone's fault was justification for our own behavior. And so on, so on, so on. 1: I don't know. They took then name Christian when it was offered, probably because it accurately identified them. 2: God draws the solid lines. Then we have counsel from Paul to defer to the weaker brother, and so forth. There are not too many lines given because then we would worship the lines. We would make the same mistake that Israel did, in seeking to gain righteousness by imitating works, rather than by faith as Paul points out Abraham was justified. Rom 9-11 Really, only Jesus is acceptable- we become so through faith in HIm. 3: We follow Paul as He follows Jesus. Christians just act like Christians. We do so becaise of the work of the Holy Spirit that dwells within us. We should never seek to cause someone to fall, but we are free to be who we are as well. 4: There is no justification through anyone else's actions for my behavior. I always have a choice- and it is mine. I have to own it- that's honesty, and God honors that. I would be really glad to dialogue with you. You can pm or email me, or we can do so here. Karl
|
|
|
Post by Gene on May 29, 2006 16:41:23 GMT -5
Hi Gene. er... thanks for dredging up past posts of mine. I don't think you have written to me/us before? Without me going through my/our own posts, didn't I/we ask you some question that you didn't answer? Are you only responding to criticise? I don't recall any questions asked of me by you that I did not answer. Please ask again. And yes, my post was certainly critical of you. I honestly had come to expect more of you.
|
|
|
Post by Rob O on May 29, 2006 18:38:15 GMT -5
Not at all. Your (his/hers/whoevers) site is loaded with enough fallacies to keep us busy for ages. You keep harping on about wanting answers. You're going to get them. They're just not going to be the answers you want. And they're being posted on Clay's site one at a time.
By playing games you've shot your own credibility. Don't try and make it anyone else's problem. Do the honest thing, come clean, and if there really is a partner have the decency to distinguish between yourselves on your posts.
|
|
BC
Senior Member
Posts: 852
|
Post by BC on May 29, 2006 18:45:28 GMT -5
Hi Guys an' Gals,
I am a little saddened when reading this and other threads where Prue and Nathan stand up for their belief, and support the structure and format of their belief. As they present you all with their arguments they are suddenly set on and ripped to bits in a very personal way. Sure they may be allusive in their answers or maybe they have answers you don't like, maybe even answer your questions with other questions. Maybe they are unsure of where others are coming from or what you are striving for in the questions you ask. Maybe they don't know but know to admit that will allow you all to set on them again with the old "well if you serve the lord in your way and you don't know that, it doesn't say much for you" sort of scenario.
As far as their Identities go everyone is entitled to their privacy and maybe they dodge around so that they are not revealed too openly etc. I thought the whole of the American institution was based on freedom and the right for privacy.
I respect and even love many on this board but that respect is earned and sometimes takes a beating when I see 3,4,5,or more hammering one who has the guts to oppose the trend and stand up for what they in sincerity believe. I know sometimes it appears that they are "asking for it" but soft words and well asked non confrontational questions achieve a lot more than when you turn on one and start hammering out questions.
Many times I have asked questions of you and got strange or to me inappropriate answers. I find if I then ask 1 or 2 simple questions I get an understanding of where the answers are coming from. And If I don't agree I either say so respectfully or back out of the conversation. I have found I get awesome results and understanding of each of you in this way without resorting to personalizing a battle.
Rather than ravening wolves let us all strive to be sheep of the shepherd.
Love and [shadow=red,left,300]regards BC[/shadow]
|
|
|
Post by prue on May 29, 2006 19:00:37 GMT -5
Hi BC, thanks.
|
|
|
Post by prue on May 29, 2006 19:04:10 GMT -5
Hi Cherie. The 13 places (and still counting) are mentioned on our web site. Jesus asked the question whether there would be truth in the earth when he returned.
|
|
|
Post by prue on May 29, 2006 19:05:17 GMT -5
Hey Oze. I think you are being a bit personal
|
|
|
Post by Rob O on May 29, 2006 19:05:37 GMT -5
Prue/whoever,
By playing games you've shot your own credibility. Do the honest thing, come clean, and if there really is a partner have the decency to distinguish between yourselves on your posts. I'd also suggest that rather than pretend you've done nothing wrong, if you have the guts to take responsibility, apologize for your little deception, and be transparent in which of you (if there really is two) is posting at any given time, you will find a great deal of forgiveness.
|
|