AssemblyBoard

"Frank" et. al.


Actually, I have considered that.  Probably not, however, in the way you meant this.  I have considered a different possibility.

Here is a quote from Dr. Neil Anderson, former Professor of Applied Theology at Talbot Seminary, and a recognized evangelical authority in the area of occult phenomena:

"Deceiving spirits encourage shortcuts, bypass the mind and seek to create a dependency upon esoteric knowledge, (knowledge that can only be understood by a few elite people), Spirit guides can give you the knowledge you seek by bypassing your mind.  You won't even have to think.  Just go by what you hear in your head. Sounds good doesn't it?  That's how a medium works!  New Age channelers are making big money with their esoteric knowledge.  Some will even profess to be Christians. Satan gives them enough truth to hook a gullible public."

Consider what I am saying.

Thomas Maddux

What should I do about this problem Professor?
Do you do exorcisms?

 Is Frankie following the teaching of Demons? >:D

   When Sondra first made her visit to the BB her teaching seemed to follow a mix of Madame Guyon meets Buddha, at least that was how I understood it, because her conversation was not founded on what evangelical Christians consider orthodox.

   I have apologized to Sondra for my reaction in the past because my arguments against her were personal in nature, as in calling her a follower of Witness Lee, etc., vs. just arguing against the ideas that she presented.

  I still disagree strongly with Sondra on her views of what true spirituality is, but I think there are some things to be learned by continuing the discussion, and particularly how the Spirit works in our lives.

   Many former Assembly members can be very confused as GG could in one moment teach against mystical experiences and in the next proclaim a very esoteric means of "knowing Chrst".   

   I must admit that reading this thread, and thinking about these things, has caused me to reconsider my views.  I think back to when I was saved, and this definitely was not a purely cognitive experience.

  Now, I understand what it means to be demon controlled, because prior to salvation I was (I would not say possessed, but probably close to that) but the moment of that spiritual transformation from darkness to light relieved me of a dark presence and brought another spiritual presence into my soul.

  It was an experience very much felt througout my being, but the biggest difference was one of a new awareness (knowledge/consciousness?).  I had no doubt that Jesus was my Savior and that all my sins had been taken away, I knew the bible was God's word and that in it God would speak to me, and that my life was now hooked up somehow to the eternal God.

   Where did the above assurances come from?  Not from my rational study of Scripture, of which I still knew very little, rather from a personal encounter with God himself via his Spirit.  I was filled with joy and wanted to tell all about what I had found, and this is all my early witnessing was about---- telling people to seek God and that He will pour out his Spirit to those that ask.

   This of course does not mean that God always wants to work in our lives just this way, and of course I was in a situation that required God to take the particular approach he did with me. 

   Awareness of things that we cannot see is not natural, and though we can use science to understand sub-atomic particles, they will not normally affect our interaction with the visible world.

  This can be true in the spiritual world, where there are unseen forces that operate beyond our ability to see.  We can read the Bible and understand that there is a God and a devil, but it takes the Spirit of God to make these unseen persons real to me in my day to day life.

  Aren't we just to have faith in the facts of the Bible and through these we're to "understand" what we cannot see?   Are we as Christians not given the faith at salvation to do just this?  Are not these biblical truths to control our lives no matter how things appear?

  It would be pretty hard to even have an elementary understanding of the Bible and not answer the above in the affirmative.  But, as Peter, our faith can fail, and I have come to discover that the faith that God has given me is not the same thing as the gift of a strong resolute will.

   Just by studying Abraham, the father of the faithful, we can see that God had to cause faith to grow in him, and this always involved a personal kind of relationship, vs. just some kind of bible scholar training---- not that I think this is bad, just not all that we need to "know", to make us the spritual beings that God would have us to be.

  When it comes down to it, an awareness of God in my life should bring about certain "fruits" in one's life:

1.) Humility: If we really know God we are much more honest about our own lack of wisdom and abilities.

2.) The ability to accept correction:  An aspect of humility and a true sign that grace is working in my soul.

 3.) A kind of on-going informal conversation with God.  the result of this is an awareness that God has taken my anxiety over life and made my care His.

       Just some of my thoughts,                God bless,  Mark C.



 

Now that I have come to learn that I am demon possessed---all this time I thought I was a Christian.  I prayed to God, confessed my sin, believed in the Gospel....all to no avail---anyways, now that I realize that I have at least one or two demons...a couple things come to mind:

The apostle Paul, on the road to Damascus, saw that bright light, heard to voice, etc.  There was no way this could happen.  Now that Professor Maddux has taught me this :

His question, of course, is a rhetorical question, asked with the confidence of a trained, educated professional academician.  Tom has graduated recently!  Good job, Tom.  When he asked this question, he wasn't asking us lessors to help him find a verse, he was trying to prove his point.

