|
: Emptied Himself? : vernecarty February 12, 2005, 12:46:15 PM And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them. Ephesians 5:11
I determined to never again respond to personal attacks by those posting on the SWTE site. I intend to keep that committment. I want to issue a warning to all my bretheren with whom I have shared fellowship on this BB. You have a responsibility to speak the truth and to stand for righteousness. To allow others to cow you into silence and passivity with manipulative and false charges of "hatred" and "lack of love for the brethren" is to fall prey to one of the oldest of Satan's ploys. By this sort of intrigue, many have been surborned to accomodate what God clearly condemns. I want to state publicly and on the record before heavn and earth, that the person who made the following post is in my opinion engaging in terrible blasphemy. If you love the Lord Jesus Christ, you will have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness...be warned... I was certain I would be away for a while, and now this... In the Love of Christ, Verne It doesn't say that Jesus Christ emptied Himself and He didn't. For God to humble Himself would not be a compromise. To humble Himself was to lose nothing. To humble Himself, He knew, was to enrich Himself with true power of God....that is, add to the power He already had. (Same is true for every man who makes the same choice). : Re:Doctrines of Demons : M2 February 12, 2005, 07:54:30 PM And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them. Ephesians 5:11 I determined to never again respond to personal attacks by those posting on the SWTE site. I intend to keep that committment. I want to issue a warning to all my bretheren with whom I have shared fellowship on this BB. You have a responsibility to speak the truth and to stand for righteousness. To allow others to cow you into silence and passivity with manipulative and false charges of "hatred" and "lack of love for the brethren" is to fall prey to one of the oldest of Satan's ploys. By this sort of intrigue, many have been surborned to accomodate what God clearly condemns. I want to state publicly and on the record before heavn and earth, that the person who made the following post is in my opinion engaging in terrible blasphemy. If you love the Lord Jesus Christ, you will have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness...be warned... I was certain I would be away for a while, and now this... In the Love of Christ, Verne It doesn't say that Jesus Christ emptied Himself and He didn't. For God to humble Himself would not be a compromise. To humble Himself was to lose nothing. To humble Himself, He knew, was to enrich Himself with true power of God....that is, add to the power He already had. (Same is true for every man who makes the same choice). Hi Verne, I don't see it. Please explain what it is that you agree/disagree with re. the highlighted comment. Marcia : Re:Doctrines of Demons : editor February 12, 2005, 08:55:05 PM And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them. Ephesians 5:11 I determined to never again respond to personal attacks by those posting on the SWTE site. I intend to keep that committment. I want to issue a warning to all my bretheren with whom I have shared fellowship on this BB. You have a responsibility to speak the truth and to stand for righteousness. To allow others to cow you into silence and passivity with manipulative and false charges of "hatred" and "lack of love for the brethren" is to fall prey to one of the oldest of Satan's ploys. By this sort of intrigue, many have been surborned to accomodate what God clearly condemns. I want to state publicly and on the record before heavn and earth, that the person who made the following post is in my opinion engaging in terrible blasphemy. If you love the Lord Jesus Christ, you will have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness...be warned... I was certain I would be away for a while, and now this... In the Love of Christ, Verne It doesn't say that Jesus Christ emptied Himself and He didn't. For God to humble Himself would not be a compromise. To humble Himself was to lose nothing. To humble Himself, He knew, was to enrich Himself with true power of God....that is, add to the power He already had. (Same is true for every man who makes the same choice). While I agree that the statement is somewhat vague, I don't see a huge problem with it at face value. Certainly we could make some assumptions, draw conclusions from the assumptions and conclude that this was heresy, but I don't think that would be fair at all. My first question would be, "What do you mean by that?" My next question to Verne would be, "What is it that about this statement that leads you to call it doctrines of demons?" Setting aside the personal bias on both sides, I would appreciate hearing what is so bad about this statement. Brent : Re:Doctrines of Demons : al Hartman February 12, 2005, 09:11:02 PM And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them. Ephesians 5:11 I want to issue a warning to all my bretheren with whom I have shared fellowship on this BB. I want to state publicly and on the record before heavn and earth, that the person who made the following post is in my opinion engaging in terrible blasphemy. It doesn't say that Jesus Christ emptied Himself and He didn't. For God to humble Himself would not be a compromise. To humble Himself was to lose nothing. To humble Himself, He knew, was to enrich Himself with true power of God....that is, add to the power He already had. (Same is true for every man who makes the same choice). "Doctrines of Demons!" Is that a bit strong? Consider: Now the Spirit speaks expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; Speaking lies in hypocricy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron... 1Tim.4:1-2. Paul goes on with specifics that applied to Timothy's situation at that time, but the point is general in further application. That point does not warn against the influence of outsiders, but of those who are within our midst (one cannot "depart from the faith" unless that one is among the faithful). Such a one will seem to be genuinely concerned for what is right and good, having been himself "seduced" by evil spirits (the secret of seduction is that it is not openly malicious, but invitingly persuasive). But the great tragedy of seduction is that it cauterizes behind itself (...having their conscience seared with a hot iron...), so that one cannot return upon the path by which one has exited. Indeed, the burn will ultimately become scar, often mistaken for healing. So what, exactly, is the "terrible blasphemy" that the above quotation sets forth? As with most such lies, it is cleverly couched in truth. The truth being that Jesus, being God, did indeed humble Himself, and that we, as His disciples, can and should do the same: Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: But made Himself of no reputation, and took upon Him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: And being found in fashion as a man, He humbled Himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. Phil.2:5-8. Stopping there, we might agree with the statement in question, but Paul continues in the following verse (9): Wherefore God also hath highly exalted Him, and given Him a name which is above every name... The allegation that the Christ, as Jesus (or that Jesus, as the Christ), did not empty Himself is in error. The question is not what He, rightfully being Almighty God, was capable of, but what He did. He could have done all the things with which satan tried to tempt Him (see Mt.4; Mk.1; Lk.4), but He set aside His godly powers and answered the tempter with His Father's Word, as a faithful servant. He could have called for more than twelve legions of angels to do His bidding (Mt.26), but elected to forego His personal desire in deference to the will of His Father (Mt.26; Mk.14; Lk22; Jn18). Did He empty Himself? Yes, to the utmost: Jesus... yielded up the ghost (literally: dismissed His spirit) Mt.27:50. He who had, as God, made all things (Jn.1:3), as man was made sin, which He submitted to His Father, Who righteously judged, condemned, executed, and cursed Him for it. He emptied Himself of all that His Godhood availed Him of, to suffer, die, and be sent to hell for us. Because He was not us, and our sin was not His own, death could not hold Him, and His (and because of Him, our) Father raised Him up and exalted Him. Is there, then, also a question regarding our status and conduct as the redeemed of the Lord? Should we also "make the same choice" as did Jesus? Peter answers thusly: Humble yourseves therefore under the mighty hand of God, that He may exalt you in due time*: Casting all your care upon Him; for He careth for you. 1Pet.5:6-7 Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man sows, that shall he also reap. For he that sows to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that sows to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting. And let us not be weary in well doing: for in due season* we shall reap, if we faint not. Gal.6:7-9. *In your patience possess your souls. Lk.21:19 In Christ, al : Re:Doctrines of Demons : vernecarty February 13, 2005, 09:31:58 AM But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, Phil 2:7,8
To teach that the Lord Jesus Christ humbled Himself as a man, to add to power He already had is blasphemy. This teaching has been presented on SWTE website by one Sondra Quinlan, calling herself “Affirming” and demands her exposure and public condemnation as one preaching a perverted gospel. Philippians 2:7.8 tells us that Christ humbled Himself because He was human. Though He was fully God, He was also fully man. The proper posture for ALL men is one of humility, and that not as an instrument for acquisition of power... And being found in fashion as a man, He humbled Himself... To teach that Christ humbled himself to add to power He already had is to deny His essential deity. This is the spirit of Anti-Christ. To teach that Christ humbled Himself to add to power He already had is to trivialize the Biblical teaching of propitiation, and to heap cynical scorn on One who paid such an awful price, to loose us from our sins by His own blood. To teach that He humbled Himself, and became obedient to death, and that by a cross, for the acquisition of power, is to display a level of wickedness and perversion that hails straight from the bosom of one who determined that he would be like the most High. This is high blasphemy. I pray that God Almighty would put a stop to the slander of His Only Begotten Son. Verne : Re:Doctrines of Demons : M2 February 13, 2005, 10:07:00 AM Thanks for that explanation of the Scripture passage.
I must confess that I qualify as being one who sometimes "preaches a perverted gospel" too, because I am still re-learning a healthier perspective of the scriptures. I hope you will all bear with me as I get the Geftakys slant out of my system. God bless, Marcia : Re:Doctrines of Demons : Oscar February 13, 2005, 10:34:04 AM Folks,
I must admit that I am surprised to find out that the SWTE website is still up and running. A few months back someone mentioned it and I took a look. Seems there were about 4 or 5 posters who kept a discussion going between themselves by reading this website, lifting quotes of of our posts, and thing telling themselves what they thought of us. Can't say it seems like much fun....but....if that's what rings their chimes..... Regarding the interpretation of Phil. 2:7-8. Although I don't intend to read anything else off that site, what Verne is talking about is known as the "Kenosis" theory. It comes from the greek word "kenoo", meaning "to empty". However, the teaching of the passage is that Christ left his exalted heavenly place of honor and came to earth to live and die as a man. But the NT is clear that he is the eternal Word, fully a member of the Trinity, and fully participating in all the attributes of his essential deity. He definitely did not "empty" himself of any divine attributes. BTW, even false teacher George Geftakys had it right on this issue. This teaching arose in Germany shortly after 1860, and spread to England and America with a whole bunch of other lousy ideas. It has never been taught as orthodox Christian doctrine by any branch of Christianity. I can't say that I am sure that when someone like "Affirming" promotes this that it constitutes blasphemy. But it definitely constitutes Baloney. Thomas Maddux : Re:Doctrines of Demons : editor February 13, 2005, 11:09:52 AM Folks, I must admit that I am surprised to find out that the SWTE website is still up and running. A few months back someone mentioned it and I took a look. Seems there were about 4 or 5 posters who kept a discussion going between themselves by reading this website, lifting quotes of of our posts, and thing telling themselves what they thought of us. Can't say it seems like much fun....but....if that's what rings their chimes..... Regarding the interpretation of Phil. 2:7-8. Although I don't intend to read anything else off that site, what Verne is talking about is known as the "Kenosis" theory. It comes from the greek word "kenoo", meaning "to empty". However, the teaching of the passage is that Christ left his exalted heavenly place of honor and came to earth to live and die as a man. But the NT is clear that he is the eternal Word, fully a member of the Trinity, and fully participating in all the attributes of his essential deity. He definitely did not "empty" himself of any divine attributes. BTW, even false teacher George Geftakys had it right on this issue. This teaching arose in Germany shortly after 1860, and spread to England and America with a whole bunch of other lousy ideas. It has never been taught as orthodox Christian doctrine by any branch of Christianity. I can't say that I am sure that when someone like "Affirming" promotes this that it constitutes blasphemy. But it definitely constitutes Baloney. Thomas Maddux Sometimes people say things out of ignorance, sometimes they say things wrong in an attempt to communicate something else, other times they don't know any better. I think that one or more of the three things listed above took place on Affirmings quote, and Verne's passionate nature, combined with his beef with Affirming led to this. I don't think she's blaspheming, neither is she teaching a false gospel. She just didn't know the implications of the wording of what she said. A similiar thing happened recently with her ideas on three levels of heaven. It sounded Mormon, but that really wasn't what it was. Brent : Re:Doctrines of Demons : vernecarty February 13, 2005, 03:41:44 PM Thanks for that explanation of the Scripture passage. I must confess that I qualify as being one who sometimes "preaches a perverted gospel" too, because I am still re-learning a healthier perspective of the scriptures. I hope you will all bear with me as I get the Geftakys slant out of my system. God bless, Marcia There is a mighty difference - you never claimed to be prophetess... Verne p.s Tom I think we have to be careful in making assertions about what Jesus did or did not do so far as limiting Himself in human form. I am sure that you are aware that the so-called Kenotic theory of His humanity was held by many theologians. This is definitely one area in which language alone, as you have pointed out, cannot do full justice to what transpired. We know for example that God the Father knew things that God the Son did not. I for one to not believe the Son's omniscience was in any way lessened by His humanity. I simply do not fully understand it. : Re:Doctrines of Demons : M2 February 13, 2005, 06:24:24 PM I'd like to start a campaign for Verne Sondra and Matt to "kiss and make up" (those smilies don't work). Maybe when I get back another thread and a poll might be good.