Well, Paul's Damascus road experience, like so many others in the Bible, is just bogus.  Paul was reading Ephesians when that happened, there was no bright light.

John's experience on the Isle of Patmos was also.....ummmmm I better not take away anything from that book.  Forget I mentioned John.  Just drop it OK?

So, I have a problem.  I'm possessed, and yet I believe the scriptures.  Unfortunately for me, Satan has given me just enough truth to make me think I'm a Christian.  I'm going to sit down tonite, and diagram some sentences in the Bible, and hopefully, through that exercise I can escape my dilemna.

This is tricky stuff.  Imagine my surprise when I find out I'm a medium all this time!  Let me tell you, it rocked my worldview, it did.

Professor Maddux, what about the verse that says, "he who calls upon the Name of the Lord shall not be put to shame.?"  I did that, and still did that, up until today.  Now I realize I've got to get back to basics, so I can stop being a medium.

Possibly in Christ, at some point in the future...maybe,

Frank

I heard a voice today.  It was a familiar voice.  It said to me,

"Tom is an idiot.  Although he has recently graduated, he's still young and inexperienced.  He's over his head on this discussion, but hasn't the stones to admit it, let alone concede a single point."

My question is if this qualifies as special or general revelation?  The reason I ask is because I read what Tom had to say, then read how Verne corrected him using the scriptures.  I believed the scriptures....so that is special revelation?  But I also heard the voice inside my head telling me that Tom is an idiot.  Is that special, or general?

Is it just because I am a medium?

I think Tom might be one of those "super apostles," you know, the guys that Paul poked fun at?  Paul was so rude!

Can someone help me?

Shall we call you Legion? >:D ;D

2r

P.S. BTW I said "poor al" because he stuck his sidetracking query right in the middle of a good discussion, not because of the identity crisis thing.  Al loves to hide in the weeds and find some lonely duck to shoot at, while everybody else is somewhere else.  Joe manages to add good humor without sidetacking.

2r

Frank,

I find your manner of expression very offensive.  If you disagree with someone, by all means, disagree to your heart's content.  Debate is a healthy way of learning and educating, but there is a right way and a wrong way to conduct yourself in a public forum.  Even children know that name calling is childish, so what's your excuse?  I think you could have found a better way of approaching your difference of opinion with Tom.

Gay (btw, my real name)

Hello Gay,

In case you didn't notice:


May I kindly point out to you that Professor Maddux has just suggested that I am medium, or under the influence of a deceiving spirit?  I found THAT manner of expression to be offensive, quite offensive actually.

It goes past the point of common rudeness, or vulgarity for several reasons:

1.)He admitted that it was well thought out.  In other words, it wasn't said in a flippant, off-the-cuff, or passionate manner.  Rather, it was said on purpose.
2.)It is the essence of being judgemental.  He is suggesting that a person who names Christ's Name is demon possessed, or the equivalent.
3.)He has a long history of doing this sort of thing.

Name calling is childish.  Indeed it is.  What do you call someone who name calls in the manner I listed above?

I call them an idiot.  I think it's a proper use of the word, don't you?

frank

OOOOOHH-- OOOOOHH!!!!!  This CAN'T be right, 'cause I heard it said in the assembly!!!

                        (the above message brought to you compliments of the al Hartman iron(y) works)

---

Personal to frank,

Per your request, I will not PM you in the future.  Thank you for effectively confirming privately to me what others had only suggested.  Up until then, you had me fooled.

al

P.S.--

It was not the voice of God, who has said, "whoever shall say 'Fool (idiot)' shall be in danger of hell fire."  That it was a "familiar" voice is, sadly, not a surprise.


...a truly significant question...

You're welcome! 

For the record, Al:  What do you think of suggesting someone is a medium, possessed, or influenced by deceiving spirits?  What if I had said that about Tom?

Is that something you can answer?

frank,

You remind me of my children when they were little.  If one was reprimanded I could count on hearing "but so & so got away with it" and my answer was always "so how does that make what you did right?"  Sorry frankie, but you sunk a bit low in your comments.  Whether Tom was right or wrong doesn't make your way of expressing yourself any better...childish is as childish does.  If you want to be taken seriously, then act it.