In my previous post, I was attempting to demonstrate that I do not believe that Sondra is blaspheming, but rather that some of us are still re-learning or may need adjusting to our perspectives and hence may appear to be preaching a perverted gospel. Marcia : Re:Doctrines of Demons : vernecarty February 14, 2005, 02:30:10 AM I'd like to start a campaign for Verne Sondra and Matt to "kiss and make up" (those smilies don't work). Maybe when I get back another thread and a poll might be good. In my previous post, I was attempting to demonstrate that I do not believe that Sondra is blaspheming, but rather that some of us are still re-learning or may need adjusting to our perspectives and hence may appear to be preaching a perverted gospel. in Marcia It seems to me that you are forgetting a bit of history Marcia. Those two used to be a part of this posting community. They demonstrated themselves to all concerned not to be at all interested in honest debate, but rather engaged in a campaign of divisiveness, subterfuge, and outright viciousness. Ask Brent. Despite repeated appeals from the BB community, this kind of behaviour continued with the result that they were banned by Brian as trolls. On the BB they established, they took lying, slander, and giving of offense to new lows. What basis do you have for considering these people brethren? Had I thought that, I would have taken my concerns to them privately long ago. Nice thought though. Verne p.s. O.K. Here is one of many examples. Ms. Sondra Quinlan posted on her website that I was removed from leadership at CMA for teaching false doctrine. It does not matter whether she knew that to be true at the time or not, She is guilty of bearing false witness and will have to answer to God for her lies. Ler her deny it. : Re:Doctrines of Demons : vernecarty February 14, 2005, 08:07:49 AM Hi Verne, It's Sondra here. Hey, I think you know I am a believer and I think you also know I am re-married and that I have a new name. I think you know this applies just a little more salt in my wounds. I believe it has also been pretty well established in the past that I did not get "ousted" from this board. I was not disruptive, at all. I just didn't like the smugness and I didn't like the way older men who should know better were treating young men who were struggling with the Assembly 'meltdown'' so I stepped back and communicated privately with Matt. He was the only one that I could see had a real backbone. I blame the older who should have more control over themselves and should carry the young on their backs to utter exhaustion if necessary. Rather, you and a few others greatly contributed toward stumbling several young people in the name of Truth. That I am positive about. You have a good memory, you've proven that you do with incredible arrogance and pride, so what do you call this when you purposely misrepresent, hmmm? I do forgive you for all, however. I have developed a habit of letting things go since I have needed much forgiveness. I hope you will consider the same because we all have much to be forgiven of. Am I right? You are partly correct that perhaps I bore false witness against you re. the CMA, but we had one source who gave me this impression. But then after posting, we had several emails of people who don't post on either boards who gave us the full scoop. For you not to admit your wrong is very "gg"ish of you, Verne. You may not believe me when I say that I will always love the Verne I knew and know is still "in" you, but I think your love has grown cold. I love you in Christ...that love that can "see the diamond in the rough" not what you are, but what you could be if you would only put off that arrogant and hateful attitude. Bill O'Reilly has a name for you intellectuals that I quite like....pinheads. Why, do you suppose? Because it tends to bogg people down and confuses the facts. The Verne I used to know defied the "penhead" types. You were smart personified, but real and enjoyable. WHAT HAPPENED? "Judge not that you be not judged." A woman proclaiming scripture (prophesying) doesn't make me a "Prophetess" - the power of the Word carries the Word given to another by a believer. Well, here I am. You once insinuated that I was fearful and wouldn't/couldn't endure the scrutiny of real men in a community. I have absolutely "NO FEAR" of you or anyone on this board. I have simply chosen to be elsewhere. In some ways I am a daughter of George and Betty. I tried to keep the good. One thing I do - I do not allow fear and it has become a good habit that has opened doors that God told me to go through. But, you, Verne, I know you and I don't fear you. Sondra Jamison p.s. This is not meant as a "mud in your eye" post toward the Administrators or Moderators of this board. Please excuse me if I say I don't fear you. I do want to maintain respect and politeness with all. The "quote" mechanism is broken or else I'm goofing something up?? - so I took the quotes off. I have suggested to Sondra that we continue this conversation in private. A few things by way of response to what was posted. My use of her original married name was unintentional, and not meant as a slight. I am aware her last name is now Jamison. I do apologise for the error. With regard the the goings on at CMA. There are things only the former board members know. I know you have not spoken to any of them. There are things only the two former elders know. I know you have not spoken to Ralph Johnson. There are things that only I know, and which were not disclosed, not even to the other serving elder. You have not spoken to me. I would be extremely careful. The way you have so far responded to that particular offense leaves me a bit dismayed over the possiblilty of this going anywhere. We will see... Verne : Re:Doctrines of Demons : vernecarty February 14, 2005, 05:06:37 PM Hi All, I have responded to Verne that I would personally like to have this conversation on the public forum since the reason I am here is because Marcia and Brent suggested dialog. I don't mind talking with Verne if it will be helpful. Here is what the Bible says about two believers dealing with issues of offense Sondra: Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother Matt 18:15. As I indicated to you privately, the way I respond to you will depend on the matter of how I see your relationship with Christ. If you insist on a public discussion on these matters, I can only continue to assume based on your prior conduct that you are not saved and that Matthew 18:15 does not apply. I will also assume you are not intrested in resolving any disagreement between us, but in winning a public debate. Either way, you are welcome to take your best shot, but be prepared... Why did you call me an adulteress? (even if you don't think I am saved, for example?).....not to mention all of the other colorful names??? Do you believe as GG does that men and women only have one shot at marriage. If one is divorced and remarried - they are an adulteress? Is that it, or would there be another reason you would say such a thing? I didn't sleep with you now did I? If I had slept with someone, you certainly would not have been invited to the rendevous. So, now, please explain yourself to me and all others if you don't mind. The answer to this one is easy and it does not matter whether you are saved or not. What I said was clearly said in anger and frankly a cheap shot intended to insult you. That was wrong and for that I apologise. What I think about your marital situation is irrelevant, I don't want to disucss CMA in this context as I do not think it would be useful. I suggest we go back to the very beginning of our exchanges on this BB (the posts are still here!) and deal with each item. Again, my assumption is that we are not following the Biblical pattern for resolving of differences among brethren, but simply having a discussion about the relative merits of positions that you and I have taken on matters over which we disagree. One of your earliest declarations on the BB, and which led to most of the subsequent acrimony, was to pronounce GG "The Lord's servant." Is that still your position based on the facts now at your disposal? Here is the very first thing I said to you after you came on the BB using a pseudonym. You knew who I was and your response was not to identify yourself as a sister in Christ or to take up any issue you had with me personally. You immediately tried to embarrass me by posting the PM I sent on the public forum. There is something terribly wrong with you...your invoking pseudo-spiritual language does not mask the obvious deep spiritual scars you bear...what exactly did George do to you madam? Your representing a man of this level of depravity as God's servant betrays a spiritual darkness that I find startling. I see you for exactly what you are...a vessel of wrath. Verne : Re:Doctrines of Demons : M2 February 14, 2005, 06:20:24 PM ... Well, here I am. You once insinuated that I was fearful and wouldn't/couldn't endure the scrutiny of real men in a community. I have absolutely "NO FEAR" of you or anyone on this board. I have simply chosen to be elsewhere. In some ways I am a daughter of George and Betty. I tried to keep the good. One thing I do - I do not allow fear and it has become a good habit that has opened doors that God told me to go through. But, you, Verne, I know you and I don't fear you. Sondra Jamison p.s. This is not meant as a "mud in your eye" post toward the Administrators or Moderators of this board. Please excuse me if I say I don't fear you. I do want to maintain respect and politeness with all. Hi ruth (Sondra), I do not want to butt in to your conversation with Verne. Please explain your comment that I highlighted. Marcia : Re:Doctrines of Demons : M2 February 14, 2005, 08:24:23 PM ... Well, here I am. You once insinuated that I was fearful and wouldn't/couldn't endure the scrutiny of real men in a community. I have absolutely "NO FEAR" of you or anyone on this board. I have simply chosen to be elsewhere. In some ways I am a daughter of George and Betty. I tried to keep the good. One thing I do - I do not allow fear and it has become a good habit that has opened doors that God told me to go through. But, you, Verne, I know you and I don't fear you. Sondra Jamison p.s. This is not meant as a "mud in your eye" post toward the Administrators or Moderators of this board. Please excuse me if I say I don't fear you. I do want to maintain respect and politeness with all. Hi ruth (Sondra), I do not want to butt in to your conversation with Verne. Please explain your comment that I highlighted. Marcia Hi Marcia, I don't mind fielding this one question since it's you - but otherwise, I will be handy on SWTE. Generally, I came over to have a little conference with my old friend, Verne. I have already talked about this on SWTE. I am of the persuasion that no matter how many times we face the corner and repeat, "I am not a child of G & B" - we will be. It's perspective more than things of the memory or things we can control with our wills. GG & BG are in my head and I hear them in the heads and hearts of most people on these boards....in attitudes, vocabulary, perspective, spirit, etc. Like it or not, when you sit through as many meetings, counsel, pray, worship with, receive the Word from, not to mention all the people we were friends with doing the same....how easy do YOU think it is to suddenly be someone else? If it was just our thought life, it would be one thing...but no, it's perspective we pick up when one combs through every topic in the universe over 12-35 years. Perspective stays over a lifetime when all else can be changed. I think perspective can be changed, but it tends to change very slowly and almost not as a part of our will. Perspective seems to be "what I am really, deeply convinced of." Just some thoughts...not the gospel. Now, see, I learned a lot from GG (and Betty). They made mistakes, but I see that as with Joseph, God uses not only the good, but the painful, even errors of others in our lives for good. I have only love in my heart from George and Betty. Did I leave? Yes. But I grew up and put away childish things. God called me out of my father's house. Ps 45:10-11 Hearken, O daughter, and consider, and incline thine ear; forget also thine own people, and thy father's house; 11 So shall the king greatly desire thy beauty: for he is thy Lord; and worship thou him. God is the author and finisher of our faith. We need to look forward and drive forward. To continue to complain about the instruments God used is to argue with Him. Hadawouldaknown....but you didn't...and for a reason...you needed what you got....if not to learn the positives of things - to learn the negatives. This, IMO, is the "Law" phase of our Christian lives. We naturally fall right into it, because rationalizing and reasoning we know. It is spiritual we don't know and can't know until we fall long and hard on our faces. Then there is an "awakening" in the soul....this is God's doing. Isn't the "I will never do that again" as important as what I will do. It comes down to the teaching of the will. He's got to get our will's in line with His ways. How can He do that without hurting us...without pain? So, yes. I