Gay

Children in the assembly witnessed this kind of hypocrisy and double standards all the time...from the adults.  It angered them, ruined their faith, and lot's of other things that are really sad.
I would take YOU seriously, if you had said something to the Professor first.

What he said was WAY, WAY over-the-top.  What I said was simply a reaction to what he said, which was quite offensive.

If you think it's childish to stand up for yourself in the face of an accusation like the one above, then I admit to being a child.  I, on the other hand, think it's fine to rebuke a person who all but calls me a medium!

I'm not sorry if this offends you.   

Your use of the "two wrongs don't make a right," idea is admirable.  However, it doens't apply here.  In saying what he did, Tom showed contempt for me, and let slip a severe form of judgementalism.    He's done it before to other people.   My retort was fitting and proper. 

Some people deserve it, my dear.

Which is it-- suggesting you are, or all but calling you a medium?  If "medium" is taken to mean "average," or "up to par," you could choose to regard it as a compliment...

BTW, my question is rhetorical-- no need to answer it, as I will not be replying to you on-line or off in the future (at least until you fool me with another alias).

al

You did a poor job of side-stepping here Al.   Your little quip about "average," warrants a C minus.
I admire your devotion to Tom, however.  Maybe Brian can make you a moderator someday! Wouldn't that be grand!

My question wasn't rhetorical, and neither is this one:

Can we have a list of who we can insult and who we can't?  it's obvious that it's OK to call me demon possessed, and that it's not OK to call Tom an idiot.  Are there any other hidden rules or special treatment that we can follow?

frank

Frank,


The way several regular posters on the board first discerned who you really are was the consistent pattern your posts manifest, no matter which name you are using at the time.  Constant demeaning and ridicule of other board members, joined with a continuous stream of self praise and claims of highly advanced spiritual stature.

This, of course, is exactly the behavior we observed for so many years in George Geftakys.  He claimed mystical experiences, special annointing, apostolic status, powers of discernment, hearing the voice of God, a special mission to be God's choice servant for this age, on and on.
I myself have heard him "call on the name of the Lord" hundreds of times...all the while involving himself in multiple wicked practices.

Here is a quote from a Christian psychiatrist who (reluctantly) has had to perform some exorcisms. 

"I hardly mean to condemn every markedly pious person, but I do admit that excessive and obvious piety does arouse my suspicions.  What better way to try to hide your wickedness from the undiscerning world than by adopting a distinctly religious disguise.  I have seen this phenomenon among clergy and other religious professionals.  I have seen it most frequently, however, among religious volunteers....What better way to conceal one's evil from oneself as well as from others..."

So....I wonder about you "Frank".   

Fruit, not profession.

Thomas Maddux

I beg to differ with you here Tom.  If you recall in my email to you of 14th Sept, I mentioned that frank appeared to be the only "sane" person on board at the time.  In fact the discussion was going quite well, until you refused to concede and randomly threw in that "medium" stuff.

Idiot is too nice of a word to describe your behaviour.

You are simply sidetracking.

Frank, I apologize for my "Legion" joke, since you appear to have been more deeply hurt by Tom's comment than I originally anticipated.

Marcia

What is it you wonder about?  
If is it my salvation, I can assure you that I am a believer.

However, if you are merely wondering about me, why in the world would you suggest that I am under the influence of demons?

It's funny how many people you quote.  Some of them are good, most taken out of context.  What's even funnier is if we quote you:

You've come up with some real zingers in the last few months.

Oh, if you are going to persist in your comparisons of me, with your former colleague and mentor George Geftakys, I'm going to compare you to someone.

Have you ever watched Mayberry RFD?  You're Barney Fife.  I'm sure they made the character off of you.

I have on occasion implied that others were under the influence of dark spirits, and on reflection do not think it was wise. While this certainly can and does happen, it is an extremely serious charge and should never be made flippantly.
Even if we believe this to be true of someone, there is a proper way the matter should be broached.
I know I have frequently made statments in anger and/or frustration that I subsequently came to regret.
Here is a verse that has been truly helpful to me, and whose counsel I think would go a long way toward keeping the BB from so frequently degenerating into preoccupation with the petty...

The discretion of a man deferreth his anger; and it is his glory to pass over a transgression. Proverbs 19:11
 

p.s. I consider this vers to have both special and general qualites of revelation:
It is certainly there for the whole world to read,
but the Lord sent me to it when I  pesonally had a need... :)
...and some of you did not think I had any poetic talent...

Dear Weird:

while I know you are the second most wisest poster on the BB, behind Professor Maddux, I am concerned about your usage of the verse above.