have stopped fighting it, knowing that GG and BG are in me just as my natural parents are. I keep the good and question and resist the wrong/bad/limited. Verne is full of GG and needs to recognize it or he will have a whole life of misery in that particular area. Judging people, high-mindedness, etc. This was some of the worst of GG and sons tend to pick up on aggression from their fathers, it seems. Not believing people when they tell you something, always arguing with them, putting them in a little slot that is only real in your own mind, living full of questions and doubts. This is the world and not the Spirit of God. sj Thank you Sondra, I appreciate your responding to this on AB for a couple of reasons. Firstly, you posted the statement here, and secondly, I have a pretty good idea what I can and cannot say on AB, but am still figuring out the SWTE rules. I think it is great that you and Verne are taking the initiative towards reconciliation. I found this statement particularly insightful: GG & BG are in my head and I hear them in the heads and hearts of most people on these boards....in attitudes, vocabulary, perspective, spirit, etc. Like it or not, when you sit through as many meetings, counsel, pray, worship with, receive the Word from, not to mention all the people we were friends with doing the same....how easy do YOU think it is to suddenly be someone else? If it was just our thought life, it would be one thing...but no, it's perspective we pick up when one combs through every topic in the universe over 12-35 years. Perspective stays over a lifetime when all else can be changed. I think perspective can be changed, but it tends to change very slowly and almost not as a part of our will. Isn't it interesting the lasting effects of our time in the assembly. Some of us were there for a very short time and yet it has had this effect on us. It does take a concerted effort to weed out the bad. Also interesting is the fact that we had very little actual contact with GG and BG, and yet they have had such a lasting influence upon us. God bless, Marcia : Re:Doctrines of Demonic Men : M2 February 14, 2005, 11:54:20 PM Why did you call me an adulteress? (even if you don't think I am saved, for example?).....not to mention all of the other colorful names??? Do you believe as GG does that men and women only have one shot at marriage. If one is divorced and remarried - they are an adulteress? Is that it, or would there be another reason you would say such a thing? I didn't sleep with you now did I? If I had slept with someone, you certainly would not have been invited to the rendezvous. So, now, please explain yourself to me and all others if you don't mind. The answer to this one is easy and it does not matter whether you are saved or not. What I said was clearly said in anger and frankly a cheap shot intended to insult you. That was wrong and for that I apologies. What I think about your marital situation is irrelevant, I don't want to discuss CMA in this context as I do not think it would be useful. Surely I will not have to fill the post with repeats. I said, "I know all I want to know about that incident. It's not a mystery like you make it sound. Many do know the particulars and I've heard enough to know that there were serious mistakes made re. Pastor Jon." I suggest we go back to the very beginning of our exchanges on this BB (the posts are still here!) and deal with each item. Again, my assumption is that we are not following the Biblical pattern for resolving of differences among brethren, but simply having a discussion about the relative merits of positions that you and I have taken on matters over which we disagree. One of your earliest declarations on the BB, and which led to most of the subsequent acrimony, was to pronounce GG "The Lord's servant." Is that still your position based on the facts now at your disposal? I have written 'a book' on it. You have written 'a library of books' on the subject. Instead of rehashing, repeating - why don't you just read my 'book.' www.soaringwiththeeagles.com ?? Besides, why would my opinion be important to a believer on such a subject. I know I wouldn't want to discuss such a subject with an unbeliever? Here is the very first thing I said to you after you came on the BB using a pseudonym. You knew who I was and your response was not to identify yourself as a sister in Christ or to take up any issue you had with me personally. You immediately tried to embarrass me by posting the PM I sent on the public forum. If I was a sister in Christ or if I was a woman of ill repute, you should not have spoken in the tone you did to me and you should not have said what you said. I will not take secret, mean spirited handling by men and keep their dirty little secrets. I manage my life and do not leave it for others to abuse in secret. The anointing of the Lord is precious. There's nothing I enjoy more than waving their dirty underwear in the wind for all to see/hear so they may be ashamed and turn from their wicked ways. Btw. Speaking of private emails - I heard through the MP grapevine that you quoted me in a private email to Matt and to Luke re. my statement that I couldn't understand why grown, middle-aged men were so indignant and impatient with younger men...that my husband enjoys younger men and spends time trying to train them, teach them, help them...something along that line. You emailed both Matt and Luke and said, "You had better watch Sondra's husband - he likes young men." (with a big wink). That's call taunting, a deliberate effort to stumble. You felt safe because you knew that two younger brothers would certainly not post your private email that would point to an issue of homosexuality. Young men are esp. sensitive to these kind of issues. Now is that something a man of God does? To go out of your way to humiliate young men who are interested in the things of God? Many were hurting and felt desperate and confused at that time. You were an 'elder' in a church and had been out of the assy for many years. So much for private emails. And if that's what a Believer does, my preference would be to live on an island with Leprous Unbelievers, Verne. This destroys credibility when you are a different person in secret than in the open. There should not be such a wide discrepancy. What you are in secret IS what you are in private when you think no one (of significance) is looking. God AND SONDRA (sometimes) sees in secret and shouts it from the housetops. Are we all sinners and vulnerable and make mistakes and are ashamed? :-[ Yes, but with one who is so pious, ::) :P "KJ sounding,"railing, condemning of the Lord's people who disagree with you?? my gloves come off. There is something terribly wrong with you...your invoking pseudo-spiritual language does not mask the obvious deep spiritual scars you bear...what exactly did George do to you madam? Madam? Madam? Who talks like this? It's more important to be like the Lord than to mimic the language of the KJV of the NT. Ok, now for what you said, again, read the book on SWTE.Your representing a man of this level of depravity as God's servant betrays a spiritual darkness that I find startling. I see you for exactly what you are...a vessel of wrath. Verne Well, the proof is in "the pudding" I guess. All I can see is a frustrated man who doesn't have the key to giving life to others and sows seeds of death and meets with rejection of his word. Frustration sets in for one who wants to be followed when he doesn't have followers because the cubboards are bare or what is there is sour. One cannot give life if he does not have life. One who does not have life needs to go to the Well and drink from the Well of Living Water and stop memorizing new terms, thoughts, philosophies, etc. One who is full cannot be filled and so must (here's where the word empty does work well) - EMPTY himself so he might be filled. Memory knowledge can only assist our spiritual lives in God. It cannot BE that life. Go to the Well one cannot drink if they will not die to their own self-love, self-service, and self-preservation. You stumble at the Cornerstone as did our father - if you will not humble yourself and become as a simple little child. I pray one day you will say that you know nothing of the Christ and I gladly say today. I only have a thimble full. [/size] Hi Sondra, I am not taking sides here, but I am having a difficult time reconciling your posts re. forgiveness, and your response to Verne here. Please explain. Marcia : Re: : sfortescue February 15, 2005, 09:31:14 AM Romans 15:1-3,7
We then that are strong ought to bear the infirmities of the weak, and not to please ourselves. Let every one of us please his neighbour for his good to edification. For even Christ pleased not himself; but, as it is written, The reproaches of them that reproached thee fell on me. ... Wherefore receive ye one another, as Christ also received us to the glory of God. : Re:Doctrines of Demons : M2 February 15, 2005, 10:24:11 AM Why did you call me an adulteress? (even if you don't think I am saved, for example?).....not to mention all of the other colorful names??? Do you believe as GG does that men and women only have one shot at marriage. If one is divorced and remarried - they are an adulteress? Is that it, or would there be another reason you would say such a thing? I didn't sleep with you now did I? If I had slept with someone, you certainly would not have been invited to the rendezvous. So, now, please explain yourself to me and all others if you don't mind. The answer to this one is easy and it does not matter whether you are saved or not. What I said was clearly said in anger and frankly a cheap shot intended to insult you. That was wrong and for that I apologies. What I think about your marital situation is irrelevant, I don't want to discuss CMA in this context as I do not think it would be useful. Surely I will not have to fill the post with repeats. I said, "I know all I want to know about that incident. It's not a mystery like you make it sound. Many do know the particulars and I've heard enough to know that there were serious mistakes made re. Pastor Jon." I suggest we go back to the very beginning of our exchanges on this BB (the posts are still here!) and deal with each item. Again, my assumption is that we are not following the Biblical pattern for resolving of differences among brethren, but simply having a discussion about the relative merits of positions that you and I have taken on matters over which we disagree. One of your earliest declarations on the BB, and which led to most of the subsequent acrimony, was to pronounce GG "The Lord's servant." Is that still your position based on the facts now at your disposal? I have written 'a book' on it. You have written 'a library of books' on the subject. Instead of rehashing, repeating - why don't you just read my 'book.' www.soaringwiththeeagles.com ?? Besides, why would my opinion be important to a believer on such a subject. I know I wouldn't want to discuss such a subject with an unbeliever? Here is the very first thing I said to you after you came on the BB using a pseudonym. You knew who I was and your response was not to identify yourself as a sister in Christ or to take up any issue you had with me personally. You immediately tried to embarrass me by posting the PM I sent on the public forum. If I was a sister in Christ or if I was a woman of ill repute, you should not have spoken in the tone you did to me and you should not have said what you said. I will not take secret, mean spirited handling by men and keep their dirty little secrets. I manage my life and do not leave it for others to abuse in secret. The anointing of the Lord is precious. There's nothing I enjoy more than waving their dirty underwear in the wind for all to see/hear so they may be ashamed and turn from their wicked ways. Btw. Speaking of private emails - I heard through the MP grapevine that you quoted me in a private email to Matt and to Luke re. my statement that I couldn't understand why grown, middle-aged men were so indignant and impatient with younger men...that my husband enjoys younger men and spends time trying to train them, teach them, help them...something along that line. You emailed both Matt and Luke and said, "You had better watch Sondra's husband - he likes young men." (with a big wink). That's call taunting, a deliberate effort to stumble. You felt safe because you knew that two younger brothers would certainly not post your private email that would point to an issue of homosexuality. Young men are esp. sensitive to these kind of issues. Now is that something a man of God does? To go out of your way to humiliate young men who are interested in the things of God? Many were hurting and felt desperate and confused at that time. You were an 'elder' in a church and had been out of the assy for many years. So much for private emails. And if that's what a Believer does, my preference would be to live on an island with Leprous Unbelievers, Verne. This destroys credibility when you are a different person in secret than in the open. There should not be such a wide discrepancy. What you are in secret IS what you are in private when you think no one (of significance) is looking. God AND SONDRA (sometimes) sees in secret and shouts it from the housetops. Are we all sinners and vulnerable and make mistakes and are ashamed? :-[ Yes, but with one who is so pious, ::) :P "KJ sounding,"railing, condemning of the Lord's people who disagree with you?? my gloves come off. There is something terribly wrong with you...your invoking pseudo-spiritual language does not mask the obvious deep spiritual scars you bear...what exactly did George do to you madam? Madam? Madam? Who talks like this? It's more important to be like the Lord than to mimic the language of the KJV of the NT. Ok, now for what you said, again, read the book on SWTE.Your representing a man of this level of depravity as God's servant betrays a spiritual darkness that I find startling. I see you for exactly what you are...a vessel of wrath. Verne Well, the proof is in "the pudding" I guess. All I can see is a frustrated man who doesn't have the key to giving life to others and sows seeds of death and meets with rejection of his word. Frustration sets in for one who wants to be followed when he doesn't have followers because the cubboards are bare or what is there is sour. One cannot give life if he does not have life. One who does not have life needs to go to the Well and drink from the Well of Living Water and stop memorizing new terms, thoughts, philosophies, etc. One who is full cannot be filled and so must (here's where the word empty does work well) - EMPTY himself so he might be filled. Memory knowledge can only assist our spiritual lives in God. It cannot BE that life. Go to the Well one cannot drink if they will not die to their own self-love, self-service, and self-preservation. You stumble at the Cornerstone as did our father - if you will not humble yourself and become as a simple little child. I pray one day you will say that you know nothing of the Christ and I gladly say today. I only have a thimble full. Sondra, you said, "God AND SONDRA (sometimes) sees in secret and shouts it from the housetops." Are you referring to the private emails here? I am curious as to why you changed and re-posted after spending most of the day defending the other post? Marcia : Re: : sfortescue February 15, 2005, 10:40:50 AM I am curious as to why you changed and re-posted after spending most of the day defending the other post? Marcia I didn't notice anything changed. I'm speculating that the BB malfunctioned and changed the date of her post. I hope the BB administrators make backup copies of the database, since the server may crash. : Re:Doctrines of Demons : M2 February 15, 2005, 11:05:44 AM I am curious as to why you changed and re-posted after spending most of the day defending the other post? Marcia I didn't notice anything changed. I'm speculating that the BB malfunctioned and changed the date of her post. I hope the BB administrators make backup copies of the database, since the server may crash. My mistake. No the BB did not malfunction. Sondra, you said, "God AND SONDRA (sometimes) sees in secret and shouts it from the housetops." I don't know what you are talking about here.Are you referring to the private emails here? I am curious as to why you changed and re-posted after spending most of the day defending the other post? Marcia I am really trying to have a conversation with Verne, Marcia. I did not change my post...to my knowledge unless I quoted the wrong one or something?? Don't believe I did. I merely moved it to the top so Verne could see it. Is that against an AB rule? I heard anything goes over here. Why are you jumping to a conclusion re. my honesty in posting. Yes, I defended my posts. It would effect no one as adversely as it would me if I lost it or messed it up. So why don't you find a good book or something to occupy yourself and let me manage my own account on this board? If I get what I came for I will be outahere soon. I really think you need to open your own board. You would be a good manager. Actually, I think Brian Tucker should turn this one over to you. This one seems to be limping like an old pirate. Btw. I have witnessed Verne change, edit, alter, a gazillion posts and I don't ever remember you mentioning a thing to him. What about the - who knows how many posts he deleted completely - leaving big holes in threads....little was said. If I have messed up the post, I am sorry for myself...because it took a lot of effort to write it. I have no intension of being dishonest in my posting. No offense, but bug off, will ya? Sondra You usually write "on edit" when you make a change, but this was my mistake so I apologize to you. re. "seeing in secret" I am puzzled. Maybe you were referring to the private/secret email that you saw. But you don't have to respond, unless you really want to. Marcia : Re: : al Hartman February 15, 2005, 11:29:54 AM I hope the BB administrators make backup copies of the database, since the server may crash. Stephen, Just curious: Is a server crash anything like a stock market crash? Will those who are responsible jump out of the latest version of Windows? al : Re:Dealing with Delusions : moonflower2 February 15, 2005, 04:11:35 PM If I get what I came for I will be outahere soon. Sondra How much? : Re:Doctrines of Demons : outdeep February 15, 2005, 08:53:12 PM Some people end the discussion because they have no backbone. Others end the discussion because conditions are such that there is no hope for a solution and the participants are merely wasting everyone's time and energy.
Feel free to believe whichever you like. : Re:Dealing with Delusions & Deceit : moonflower2 February 15, 2005, 09:04:41 PM I'm here to get something, it's true. I'm here to get the TRUTH. Oh yes, what is Truth? My version of truth is not telling lies, for starters. Delusions can then be overcome. Now we see what we are dealing with. Where are the - well, I won't use the word Verne uses to crow about his great bravery and heroism....we'll just call it backbone? Private Message from Verne Re:(No subject) on: Today at 07:53:14am It is my own conviction that the honoring thing to the Lord at this time,would be to forego any further discussion with you Ms. Jamison. Go in peace. Verne This feels a little like when I was a kid and my little brother would come up and slug me in the middle of the back and then, when judgment came close - he wasn't interested in talking about it....usually my mom was very interested in the conversation, however. This proves it. If George himself came on the board, Verne would be instantly sick. Some people on this board would perhaps have the balance to enter into a discussion. Verne would silence and go dumb. Big talk. No, (clears throat), backbone. This is not about "honoring the Lord." This is what Verne did his whole time in the assy, as I remember. He hid. If he can't criticize - GG, DG, SJ, MP, on and on...he has nothing to talk about. That's Calvinism at it's best. When Calvinist's get in too deep with someone - their out is - "oh well, he/she is not even saved." What happened to your shepherd who would lay down his life for the sheep? Where could he be? He's pretending to take the high ground when it's nothing, but cowardice and spiritual weakness. I think of words he has used to describe himself in the past. Fearless. Valiant. Dauntless. Tough. Brave. Ok, he didn't come right out and say.... but no one questions he MOL boasted about his own attributes with the backdrop of "the incompetence of the Leading Brothers"...on and on. No one here has loved Verne. He has been used. The love that helps a brother like this was demonstrated in the Assembly. Yes, there were problems, errors, find me a church/denomination who doesn't have them? And then there's the secret sins of GG over many years. All suffer when this type of things happens. But there were many positive things in the Assemblies that met needs in people's lives. I fear that Verne's weakness has been fed through this forum. He has not been loved. Love confronts and heals people. Love maintains boundaries. Verne's membership on AB is the equivalent of hiring an alcoholic to work in the the local pub. May as well just hook up an IV. Sondra Jamison, Admin. Soaringwiththeeagles.Com [/size] Hopefully, this will be the last post from George Geftakys, er, Sondra. : Re:Doctrines of Demons : faith February 15, 2005, 09:56:06 PM personally...I don't mind heat at all. It's wind that I really find irritating.
: Re:Doctrines of Demons : M2 February 15, 2005, 11:08:50 PM Sondra, I am truly disappointed that you outed an annonymous poster. You wouldn't even let me speculate as to the location/habitat of your annonymous poster. I never intended to out yours. Though I have a pretty good idea who he is, I set up the conversation to give him the opportunity to tell me for himself. BTW you should tell him to change his pseudonym because his initials stink.
Sondra this kind of thing smells like spite and malice. Where is the practical apllication of all that you hae preached on your website? and you call yourself a teacher of the Lord's people? Selah! Marcia P.S. Sondra, I am quite amazed at how unforgiving you are. You call George Geftakys "the Lord's Servant" and cannot tolerate some "strong language" from another. You claim to know(sometimes) the secrets of another, even as God does. That borders on blasphemy. You said, "Love confronts and heals people." Do you really truly believe this? or does this only apply when it suits your agenda? Do you think this applies to the LBs/LBWs/workers and wannabees and other faithful GeftakysServants? Marcia : Re:Doctrines of Demons : vernecarty February 15, 2005, 11:29:04 PM Finally, my brethren, be strong in the Lord, and in the power of his might. Put on the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil.
For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places. Wherefore take unto you the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand. Ephesians 6:10-13 Verne : Re:Doctrines of Demons : outdeep February 15, 2005, 11:58:08 PM Finally, my brethren, be strong in the Lord, and in the power of his might. Put on the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil. Great, Verne. That's a verse in the Bible all right. What are we saying here?For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places. Wherefore take unto you the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand. Ephesians 6:10-13 Verne : Re:Doctrines of Demons : vernecarty February 16, 2005, 12:36:07 AM Finally, my brethren, be strong in the Lord, and in the power of his might. Put on the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil. Great, Verne. That's a verse in the Bible all right. What are we saying here?For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places. Wherefore take unto you the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand. Ephesians 6:10-13 Verne Is it not interesting how often the sacred and the secular intersect? I once suggested that every Christian should learn how to handle a sword and Tom queried me as to why I thought so. The Word of God is compared to a two-edged sword. Lessons in swordplay all begin with some kind of weapon surrogate, usually hickory. After many months of prepatory instruction, the student eventually moves on to a dull blade, and then eventually the real article. I told Tom the thing that you learn very quickly when handling a double- edged blade is how to be extremely careful. The analogy to the Word of God is most apt. A well-known warrior (Sun Tzu) wrote a treatise in which he maintained that most battles were decided even before the combatants took the field, and that the thinking, or will, is truly where the conflict is decided. Satan fully understands this. Many Christians do not. Don't let folks, particularly hostile ones, into your head... Understand the true nature of the enemy... Choose your weapons carefully... Verne : Re: Good Idea. No Title is Better Than That One. : M2 February 16, 2005, 01:04:12 AM ... Ok. Let's put it back on Marcia here re. anon. You seem to only mind anonymity when someone is anon. who disagrees with YOU. Matt's and my board allows it and protects anon.- this one doesn't. These two have been posting anon. for a long time and you're cool with that, but you have been trying to yell at Bob for it. You are a member of our board which does allow anon. I hope you value your membership, if not, go ahead and out him. But, this board allows it - don't you see the distinction? ... You are right that SWTE protects annonymous posters and this board has no such rule. I knew that Sondra, and I could have used my rights on this board to out your Bob Smith, but I did not. It wasn't because I was afraid of losing my membership on SWTE Sondra. Like I said before, I wanted to give Bob the opportunity to tell me himself so I set up the conversation with that in mind. I do not remember yelling at him. Marcia : Re: : M2 February 16, 2005, 01:29:01 AM :-X Cat got your tongue? No. I am thinking about whether we should talk about the days that you used to wait on tables for a living... Verne I have to agree with Sondra that I do not see the fruit of repentance Verne. Marcia : Re:Doctrines of Demons : editor February 16, 2005, 02:45:16 AM I'm starting to think that you too haven't liked eachother for a while.