Here's how I see it:

But I say to you that whoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment. And whoever says to his brother, 'Raca!' shall be in danger of the council. But whoever says, 'You fool!' shall be in danger of hell fire.
New King James Version © 1982 Thomas Nelson

The context here, clearly, has to do with the idea of being, "without cause."

Jesus said:  [Ye] fools and blind: for whether is greater, the gold, or the temple that sanctifieth the gold?   and  [Ye] fools and blind: for whether [is] greater, the gift, or the altar that sanctifieth the gift?

I suppose these verses are general revelation?  Does this mean Jesus is in Hell?  What about Paul, who called people fools (idiots)? 

Those of us who have brains, if we should use them, might ask the question,  "What does this mean?"  If calling someone "idiot," without cause is bad; what about strongly inferring that a person is possessed, a medium, or under the influence of deceiving spirits?  Isn't that even worse than calling them an idiot?

Of course it is.

Why is it that you and Professor Maddux are so blind as to not see this?

I forgive you Marcia, although I was never offended at the Legion joke.

I agree with you regarding Al and Tom. I've been meaning to ask Tom if this looks like a philosophy classroom to him. Call me off, but I don't believe that people are coming here to get a dose of whatever the latest philosophy lesson Tom has learned. Maybe Tom can play with it outside.
frank

Quote from frank:
"He's over his head on this discussion, but hasn't the stones to admit it, let alone concede a single point."

frank,
I am not wanting to belabor my comments over your post, so please forgive me this one last one on the subject, but I feel I need to clarify something.  You calling Tom an idiot was not the only thing I thought you could have phrased a bit better.  I'm sure you'll disagree, but there it is, my humble opinion. 

Gay
PS: This doesn't mean I'm taking Tom's side over yours or negating your feelings or opinion over the issue.  I'm only focusing on the verbage of delivery, not what you were trying to convey.  Tom's actual words were not offensive.  Whether or not his message was is up to the individul, the same as with your post.

Hi Gay,

Thanks for maintaining a cordial posture with me.  I do so appreciate it. :)

Here is where I am coming from.  Tom ignores Margaret's challenge to stay off the board for six months.  Tom ignores Brian's admonition to stop calling people "George," when there is a disagreement.  Tom makes statements that are off topic and distracting.  Tom can't back up his statements.  Tom says that I am likely demon possessed. 

Several people provide passages that negate his theory on special/general revelation.  (yes, I am aware that these are terms and ideas taught in Seminary.  I am also aware that Tom is applying them poorly, causing confusion, and doing a generally lousy job of educating us.)  Nevertheless, Tom ignores Verne and others when they provide evidence that contradicts Tom.

To top it all off, he ignores the pickle he's got himself into, and calls me a medium.  I am offended by that, and I certainly don't deserve it. >:(

Nice people, like you, take me to task for responding to Tom, but say nothing to him.  That's a little difficult, wouldn't you say?

Try this on for size, in the theoretical sense, Gay.  "You're  demon possessed.  You may say you're a Christian, but Satan has given you just enough light to pretend."  Make believe that someone said that to you on this BB, and no one came to your side, but just let it go.  Then, imagine that you attempt to stand up for yourself and are called a childish namecaller, rude, etc.

Better yet, pretend that someone called you a whore, or an adulteress.  How would you like that?  Do you maintain that if it was said to you, "Tom's actual words were not that offensive?"  The whore part is past history that doesn't have to do directly with Tom, but I bring it up to show how I've been treated here in the past.

What is it about what Tom said to me that you don't find offensive?  That is a most sincere question.

Verne,


Actually, I do not know what the source(s) of "Frank's" bizzare postings is/are.  When I encounter things like this, I consider all possibilities.  There are basically three classes of possibilities here:

1. Frank is basing her claims to advanced spirituality on personal reality.
2. Frank has misinterpreted her inner experience to such a degree that she believes that #1 is true, but it in fact is not.
3. Frank is being influenced by "negative" spritual entities.

To my mind, the type of responses that come from Frank would seem to rule out #1.  I don't think that resorting to name calling and personal ridicule is evidence of advanced spriritual stature. 

I posted the quotes for three purposes.  First, I wanted to show that highly qualified experts who are Christians recognize that evil people frequently profess a high degree of piety.  Second, I wanted to point out that the type of "Deeper Life" or "Keswick" teaching that she advocates can easily lead one into New Age'ish and mediumistic practices.  Finally I wanted to alert "Frank" and other readers of this board that she could very possibly have a problem with being more open to the occult than she realizes.  I did not expect her to thank me for it.  But then one never knows what will develop in the future.