Honestly, I think that Sondra has made it clear, she was hurt by Verne's speech towards her. She has made it clear that she forgives him, she only wants him to own up to it, and stop it. Although it's not my problem, I really think the whole thing would be resolved quickly if you would just humble yourself, Verne. I've had to do it plenty of times, and I really don't think you can go wrong with humility, especially when you have said something you shouldn't. Brent : Re: Good Idea. No Title is Better Than That One. : M2 February 16, 2005, 03:18:49 AM ... I just rec'd an email from a dear man yesterday who I haven't seen in a zillion years - commenting on this. People are living in exile because of the verbal terriorism. They cry because of the hurtful stuff you guys say. What about them? Tell him that Tarsus is the wrong direction. Marcia P.S. Verne that is up to you and Sondra to not subject us to this any more. Frankly, I am tired of it and would love to see it settled. Marcia : Re:Doctrines of Demons : editor February 16, 2005, 03:23:34 AM Verne,
I don't know what Marcia thinks about this idea. It all got started because I was being told I had an agenda, and a double standard, one example being that I let you on the board when you lie and slander, etc. I thought it was about CMA, which I knew nothing about. It turns out it's about your speech, which you admit was wrong. Why not just own the words you already spoke, and make peace? It seems the ball is in your court now, why not hit it back and be done with the whole thing? I can't see how a fued profits anyone. It certainly is uncomfortable for everyone involved. Brent : Re: : al Hartman February 16, 2005, 03:30:13 AM Humble yourseves therefore under the mighty hand of God, that He may exalt you in due time*: Casting all your care upon Him; for He careth for you. 1Pet.5:6-7 Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man sows, that shall he also reap. For he that sows to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that sows to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting. And let us not be weary in well doing: for in due season* we shall reap, if we faint not. Gal.6:7-9. *In your patience possess your souls. Lk.21:19 Perhaps a little honesty would be refreshing. Repent therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord. Ac.3:19 Not honesty, but Truth is what is missing from this thread. Where in all this bickering is the presence of the Lord? He alone can provide true refreshing. Ms. Jamison came on the BB for the express purpose of goading the "great" (in the eyes of some) Verne Carty into a tawdry and vulgar exchange. Look at your posts. Yes, look. Begin with the post that opened this thread. Mrs. Jamison has been registered on this board as Ruth for weeks & has observed in silence. Athough one can hardly imagine that she registered without intent to post eventually (she has always been free to read the board as a guest), she first posted in response to commentary by Verne Carty about her posting on the SWTEBB, which she administrates. They have really elevated the level of discussion on the BB have they not? Well apparently your intended victim can indeed excercise a bit more restraint than you gave him credit for as your ploy is not going to work. Is this latest post an example of that restraint, Verne? Does it "elevate the level of discussion" here? It is my guess that unless you make a graceful exit the moderators will show you the door. I am not, as I indicated, having any discussion with you. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't directing conversation toward Mrs. Jamison in response to her own words (as in the above quote) "having discussion" with her? Now are you going to give the details or must I? Verne "Must," Verne? "MUST" you? Are these details good to the use of edifying, and will they minister grace to the hearers? (Eph.4:29) A good man out of the good treasure of his heart brings forth that which is good; and an evil man out of the evil treasure of his heart brings forth that which is evis: for of the abundance of his heart his mouth speaks, Lk.6:45 Be not deceived: evil communications corrupt good manners. Awake to righteousness, and sin not; for some have not the knowledge of God: I speak this to your shame. 1Cor.15:33-34 Now no chastening for the present seems to be joyous, but grievous: nevertheless, *afterward it yields the peaceful fruit of righteousness *unto those who are exercised thereby. Wherefore strengthen the hands that hang down, and the weak knees; And make straight paths for your feet, lest that which is lame be turned away; but let it rather be healed. Follow peace with all, and holiness, without which no one shall see the Lord: Looking diligently lest any man fail of the grace of God; lest any root of bitterness springing up trouble, and thereby many become defiled. Heb.12:11-15 I hope that Sonja will read this and take it just as seriously as I hope Verne will. The idea that one can toss about insults and accusations, either at or before God's people with the disclaimer that she will apologize later, after she has "made her point" is disgraceful (and I mean that in the sense that God's grace is utterly absent from such a gesture). Jesus said "Go and sin no more[/u]." Moreover, in all her posts on this thread Sonja has mentioned Christ by name once, and the name of Jesus not at all. All that blather about "knowing God" and "the spirit" can be commonly heard among unbelievers and apostates. And their being interspersed with such taunting, badgering, unlovely drivel (whether or not she believes it is deserved) makes their source all the more suspect. Beware of anyone who is ashamed of the name of Jesus Christ. Before anyone takes seriously anything you have to say, Sondra, it is reasonable to request that you post: 1. Who do you say that Jesus is? 2. What is the "good news" which the Bible calls the Gospel? Because of Jesus Christ, al Hartman : Re:Doctrines of Demons : editor February 16, 2005, 03:46:34 AM Verne, I don't know what Marcia thinks about this idea. It all got started because I was being told I had an agenda, and a double standard, one example being that I let you on the board when you lie and slander, etc. I thought it was about CMA, which I knew nothing about. It turns out it's about your speech, which you admit was wrong. Why not just own the words you already spoke, and make peace? It seems the ball is in your court now, why not hit it back and be done with the whole thing? I can't see how a fued profits anyone. It certainly is uncomfortable for everyone involved. Brent Brent I consider you a man of discernment. Do you really think that this woman came onto this web-site for an apology? Read the thread again before you answer. Verne p.s. you would do well to look at what has transpired since she has arrived before you start assigning culpability my friend. I don't know if she has a hidden motive, but I do understand plain speech. You should apologize for the things you have said about her, as she has mentioned. Apparently, it really hurt her, and certainly didn't help in any way. What she does is something you have no control over. All you can do is what is right, which is repent and apologize for cheap shots, and not do it again. You don't need to have her over for dinner, Verne, all you need to do is ask yourself if what you said was right or not, and act appropriately. Bro, humility is never wrong. Brent : Re:Doctrines of Demons : vernecarty February 16, 2005, 07:43:14 AM I will leave Ms Jamison in the tender loving care of those of you who enjoy this sort of thing.
Sayonara... Verne p.s come to think of it, it must have been what she was after in the first place! Anyway, I needed the break. : Re:Doctrines of Demons : editor February 16, 2005, 08:06:54 AM I will levave Ms Jamison in the tender loving care of those of you who enjoy this sort of thing. Sayonara... Verne p.s come to think of it, it must have been what she was after in the first place! Anyway, I needed the break. We must give account for every word, according to the Bible. I think that includes Sondra, Verne and possibly even me. If I offend someone needlessly, as a result of unedifying speech, I want to be quick to apologize. This doesn't mean that I say I'm sorry for everything I say that bothers someone. Far from it. What I mean is that if I lie, misrepresent, or purposefully do nothing more than hurt someone, I want to have to courage and humility to own it, and make it right. How can anyone share the love of Christ effectively if they will not go the extra mile to humble themselves for calling someone names? That is a relatively little thing, that is embarrassing and hurtful, yet even a little thing like that can render a persons unique gifts ineffective. Brent : Re: : al Hartman February 16, 2005, 09:25:07 AM Dear Al, ...To answer your questions -- Before anyone takes seriously anything you have to say, Sondra, it is reasonable to request that you post: 1. Who do you say that Jesus is? Read my book. It's on line. www.soaringwiththeeagles.com It's all in my book. 2. What is the "good news" which the Bible calls the Gospel? Read my book. It's on line. www.soaringwiththeeagles.com It's all in my book. [/size] I apologize for inadequately stating my point, Sondra: Before you ask anyone to take you seriously on this board, You should answer those two questions on this board. It's just a common courtesy. You have been unhindered by any of us as you freely and repeatedly invite the readers here to come over to your BB and read your "book." I have been there, and I have stopped going there well over a year ago for reasons that I have stated more than once. I also cannot recommend that anyone visit the SWTE site, and have counselled against it. Even the few quotes that you have brought onto this thread are unsavory in my opinion. But that's just my opinion. Your unwillingness to say who you think that Jesus Christ is and what you believe the Gospel to be says far more about you than I could. I am not engaged in a power struggle with you. If you have control issues, I won't be joining you in a verbal wrestling match. But there surely must be a more valid reason for your refusal to speak here of Jesus Christ and His Gospel than that you have written a book elsewhere. I have never heard of a Christian author who wasn't delighted to speak of his/her Redeemer at any opportunity... It is pleasant to see that your tenure at SWTE has made you a much clearer communicator. I, too, have changed a lot since you and I first exchanged PMs & EMs, and I owe much of my spiritual growth to hard lessons I have been taught on this board. You may have forgot that my early days here were spent taking a hammering for stating the good things I had learned from GG & the assy. Tom M. has also stated that he learned from GG's ministry. These statements are not popular here. I was also severely castigated by the powers that then ruled this board, for sticking up for Matt & Luke when others criticized them. I felt like I was being drawn & quartered, but I slowly learned that our Lord would not forsake me during those times, and ultimately I was edified by such experiences. The GABB is certainly not a perfect place. The problem with it is that all the posters are people, and people have problems, baggage, hangups... But that's really as good as it gets in this life: our God is changing us from glory to glory, but there are more changes needed than a mere lifetime can allow for, so none of us are going to be perfect until that glorious Day of the Lord. Here is a post from SWTE to get you started-- Quote from: al Hartman on Today at 05:30:13pm Moreover, in all her posts on this thread Sonja has mentioned Christ by name once, and the name of Jesus not at all. All that blather about "knowing God" and "the spirit" can be commonly heard among unbelievers and apostates. And their being interspersed with such taunting, badgering, unlovely drivel (whether or not she believes it is deserved) makes their source all the more suspect. Beware of anyone who is ashamed of the name of Jesus Christ. Before anyone takes seriously anything you have to say, Sondra, it is reasonable to request that you post: 1. Who do you say that Jesus is? 2. What is the "good news" which the Bible calls the Gospel? Because of Jesus Christ, al Hartman General Category / General Topics / Re:What or Who Is A Believer & How Do You Recognize One? on: Today at 06:35:17pm Started by Affirming | Last post by Bob Smith Mr. Alvin, What is that supposed to mean. Are you implying Sondra isn't saved? That she is an unbeliever? That is isn't a child of God? That she is a heretic? That she is the unfruitful works of darkness? You see, that is what Verne calls her. No, Sir. What I said to Verne was addressed to Verne. What I said to Sondra was addressed to her, and has nothing whatever to do with Verne. If she has an axe to grind with him, it should be done decently and in order, not publicly, where it can confuse and discourage the Lord's little ones. If Verne owes her a public apology, there is a proper way to go about getting it, and a consequence if he is deemed guilty and refuses to comply. Any implications you may have drawn from my words are your own responsibility. I said only what I meant to say, and I only meant what I actually said. Now lets suppose that all of that were true. What difference does that make? Does that mean Verne is justified in his verbal slander? Being saved is not a prerequisite to being treated with respect, is it? If you truly mean to discuss this with me, Bob (and I apologize if I have mocked your anonymity in the past-- I probably did, and it was unwarranted), we will have to address one subject at a time. Sondra's confession of Christ and the Gospel on this thread is one; Verne's conduct is another altogether. Being saved, and being respectful or respected are subjects in themselves. If your supposition were true then you should be ministering the gospel to her. You should be showing the love and compassion that the Lord Jesus showed and lead her to the place where she can drink freely of living waters. Frankly, Bob, it is your supposition, that you can draw your own implications from my words and then tell me how I should be conducting myself that troubles me. Spiritual-sounding phrases are plentiful and found in many places, not all of which are desirable. Please pardon my skepticism, but the lingo of SWTEers is reminiscent of my days in pentecostal/charismatic circles, where nearly everyone tried to impress one another with our spiritual-sounding talk and virtually none of us knew what we were talking about. If the Bible is not the authority by which our experiences are evaluated, what is? Surely not the experience itself?! But you know what Mr. Alvin, it isn't true. I am also a bit surprised at your implication. If you need to know about Sondra, that is S O N D R A, just like it sounds, then read SWTE. You may be encouraged by some of her spiritual insights. Once again, Bob, any implications are your own creations, not mine. I don't need to know anything about Sondra, but she owes it to all those before whom she is parading her personal vendetta, to assure them whether she is indeed speaking as a Christian or as just a "spiritual" mystic. I have read SWTE, and regretably I found nothing there that I would consider encouraging. Bob cuts through the malarky pretty quick. I think his points are well taken, Al. I'm sure you do, as is your privelege. My replies should suffice to say what I think of them. Because of Jesus Christ, al : Re:Doctrines of Demons : editor February 16, 2005, 09:55:37 AM yes, I'm dissappointed.
I think now would be a good time to tone down the rhetoric. enough was exchanged here in the last day or two to give everyone plenty to think about. Definitely there are some ideas that are controversial, that should be explored. However, it is very difficult to correct someone, or persuade them when cheap name calling is employed. For some, it's no big deal. For others, it is really hurtful, and I think it is a good lesson for all. I'd like to see less fighting, less personal attackes, and less innuendo, and plenty more real debate and discussion. Brent : Re:Doctrines of Demons : moonflower2 February 16, 2005, 10:38:46 AM I want to thank all of the men and women on this board for your patience with me during this very difficult campaign. This man destroyed a church by the same kind of lying. We've heard that point-of-view previously on this BB. So much for your "Campaign".This hasn't been easy, but I heard God tell me to go do this and NOW. I had lift under my wings and so I flew... God told you to vent for 24+ hours and belittle and insult someone who you felt insulted you? I'll bet your tired.Affirming Moonflower In a previous post you mentioned something about G.G. "building" something. I can't imagine what that could have been except for his empire of money and his bogus spirituality, to name a couple. Except for Stalin, Hitler, and Satan, I can't think of anyone else who has destroyed more lives than GG. I'm not going to argue with you, Sondra. Some of your statements beg a reply. : Re:Doctrines of Demons : moonflower2 February 16, 2005, 11:16:53 AM I want to thank all of the men and women on this board for your patience with me during this very difficult campaign. This man destroyed a church by the same kind of lying. We've heard that point-of-view previously on this BB. So much for your "Campaign".This hasn't been easy, but I heard God tell me to go do this and NOW. I had lift under my wings and so I flew... God told you to vent for 24+ hours and belittle and insult someone who you felt insulted you? I'll bet your tired.Affirming Moonflower In a previous post you mentioned something about G.G. "building" something. I can't imagine what that could have been except for his empire of money and his bogus spirituality, to name a couple. Except for Stalin, Hitler, and Satan, I can't think of anyone else who has destroyed more lives than GG. I'm not going to argue with you, Sondra. Some of your statements beg a reply. Moonflower, I'm sorry if I hurt you. I felt I had to keep the pressure on Verne to get the truth out if it was going to happen - so I was trying to push people out of the way who were trying to get involved. Sorry. Sondra The picture you left of your postings is one of a cat with its claws extended and its eye on its prey. You accuse Verne of "self-love", but that is what you portrayed of yourself in your postings. We had to sit and listen while you verbally tore into someone. And your husband laughing in the background during part of the process? God told you to do it? : Re:Doctrines of Demons : Oscar February 16, 2005, 11:40:21 AM Sondra,
I have been busy with studies and have not been paying attention to this thread for a couple of days. I have just read through several pages of your posts. You say that you are a spiritual person being led by God to do this. I cannot say that I am convinced of that. But be that as it may, you have not stayed within acceptable boundaries of expression in your posts. I refer specifically to the ugly names you have called Verne and others. I noted "weasle", "coward", "girlie-man", "big man" directed toward Verne. "Pinhead" seems to be your way of describing most of us who post here. You have claimed that God has lead you to behave in this way. I cannot say that I am convinced of that either. I do not know the history of your relationship with Verne, nor do I wish to. I suggest that you raise the level of your discourse. Thomas Maddux : Final Comment : vernecarty February 16, 2005, 02:52:36 PM To Brent and Marcia:
I wanted to wait until the moderator had spoken prior to making this statement. While your presumed intentions of brokering some kind of peace between Sondra and myself was probably well-intentioned, I am sure that it now evident to all concerned that it was most ill-advised. It is one thing for the both of you choose to go and participate on her website. It is quite another thing to encourage a woman like this to come on the BB and engage in the kind of conduct that she did. The results speak for themselves. Oh, I know you would like to assign the blame for this fiasco to me personally and that is quite O.K. Do you think anyone on this BB could have gone over to SWTE and said these kinds of things? My confidence in the both of you almost lead me into very serious error and I was in fact disobedient to what the Lord clearly showed me to do. For this I aplogise to the BB community. If someone had come onto this website and treated any other regular poster here the way she did, I would have handed their heads to them on a platter. Moonflower if I ever have to go into a dark alley, spiritual or otherwise, I want you watching my back... :) God bless and goodby for now... Verne p.s Has it occurred to anyone else how reminiscent of the assemblies what happened was? A GeftakysServant is allowed to lie about, denigrate and insult others with impunity, but then the ball is that person's court to make things right because they are so hurt! Some of you folk are still in, and that foul spirit still thrives. I never thought it could happen on this BB that brought down that house of cards. How ironic! How could I be so stupid???????!!! : Re:Doctrines of Demons : outdeep February 16, 2005, 06:54:47 PM This playground spat, while entertaining for a day, underscores why a bulletin board is a very poor medium for discussion and helping ex-Assembly folks come to grips with their past.
A bulletin board is essentially an open mike. The microphone can be used to encourage, debate, lift up, put down or draw a crowd. To assume that everyone is going to use the microphone fairly is naďve. To trust that everyone cares about the context of another’s thoughts and is not simply trying to score one better is absurd. An open mike does nothing to restrain our sinful nature or our natural propensity towards one-upmanship. One of the best essays I have ever read is in Bonhoffer’s Life Together on the theme “there was reasoning among them as to who was the greatest”. This plays out to its fullest here. If the Assembly is Orwell’s Animal Farm, then I think the bulletin board has become Golding’s Lord of the Flies. : Re:Doctrines of Demons : vernecarty February 16, 2005, 09:02:13 PM This playground spat, while entertaining for a day, underscores why a bulletin board is a very poor medium for discussion and helping ex-Assembly folks come to grips with their past. A bulletin board is essentially an open mike. The microphone can be used to encourage, debate, lift up, put down or draw a crowd. To assume that everyone is going to use the microphone fairly is naďve. To trust that everyone cares about the context of another’s thoughts and is not simply trying to score one better is absurd. An open mike does nothing to restrain our sinful nature or our natural propensity towards one-upmanship. One of the best essays I have ever read is in Bonhoffer’s Life Together on the theme “there was reasoning among them as to who was the greatest”. This plays out to its fullest here. If the Assembly is Orwell’s Animal Farm, then I think the bulletin board has become Golding’s Lord of the Flies. Dave is right on the money. I am am therefore making an unqualified apology to Ms. Sondra Jamison for calling her an adulteress. I am also apologising for anything uncharitable I have implied about her morality and for any unkind and or unChristian things I have said about her personally. If there is any other specific way in which I have offended her that she is willing to identify, I would be willing to address it. Verne : Re:Doctrines of Demons : Joe Sperling February 16, 2005, 09:32:54 PM Verne---
Thanks for your post. You and I had one long discussion regarding election and predestination, with both of us on opposite sides of the court, and were able to "joust" a bit without it ever becoming personal. I've always enjoyed your posts, and enjoyed your opinions here. As for the recent set of posts on this thread and Ruth's comments and their importance I would just add this: How 'bout those Patriots? I was really pulling for the Eagles, but the Patriots pulled it off once more. They truly are one heck of a team. --Joe : Re:Doctrines of Demons : Joe Sperling February 17, 2005, 12:42:10 AM Sondra---
Sorry if you misunderstood. I didn't mean to infer that it was like a competition. What I was doing was the old change of subject: "how bout them Patriots?" When a subject gets uncomfortable, or a bit stretched beyond where it should be, to quickly change the subject someone might say "How bout them Yankees?"(or whatever team they like). What I meant is "this subject has gone about as far as it needs to go--how bout them Patriots?" So again, my apologies if you misread it. sincerely, Joe : Re:Doctrines of Demons : outdeep February 17, 2005, 01:10:58 AM Sondra--- Your intended meaning came through for me, Joe. I had a good laugh out loud, a needed relief from the sancitified mud wrestling. Thanks.Sorry if you misunderstood. I didn't mean to infer that it was like a competition. What I was doing was the old change of subject: "how bout them Patriots?" When a subject gets uncomfortable, or a bit stretched beyond where it should be, to quickly change the subject someone might say "How bout them Yankees?"(or whatever team they like). What I meant is "this subject has gone about as far as it needs to go--how bout them Patriots?" So again, my apologies if you misread it. sincerely, Joe -Dave : Re:Doctrines of Demons : M2 February 17, 2005, 02:48:02 AM Dave is right on the money. I am am therefore making an unqualified apology to Ms. Sondra Jamison for calling her an adulteress. I am also apologising for anything uncharitable I have implied about her morality and for any unkind and or unChristian things I have said about her personally. If there is any other specific way in which I have offended her that she is willing to identify, I would be willing to address it. Verne Verne, Thank you for making that public apology to Sondra. I look forward to your POV on further discussions on this BB. We need someone to keep us in line from becoming Campbellites or Tr0ckmandites or even Madduxites eh?? (insert smilie face here) :) Blessings, Marcia : Re:Doctrines of Demons : editor February 17, 2005, 02:56:35 AM Dave is right on the money. I am am therefore making an unqualified apology to Ms. Sondra Jamison for calling her an adulteress. I am also apologising for anything uncharitable I have implied about her morality and for any unkind and or unChristian things I have said about her personally. If there is any other specific way in which I have offended her that she is willing to identify, I would be willing to address it. Verne Verne, Thank you for making that public apology to Sondra. I look forward to your POV on further discussions on this BB. We need someone to keep us in line from becoming Campbellites or Tr0ckmandites or even Madduxites eh?? (insert smilie face here) :) Blessings, Marcia Dittos here Verne. Marcia, we are Tr0ckmaneers, are we not? Also, the Madduxeans have never appreciated being called Madduxites. ;D : Madduxeans : M2 February 17, 2005, 03:04:44 AM Dittos here Verne. Marcia, we are Tr0ckmaneers, are we not? Also, the Madduxeans have never appreciated being called Madduxites. ;D hehehe We are the champions, my friend! (The smilies are still not working) It's onward, forward. Marcia : Re: Patos Locos : sfortescue February 17, 2005, 03:31:46 AM Dittos here Verne. Marcia, we are Tr0ckmaneers, are we not? Also, the Madduxeans have never appreciated being called Madduxites. ;D hehehe We are the champions, my friend! (The smilies are still not working) It's onward, forward. Marcia What I remember is that Tom used to go by the name "Patos Locos", which is Spanish for "Mad Ducks". : Re:Emptied Himself? : Oscar February 17, 2005, 04:43:50 AM Nowadays they just call me "Mad Dog". :'( Thomas Maddux : Re:emptied himself? : al Hartman February 17, 2005, 07:25:09 AM OK, folks, I've experienced one of those mystical leadings: First, Joe Sperling strongly urged me to post this. I still had my doubts until Tom changed the thread heading to: "emptied himself." So here it is: Recent rumor has it that the once vaunted assembly use of coffee has been replaced by a concoction brewed from dill weed (yeah, the stuff that makes kosher pickles taste sour). Making the treatment even more exotic is the fact that it is administered through a funnel constructed of goat horns. So if you're ever back in that area, better not let BG hear that you're feeling unwell, or you could end up... (drum roll, please) ...on the horns of a dill enema! al : Re:emptied himself? : sfortescue February 17, 2005, 09:01:53 AM OK, folks, I've experienced one of those mystical leadings: First, Joe