But...she "heard" what I said, and it will not disappear from her memory. 

Finally Verne, thanks for the admonition, it is wisdom.  However, I am not angry at "Frank".  I have confronted her on occassion to try to protect the BB. Several have disagreed with the way I have done so.  But I have no personal animosity towards her.  I hate the Evil One and his works...but not this person.

Blessings,

Thomas Maddux

HI frank,
I will do my best to explain where I am coming from on this particular front.  My concern is that, although you have something to say, a valid opinion, it became overshadowed in your choice of how to express it.  At least it did in my little brain.  By all means, if you differ in opinion or feel that you've been wronged by Tom, say so.  But when you throw out words insulting your opponent's manhood or out and out name calling, it makes it difficult to "hear" what you are saying.  The reason I had nothing to say to Tom is that I do not find where he said "frank is a medium."  I can see where you would infer that, and I won't disagree with that, but he did not directly call you a name or insult your gender specific organs.  
So, dear frank, take Tom to task if you feel he has wronged you.  As I said before, debate is "a good thing." :)  But if you want people to "hear" what you are saying, make sure your words don't take away from what you are saying.

Gay

You're right.  Tom didn't directly call me a medium.  He only inferred that.

Tom, I take you to task for it.  You are wrong, I'm not possibly having a problem with the occult.  I differ in opinion with you.   

I apologize for insulting your manhood.  That was wrong of me.

I can see now that you are only trying to help me, and I will do what I can to free myself from any occult influence that I may be under.

Thank you for your kindness and patience with me.   If you have any other criticisms for me, please feel free to share them.  On my part, I promise not to take them personally, or be offended by them.  Anything you say to me, I will understand as being said out of love and concern.

If I say something to you, please correct me. 

Folks,

Here is a passage of scripture that gives some information about this subject.  It is Ezekiel 13:1-11.  It is too long to quote the whole thing, but those who are interested in this topic should read it.  A few observations:

1. The folks described here are genuine prophets of Israel.

2. They have been prophesying "out of their own imaginations" and "follow their own spirit".

3. This results in "false" visions.   :o

4. The resulting divinations, (reports as to what God is saying) are lies.  :(

5. God is therefore, "against" them.  Not the sort of judgement I wish to incur.

This alone is enough to cause me to question what people who say, "God speaks to me" tell me.  I do not for a minute deny the possibility of God speaking to a person.  But just because a thought occurrs to me I do not ascribe it to God, (or Satan).  I have my plausibility filter set to a high level.  I will accept that sort of thing after I apply several tests, such as:

1. The general maturity of the person.

2. The type of personality he/she evidences.

3. What I know of the spiritual stature of the individual.

4. The reputation of the person among other Christians who I know or whose reputation leads me to give weight to their views.

5. How the person's statements accord with the teachings of properly interpreted scripture.

In addition to these things, I do not believe that direct communication from God either was or is God's normal way of dealing with his people.  Verses such as "I will guide you with my eye" do not tell us much.  What does that mean.  I am of the opinion that God's word and God's providence cover the vast majority situations.  The Bible contains many accounts of visions, angels, dreams, etc.  These, however, are special interventions for special purposes.  Not daily Christian practice.

Blessings,

Thomas Maddux

I have been considering something lately. I've given it alot of thought.

I wonder what it does to a man's ego and self esteem, when he goes to college and graduates about 40 years later than he should have?

Take Tom for instance.  I don't mean to directly come right out and say he has some serious issues about admitting error, listening to others, or acting as if he has superior knowledge.  I'm just suggesting that some people in his situation do those things, and it's a possibility he needs to consider.

He heard this, not only from me, but from others, and it should stick in his memory.  I don't expect he'll like it, or thank me for it.

I wonder if a person such as the one I described above, like Tom, but not in direct reference to Tom, would try to change the subject, and go off on tangents in order to avoid admitting they are wrong?

Could it be that this sort of person has had a lack of courage for quite a long time, and needs to feel like leader, even in such a small capacity as this BB?  Does a person like Tom--- but not in direct reference to Tom---have an inflated view of themselves and their educational achievements?

I make an indirect statement that people like Tom suffer with self doubt and inferiority complex, making them pretend to be smarter than they are, which is why they tend to teach everyone all the time.

People like Tom, although only referred to indirectly, have a hard time admitting they are wrong, and an even harder time apologizing when they hurt someone.  That's wrong.