Sperling strongly urged me to post this. I still had my doubts until Tom changed the thread heading to: "emptied himself." Beware of false prophets! It wasn't Tom who changed the thread title; it was Brent. From the 1st post of thread - Last Edit: Today at 02:25:00pm by Brent A. Tr0ckman (Pacific Standard Time) Not only that, the thread title is misquoted, and without thought for its context. : Re:Emptied Himself? : sfortescue February 17, 2005, 12:26:15 PM OK, folks, I've experienced one of those mystical leadings: First, Joe Sperling strongly urged me to post this. I still had my doubts until Tom changed the thread heading to: "emptied himself." Beware of false prophets! It wasn't Tom who changed the thread title; it was Brent. From the 1st post of thread - Last Edit: Today at 02:25:00pm by Brent A. Tr0ckman (Pacific Standard Time) Not only that, the thread title is misquoted, and without thought for its context. I can't figure out why Brent renamed it to "emptied himself?" Is it referring to Verne's apology? Another thing I can't figure out is why Bob Smith called Al Alvin. I PMed and emailed Al and discovered that his full name is Allan Gary Hartman. Puzzling eh?? Marcia To answer the easier question first, Alvin was the name of a cartoon singing chipmunk of many years ago, so Bob Smith was using that name to show disrespect for Al by implying that he was someone insignificant. The thread title comes from the subject matter that Verne was criticizing Sondra about. Her choice of wording when expressing herself is often rather sloppy. Verne takes her words literally and deduces that she is teaching heresy, when actually she doesn't really mean what it sounds like she is saying. I think she mostly just gets her words mixed up and confused and says things wrong. The expression "emptied himself" refers to a way that some people translate the beginning of Phil. 2:7. Phillipians 2:7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: Of course, it does not mean that Jesus emptied himself of divinity. After all, he did say, "Before Abraham was, I AM". Jesus chose to demonstrate a life dependant on the Father. He would have violated his purpose here on earth if he had followed the tempter's advice and turned the stones into bread. Obviously that was something that he was fully able to do, otherwise it wouldn't have been a temptation. Since people might misunderstand a poorly worded post, it's a good idea to write a post using Notepad, and save the file, then later after relaxing and thinking about it, come back and carefully proofread it to verify that there aren't any ambiguous or confusing things that need to be smoothed out. To err is human. : Re:Emptied Himself? : sfortescue February 17, 2005, 01:57:05 PM ... Bob was just trying to be funny, I think. Alvin is funny if you are older than 40. Sondra You're right, it is funny. I was just reading the history on the Chipmunks' web site. http://www.chipmunks.com/ (http://www.chipmunks.com/) P.S. I hadn't realized that the creator of the Chipmunks was Armenian. Years ago, I used to work with someone with the same last name. : Re:Emptied Himself? : M2 February 17, 2005, 06:00:10 PM OK, folks, I've experienced one of those mystical leadings: First, Joe Sperling strongly urged me to post this. I still had my doubts until Tom changed the thread heading to: "emptied himself." Beware of false prophets! It wasn't Tom who changed the thread title; it was Brent. From the 1st post of thread - Last Edit: Today at 02:25:00pm by Brent A. Tr0ckman (Pacific Standard Time) Not only that, the thread title is misquoted, and without thought for its context. I can't figure out why Brent renamed it to "emptied himself?" Is it referring to Verne's apology? Another thing I can't figure out is why Bob Smith called Al Alvin. I PMed and emailed Al and discovered that his full name is Allan Gary Hartman. Puzzling eh?? Marcia To answer the easier question first, Alvin was the name of a cartoon singing chipmunk of many years ago, so Bob Smith was using that name to show disrespect for Al by implying that he was someone insignificant. The thread title comes from the subject matter that Verne was criticizing Sondra about. Her choice of wording when expressing herself is often rather sloppy. Verne takes her words literally and deduces that she is teaching heresy, when actually she doesn't really mean what it sounds like she is saying. I think she mostly just gets her words mixed up and confused and says things wrong. The expression "emptied himself" refers to a way that some people translate the beginning of Phil. 2:7. Phillipians 2:7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: Of course, it does not mean that Jesus emptied himself of divinity. After all, he did say, "Before Abraham was, I AM". Jesus chose to demonstrate a life dependant on the Father. He would have violated his purpose here on earth if he had followed the tempter's advice and turned the stones into bread. Obviously that was something that he was fully able to do, otherwise it wouldn't have been a temptation. Since people might misunderstand a poorly worded post, it's a good idea to write a post using Notepad, and save the file, then later after relaxing and thinking about it, come back and carefully proofread it to verify that there aren't any ambiguous or confusing things that need to be smoothed out. To err is human. I often use Notepad to compose my responses. I have discovered t helps for another reason, that being that sometimes the connection drops while I am typing up a long response in the message window and I end up losing all my work. Cut and paste works well. Re. Alvin, here is Bob's original post. Which part is funny and which part isn't? Which part is erring and which part isn't? General Category / General Topics / Re:What or Who Is A Believer & How Do You Recognize One? on: February 15, 2005, 06:35:17 pm Quote from: al Hartman on February 15, 2005, 05:30:13 pm Moreover, in all her posts on this thread Sonja has mentioned Christ by name once, and the name of Jesus not at all. All that blather about "knowing God" and "the spirit" can be commonly heard among unbelievers and apostates. And their being interspersed with such taunting, badgering, unlovely drivel (whether or not she believes it is deserved) makes their source all the more suspect. Beware of anyone who is ashamed of the name of Jesus Christ. Before anyone takes seriously anything you have to say, Sondra, it is reasonable to request that you post: 1. Who do you say that Jesus is? 2. What is the "good news" which the Bible calls the Gospel? Because of Jesus Christ, al Hartman Mr. Alvin, What is that supposed to mean. Are you implying Sondra isn’t saved? That she is an unbeliever? That is isn’t a child of God? That she is a heretic? That she is the unfruitful works of darkness? You see, that is what Verne calls her. Now lets suppose that all of that were true. What difference does that make? Does that mean Verne is justified in his verbal slander? Being saved is not a prerequisite to being treated with respect, is it? If your supposition were true then you should be ministering the gospel to her. You should be showing the love and compassion that the Lord Jesus showed and lead her to the place where she can drink freely of living waters. But you know what Mr. Alvin, it isn’t true. I am also a bit surprised at your implication. If you need to know about Sondra, that is S O N D R A, just like it sounds, then read SWTE. You may be encouraged by some of her spiritual insights. Marcia : Re:Emptied Himself? : outdeep February 17, 2005, 07:16:19 PM I often use Notepad to compose my responses. I have discovered t helps for another reason, that being that sometimes the connection drops while I am typing up a long response in the message window and I end up losing all my work. Cut and paste works well. This is good advice and the wise will take it to heart. Books on writing say that editing is a major key to good writing and one should make at least a minimal attempt to edit everything – memos, e-mails, and notes – to communicate clearly and avoid embarrassment. Editing is thinking of others, a service to your reader. Since all you have is your words to help your reader understand what you are thinking, taking the time (even a few moments) to make sure that your words are accurately reflecting your thoughts is a good practice. One doesn’t have to be an English major or labor over the text for hours. One just has to understand that writing is more about your reader’s comprehension than about your right to speak. Those who, as a practice, blow off editing because they don’t have time to do so are committing a disservice to their reader. They run a greater chance of miscommunication, rambling, and coming across as if there is no gate between the brain and the fingers. There are only a handful of writers who ever lived who could write well without a need to go back and edit. It probably is not you. It definitely is not me. As our former prophet used to say, "A word to the wise is sufficient" (Wink here) : Re:Emptied Himself? : Oscar February 17, 2005, 09:28:45 PM Dave,
Thank yu fur yur advize abot editin, I wil tak it tu hart: Tomus Madddix : Re:Emptied Himself? : outdeep February 17, 2005, 10:25:59 PM Dave, Tom,Thank yu fur yur advize abot editin, I wil tak it tu hart: Tomus Madddix You remind me of a time I took one of my first college classes - English 100. On the first day of class, the teacher wanted a sample of the student's writing. I was with a group of friends and I thought it would be funny to turn something in with every word misspelled. Ha ha. Big laughs. At the next class, the teacher had a list of names of folks she wanted to chat with at break. My name was on this list. It didn't take my steel-trap brain long to figure out what I should have figured out the week before - she was about to refer us to dumbbell English. I quickly wrote a new paragraph and gave it to her with the lame excuse, "I wrote an essay with every word misspelled as a joke and I think I accidentally turned in the wrong one. Here is the real one. Ha ha...." She gave me the "I don't believe a word you are saying but I'll let it slide don't let it happen again" look and I scurried back to my seat. On my wall in my office cube I have a Calvin and Hobbes cartoon where Calvin, after an ill fated attempt to catch a water balloon, says, "How can something seem so plausible at the time and so idiotic in retrospect?" -Dave : Re:Emptied Himself? : editor February 17, 2005, 10:55:41 PM Dave, Thank yu fur yur advize abot editin, I wil tak it tu hart: Tomus Madddix The really sad thing is is that I do edit and often can't do any better with a few sentences at times short of laboring over it for long periods of time - so I slap it on the butt and send it out, so to speak. I didn't pursue academics to the extent that many of you have. I guess we could compare Real Estate knowledge and investments, etc. and see how well we measure up. I only say that because it seems that there is an arrogance behind this post in particular. I bought my first rental property when I was 22 and been buying ever since and built up a very nice portfolio. Who else has done that here? That kind of stuff doesn't tend to come out when we are measuring writing skills. There are other skills that are very important. You folks have intimidated people long enough re. lack of writing skills, IMO. People are terrified of being humiliated on this board due to poor writing skills. I already died to all of that. No brag. Just have. I am not humiliated by my deficiencies and I try my best to improve. As I mentioned I do edit my posts and I do a spell check faithfully. Beyond that the reader, if he wants to read, will need to bear with the writer. Otherwise, do what you have learned to do in cases of incompatibility - live your life and exclude the parts that don't work for you. I just can't stand the "big guy on campus" types. Not everyone has a Ph. D. I have very many friends who have impressive credentials and higher formal education. I have a brother who is a Ph. D. and a sister who has two Master's degrees. I have quite a few friends like this who respect my education and love to share spiritual insights with me. This is maturity, IMO. I believe the above quoted post is the equivalent of referencing "pinheads." Pinheads are people who make fun of others of lesser education. They tend to think they know almost everything or at least something about everything. I have sold many of these types houses back when I sold Real Estate....and if I wanted to I could talk about some of the incredible density some of these folks tend to have. But I don't think it is to their shame and so I don't taunt privately. I do label people "Pinheads" when they act superior and hurt others by doing so. I forgive you, Tom, but I really think you need to change your pompous attitude and make some things right that have been glaring for a long time over here. I will anticipate a disclaimer that you weren't referring to my posts. But that is what Dave is talking about so that excuse simply doesn't work. Sondra Jamison Hebrews 11:32-40 32 And what shall I more say? for the time would fail me to tell of Gedeon, and of Barak, and of Samson, and of Jephthae; of David also, and Samuel, and of the prophets: 33 Who through faith subdued kingdoms, wrought righteousness, obtained promises, stopped the mouths of lions, 34 Quenched the violence of fire, escaped the edge of the sword, out of weakness were made strong, waxed valiant in fight, turned to flight the armies of the aliens. 