I base my opinions on the following:  (borrowed from Tom, so they are legit)

1. The general maturity of the person.---Tom is mature.

2. The type of personality he/she evidences.---he evidences a personality that is arrogant, condescending and unentreatable

3. What I know of the spiritual stature of the individual.----He let George boss him around and slander him for years, and he didn't fight back.  He jumped on Brent's coattails, and stood by while Brent did all the work and took all the blame.  Now, Tom has weasled himself into this vast kingdom of AB.

4. The reputation of the person among other Christians who I know or whose reputation leads me to give weight to their views.----Plenty of people on this board think he's arrogant, etc.

5. How the person's statements accord with the teachings of properly interpreted scripture.----He says crazy things, and when called on them, he sidesteps and changes the subject.

I am not coming out and saying, "Tom is an arrogant blowhard."   All of the above statements are in line with they wisdom he used in addressing me.  They are indirect statements, which can be said without regard to their effect on anyone.  I think I am getting the hang of these rules.


Blessings,

frank

Why did you come back to this BB, frankie?

You say you were mistreated here in the past, you quote the posts here only to mock them on your own website, and you have a running commentary on your own website referring to the activities of this one, always in a negative, mocking mood.

You seem to be bothered by Tom's presence here, so again, why are you here?

Frank/Ruth/Sondra

I have let you reply to my posts.  You have done so in your characteristic manner.  I hope you feel better.

Now that you have had your say, please refrain from insulting and demeaning the posters on this board. 

In addition, please refrain from starting quarrels and stirring up trouble here.

Thomas Maddux
Moderator

Another jaw dropping experience presented by Thomas Maddux.

Are you sure your are reading the same BB as I am, Tom??

frank does not need me to speak up on her behalf, but I will. 

frank's spirituality is not in question here Tom, but I do question yours.

Marcia

P.S.
Ms. Marple, for the record, I am also bothered by Tom's presence here.
Marcia

Well put Meeko.  Good point.

Marcia

Tom,

This type of thing is what i have witnessed from you on a regular basis. You repeatedly have referred to others as George or have had some reference to how ones opinion is linked to assemblyism. You have mocked, ridiculed, called people names, talked down to people. When this has been brought to your attention you dismiss it and continue in your previous ways.

The statement you make in this quote is from you and you are discribing yourself. You, by your own admission, forfeit any postion to teach, counsel, or correct here simply on the basis that you lack spiritual stature. Your words remember.

Tom, relent and repent. Continuing in this only reinforces your statement. Take Margarets advice. Take a break and give others a break.

Frank/Ruth/Sondra.

I clearly asked you to desist from your personal attacks.  (After letting you have your say concerning  reply to my posts.)

If you wish to continue posting here, please comply.

If you wish to discuss this subject with me further, my e-mail is not hidden.

Thomas Maddux
Moderator

Frank/Ruth/Sondra,

Many people have criticized me on this board.  Their posts are there for all to see. as are your replies to my posts.

What you are currently doing is attempting to have a war of words on this BB.  I will not be drawn into it. 

If you think that your current behavior will convince me that you are not motivated by the possible causes I described, you are mistaken.

Stop.

Thomas Maddux
Moderator

You are so right Joe.  After all think of it, frank has been bullying poor Tom, so why should Tom submit to her.  She reminds me of you-know-who.

I hope Tom can manage a 24 hour watch on the BB.  He's going to have to delete all those offensive posts to protect us immatures from being deceived by the serpent.  Do you hear the hisssss..... ?? You-know-who was master at hearing the hissssss....  Now Tom has the gift of hearing the hisssss of the serpent.

2r

PS
This is all so hilariously funny, it reminds me of Bill Cosby's routine, "Stop it! Stop it! Stop it! Stop it! Don't say anything. Don't touch anyone. Don't breathe.."
2r

i go one weekend without an internet connection, and of course explosive argument instantly commences. its murphy's law of moderating :)

i have done my best to surgically remove this particular conflict from the other threads that it was cluttering up. sorry if this makes continuity on various threads a bit puzzling. hopefully i won't have to make a habit out of this. if we try to keep one thread on topic, and make a habit of starting a new thread when we want to start talking about something new, it will help prevent this kind of "thread crapping" from happening. if you want to keep discussing this particular personal conflict, do so here.

it seems to me this conflict began when tom made some very direct inferences about sondra's spirituality, namely that she may be influenced by lying spirits of a demonic nature etc. this really angered sondra, who takes her spirituality very seriously. from what i have seen of sodra's posts, her relationship with god is one of the deepest and most meaningful parts of her life to her, which she will understandably fight hard to protect from being so maligned. she then began to shower tom with insults and attacks, which drew in other posters.

to tom and everyone: lets keep the accusations of being demon posessed, demonically decieved, etc to a minimum, shall we? i don't see how that kind of accusation made on a public bb can really be answered by anything other than angry retaliation. if you genuinely feel someone may be unduly influenced by demons, maybe drop them a personal email expressing your concern for their well-being. if you are worried about them leading other people astray, present the truth as you see it in contrast to the points they are making.

to sondra: i can appreciate that you felt very personally maligned and attacked by tom's inferences, but you responded inappropriately. the amount and nature of personal insult you heaped on tom was rather immature and very disruptive, spreading over multiple threads and going on for days. this kind of response, even when you have been wronged, is not going to be tolerated. you did apologize for some of it, which is appreciated. you are free to defend yourself in debate - you are not free to particiate in flame wars that disrupt the board.

tom was correct to curtail that kind of disruptive flaming, even tho it was directed at him. that kind of posting will not be tolerated towards anyone. i believe he only let it go on as long as he did because it was directed towards him, actually (no i have not communicated with tom about any of this). what complicated the situation, and prompted others to start defending sondra, is tom's original post which i do see as being very hurtful towards sondra. if anyone finds a post to be overly insulting towards themselves or another poster, try reporting it to me rather than going to war. going to war, even for a cause you find just, can get you temporarily banned at the very least.

and now, back to our regularly scheduled posting...

"We were having a great argument in "The God grab bag", then Brian Tucker the
bouncer comes along(burp!!) and throws us out of the thread onto the street. Listen Bud,
I paid the cover fee and want to stay, do you hear me??!! I can argue wherever
I want(burp!) to argue, do you hear me?(hic!!). I'm not stayin' here in some "anonymous
posters/current conflict thread" outside in the cold!!! Let me back into the "God grab
bag" (bam bam bam!!! knocks loudly on door). It's Joe(hic!) Let me in!!!!"

"OK then, (burp--hic), I'll go argue somewhere else then!! Who needs the "God grab bag"
anyway!! It's(hic!!) not such a great place anyway. The cover charge is way too high, and
the bouncers throw people out at the drop of a hat(burp--stagger). "Listen to me Tucker!!!
(grabs light pole right before falling), You may think you're one hot bouncer, but who needs
you anyway???(burp!!!) All we were doing wash having a little argu(hic!)ment for Pete's sake!!!"

"I'm gonna go(burp, hic!!) now...." (takes a step and falls face down into the snow.) "It was
just a shtupid(hic!!) little argu, argu....    zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz".

All:

Why don't we just have a thread (or threads) dedicated to quarreling, where people can say whatever they want and box each other with words until they are "punch drunk"? 

I don't see, frankly, where Tom gets off at telling anybody to stop anything.  I can see that it is desirable to keep a thread on track, but also the caption underneath this section (General Discussion) of the board says "speak whatever is on your mind".

I can see it now....the Tom/2ram/Frank show, the Al/Verne/Tom show, the Marcia/Tom/skeptic show.......

Note how Tom figures in all of these? 

I know these are but threads of my own imagination, but Tom seems to have been involved with more arguments than anyone else on this BB.  I will stand corrected if the stats turn out to be otherwise...I don't have time at the moment to count them all, or even to define an argument to be able to start counting.

Matt Sciaini

 ;D  Who's got the green toyota now? Give this guy a ride to SWTB where life is pretty and everything is pink.

You know Brian, it usually goes something like this.  There is this interesting discussion going on and along comes Prof. Maddux and joins in.  The discussion eventually comes to a point where Prof. Maddux's opinion is exposed as incorrect.  So instead of just saying something like "I learned something" or "Huh that's interesting" or "I was in error",  Prof. Maddux refuses to concede and throws in a "you must be a medium" type comment,  which not only sidetracks a good discussion, but totally de-rails it.  I remember the LBs behaving that way, and it does kind of have that all too familiar ring.

If frank is Sondra, it really does not matter re. this discussion.  But frank was actually being very courteous and careful in how she presented herself.  Interesting that MarkC, Verne, myself who have had strong disagreement with Sondra in the past, were seeing her POV and agreeing with her.  We have all changed and grown.  Only Tom remains the same.  Maybe Tom is jealous, but that would be speculation on my part.

When I followed the discussion, it started to become clear how the assemblies began.  Tom and DaveS and AlH and, sorry to say this, but Joe's latest post, made it abundantly clear that those who are not open to criticism will end up becoming cult-like in their behaviour.

Tom deserves the flaming commentary at him.  If only someone had the guts to do that to George way back when, then life for many of us would have been very different today.  Whatever Tom's credentials from the past, TODAY Tom's spirituality is questionable and Brent and frank and Verne and others had the guts to say something about it.  I know this looks like I'm Georging Tom, but the motive in doing so is to illustrate my point.

Marcia

There is a difference between the Assembly and the bullitin board (or real life).

In the Assembly, if someone didn't agree with our view, we assumed that they had a spiritual problem.  We tended to pidgeon-hole people (weak, cult, worldly) so they were easier to manage.  I don't believe because I posted summary comments of what I thought was being said on this thread that I am acting cultic.  I don't belief that because Joe thought Sandra was too harsh in her response that he is cultic.  I think we have various people on the board that is moving away from the cookie-cut perspective of the Assembly and have taken on strong, dissimilar views.  Its not "I'm more spiritual than they are" or "they are still assembly-like or in a cult".  It is people with different ideas who are debating.

In the Assembly, it was OK to flame.  If George tore apart someone in the Workers meeting, he was being a "faithful shepherd".  In real life, it is not OK to flame.  Name calling and mocking is still childish.  We should treat one another on the board as we would face-to-face. 

No one is calling Tom infallable.  While I don't think Tom was calling Frank a medium (I think he was comparing the similarity to subjective Christian revelation to subjective New Age revelation and asking "what's the difference?).  Nevertheless, I wouldn't have posted something that strong.  I know enough not to kick pit-bulls awake.  I also know not to post something that I know is going to make someone else angry that they stop listening and start acting out.  Debate is about winning your audience, not just the argument.

Now this sounds cultic to me. Win the audience and feed them garbage.  ;)

Interesting 'twist' in your response to my post, Dave.  Let's keep the discussion on track here.  The point was about Tom and how he uses his wisdom to de-rail discussions and will not concede when his error is exposed.  The fact that you and the others support him and are not open to criticism is what makes you cult-like in your attitude.

Marcia

Sorry, I guess I have to spell it out clearer.  I mean that one should persuade with sound facts but not do it in a way that the person you are debating stops listening to you.  G. K. Chesterton was a good example of this.  He would debate with secularists all the time.  After the debate, they would go to the pub together and enjoy the evening together socially.

I know.  ;)

Franko,  you seem to be obsessed with "control" issues.

When I followed the discussion, it started to become clear how the assemblies began.  Tom and DaveS and AlH and, sorry to say this, but Joe's latest post, made it abundantly clear that those who are not open to criticism will end up becoming cult-like in their behaviour.



Marcia

Nom mya Ho Ringa Kyo,  Nom mya Ho Ringa Kyo, Nom mya Ho Ringa Kyo. Oh, excuse me. I was chanting but thought I should reply to the above statement. I most definitely am not cultic in my behavior. Nom miya Ho Ringa Kyo, Nom mya Ho Ringa Kyo, Nom mya Ho Ringa Kyo. When I got up at 4:30 before chant time and saw Marcia's post I was horrified to think anyone would accuse me of being cultish. Later, when teacher began his discourse I thought I simply I had to respond to this outlandish claim. Even while out collecting donations the post continued to bother me.  So, I just have to say I am as normal as anyone, and feel very hurt that anyone would imply I am cult-like in my behavior. Nom miya Ho Ringa Kyo, Nom miya Ho ringa Kyo, Nom miya Ho, Ringa Kyo.

Thanks for listening.

Well, since I haven't yet said I won't converse with "Meeko," here goes:  The above statement is absolutely untrue.

Please tell where this claim of yours originated-- It has to either be found in the Bible (which you allege to be of questionable reliability) or you were present in person to hear the Lord say it (which I believe would be unreliable).

al

P.S.-- If it is Luke 18:19 to which you allude, you are drastically misunderstanding what Jesus said...

Hi Joe,

This is the post I was referring to when I mentioned the c word.  You accused frank(I think) of wolf-like behaviour because s/he had made a comment about Tom.  You defended Tom based on his great accomplishments and credentials, not on his stated opinion.

I agree with you and with brian that agreeing with someone does not necessarily indicate cult-like behaviour.

Marcia

P.S.
quote from the original post does not say that that it because you agree with Tom you are cult-like:

Marcia