35 Women received their dead raised to life again: and others were tortured, not accepting deliverance; that they might obtain a better resurrection: 36 And others had trial of cruel mockings and scourgings, yea, moreover of bonds and imprisonment: 37 They were stoned, they were sawn asunder, were tempted, were slain with the sword: they wandered about in sheepskins and goatskins; being destitute, afflicted, tormented; 38 (Of whom the world was not worthy:) they wandered in deserts, and in mountains, and in dens and caves of the earth. 39 And these all, having obtained a good report through faith, received not the promise: 40 God having provided some better thing for us, that they without us should not be made perfect. I am quite sure that Tom was merely joking, using humor, and trying to lighten the mood. I don't detect an ounce of arrogance in that post, but I'm open to hearing how you detected it. As for the verse you quoted, what did you mean to imply by the bold portion? Brent : Re:Emptied Himself? : outdeep February 17, 2005, 11:22:43 PM Dave, Thank yu fur yur advize abot editin, I wil tak it tu hart: Tomus Madddix The really sad thing is is that I do edit and often can't do any better with a few sentences at times short of laboring over it for long periods of time - so I slap it on the butt and send it out, so to speak. I didn't pursue academics to the extent that many of you have. I guess we could compare Real Estate knowledge and investments, etc. and see how well we measure up. I only say that because it seems that there is an arrogance behind this post in particular. I bought my first rental property when I was 22 and been buying ever since and built up a very nice portfolio. Who else has done that here? That kind of stuff doesn't tend to come out when we are measuring writing skills. There are other skills that are very important. You folks have intimidated people long enough re. lack of writing skills, IMO. People are terrified of being humiliated on this board due to poor writing skills. I already died to all of that. No brag. Just have. I am not humiliated by my deficiencies and I try my best to improve. As I mentioned I do edit my posts and I do a spell check faithfully. Beyond that the reader, if he wants to read, will need to bear with the writer. Otherwise, do what you have learned to do in cases of incompatibility - live your life and exclude the parts that don't work for you. I just can't stand the "big guy on campus" types. Not everyone has a Ph. D. I have very many friends who have impressive credentials and higher formal education. I have a brother who is a Ph. D. and a sister who has two Master's degrees. I have quite a few friends like this who respect my education and love to share spiritual insights with me. This is maturity, IMO. I believe the above quoted post is the equivalent of referencing "pinheads." Pinheads are people who make fun of others of lesser education. They tend to think they know almost everything or at least something about everything. I have sold many of these types houses back when I sold Real Estate....and if I wanted to I could talk about some of the incredible density some of these folks tend to have. But I don't think it is to their shame and so I don't taunt privately. I do label people "Pinheads" when they act superior and hurt others by doing so. I forgive you, Tom, but I really think you need to change your pompous attitude and make some things right that have been glaring for a long time over here. I will anticipate a disclaimer that you weren't referring to my posts. But that is what Dave is talking about so that excuse simply doesn't work. Sondra Jamison Tom addressed me in his post. He was poking fun at my discourse on editing perhaps because my post ran the risk of being a bit santimonious. Or perhaps to just interject some ironic humor. I took it all in fun because Tom and I are friends. Don't make it all about you. -Dave : Re:Emptied Himself? : editor February 17, 2005, 11:34:37 PM That's called mocking/chiding when someone does that type of thing. It's "high school Harry" stuff. Whether he is aware of it or not, whether he intended to hurt people or not.... I've heard many comments from people about their fear to post here because of this very type of ridicule and fussiness over grammer. It hurts people and I, for one, will not "sit here in this meeting and act like George is NOT saying something hatefu, arrogant and cruel" to use an analogy. Can anybody relate to that analogy? I don't believe Tom is like GG. I am talking about speaking up and not just laying down like a rug to be walked on. sj p.s. Didn't edit or do spell check. :O) Gotta run. OK, if Tom is saying hateful things, by all means call him on it. However, I think most people are going to have diffuculty linking arrogance and hateful speech to the post you quoted. I certainly don't see it. As for people being afraid to post here, well, that's too bad, really. You were able to post, and plenty of others do too. That doesn't mean that someone won't disagree with them, or challenge their views. If people are afraid to stand up for what they believe, and they believe something that goes against what many of the people on the board believe, they should be prepared to defend their views. I thought this was all about Verne? Love, Grace, forgiveness, kindness, that's the stuff we need to concentrate on. Love is not rude, among other things. I really don't think Tom was being rude at all, not even a little. I can't imagine you have any history with him that needs to be aired out? Anyhow, you are certainly free to express your opinions about the problems we have here. You may get responses at times, and it could be that some people don't agree with you. That's all part of the BB experience! Brent : Re:Emptied Himself? : editor February 18, 2005, 12:00:50 AM Dave, Thank yu fur yur advize abot editin, I wil tak it tu hart: Tomus Madddix The really sad thing is is that I do edit and often can't do any better with a few sentences at times short of laboring over it for long periods of time - so I slap it on the butt and send it out, so to speak. I didn't pursue academics to the extent that many of you have. I guess we could compare Real Estate knowledge and investments, etc. and see how well we measure up. I only say that because it seems that there is an arrogance behind this post in particular. I bought my first rental property when I was 22 and been buying ever since and built up a very nice portfolio. Who else has done that here? That kind of stuff doesn't tend to come out when we are measuring writing skills. There are other skills that are very important. You folks have intimidated people long enough re. lack of writing skills, IMO. People are terrified of being humiliated on this board due to poor writing skills. I already died to all of that. No brag. Just have. I am not humiliated by my deficiencies and I try my best to improve. As I mentioned I do edit my posts and I do a spell check faithfully. Beyond that the reader, if he wants to read, will need to bear with the writer. Otherwise, do what you have learned to do in cases of incompatibility - live your life and exclude the parts that don't work for you. I just can't stand the "big guy on campus" types. Not everyone has a Ph. D. I have very many friends who have impressive credentials and higher formal education. I have a brother who is a Ph. D. and a sister who has two Master's degrees. I have quite a few friends like this who respect my education and love to share spiritual insights with me. This is maturity, IMO. I believe the above quoted post is the equivalent of referencing "pinheads." Pinheads are people who make fun of others of lesser education. They tend to think they know almost everything or at least something about everything. I have sold many of these types houses back when I sold Real Estate....and if I wanted to I could talk about some of the incredible density some of these folks tend to have. But I don't think it is to their shame and so I don't taunt privately. I do label people "Pinheads" when they act superior and hurt others by doing so. I forgive you, Tom, but I really think you need to change your pompous attitude and make some things right that have been glaring for a long time over here. I will anticipate a disclaimer that you weren't referring to my posts. But that is what Dave is talking about so that excuse simply doesn't work. Sondra Jamison Tom addressed me in his post. He was poking fun at my discourse on editing perhaps because my post ran the risk of being a bit santimonious. Or perhaps to just interject some ironic humor. I took it all in fun because Tom and I are friends. Don't make it all about you. -Dave You are not being honest here, Dave, just as Joe was not being honest re. Patriots vs. Eagles. You and others were talking about editing, etc. within the context of my writing abilities or lack thereof. While I can appreciate the practical suggestions, I think it is incredibly insensitive and at a sensitive time and given that I am a guest on your board to do "hillbilly" accents. Keeping things lighthearted over here seems to be costly for others not to mention dishonest. The reply post that I didn't post so as to give Joe some "face saving." I thought, "just let it go - not that big of a deal." But now I will post it since this pattern of using the excuse - "Was I not jesting." is apparent. It's not altogether dishonest, but just enough that it is dishonest enough to hurt people..... This is unedited - don't have the time to finish it. Gotta run. Sondra Hi Joe, I understand how I should let this go, and any other day, I would. But today is not your lucky day....and may not be mine either. (Clint Eastwood, Dirty Harry). So I ask myself, "Do I feel lucky?" :D Now, dear Joe - I really have to operate in truth here. I like getting things "lighthearted" but not at the expense of another. The hidden message is not as you represented. The history is laid out below. First post was the very day that Brent swooped into SWTE challenging me that my teachings sounded exactly like that of Mormonism. He posted the link to SWTE on AB....the one you mention in your post. The message then, like the one today, was a hidden one re. who would win that battle or "game." Ok. I sort of laughed - no big deal...but I did get it especially when Verne responded that the spread was no 10 rather 13. (2nd post below). I got the significance there too. I had just posted about the idea of studying "three's" of things in terms of "typology" on SWTE. So, ok. No problem. It was quite perceptive on Verne's part and as is true with a lot of humor - the timing was good. Oops. I clicked on the hyperlink without reading what it was about. I didn't realize SWTE was still there. I haven't visited there in a long, long time. How 'bout those Patriots? I bet they take the Eagles by 10 points. --Joe -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Oops. I clicked on the hyperlink without reading what it was about. I didn't realize SWTE was still there. I haven't visited there in a long, long time. How 'bout those Patriots? I bet they take the Eagles by 10 points. --Joe Thirteen! ;D Verne Then this post today referencing "the competition"-- Your comment, "As for the recent set of posts on this thread and Ruth's comments and their importance I would just add this:" -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Verne--- Thanks for your post. You and I had one long discussion regarding election and predestination, with both of us on opposite sides of the court, and were able to "joust" a bit without it ever becoming personal. I've always enjoyed your posts, and enjoyed your opinions here. As for the recent set of posts on this thread and Ruth's comments and their importance I would just add this: How 'bout those Patriots? I was really pulling for the Eagles, but the Patriots pulled it off once more. They truly are one heck of a team. --Joe -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sondra--- Sorry if you misunderstood. I didn't mean to infer that it was like a competition. What I was doing was the old change of subject: "how bout them Patriots?" When a subject gets uncomfortable, or a bit stretched beyond where it should be, to quickly change the subject someone might say "How bout them Yankees?"(or whatever team they like). What I meant is "this subject has gone about as far as it needs to go--how bout them Patriots?" So again, my apologies if you misread it. sincerely, Joe Sondra, I am certain that you are reading way too much into this. I definitely can't begin to see the hidden motives you are talking about. If you think this was all a game, you are sadly mistaken. I considered you to be totally sincere about all of this. Do you really think we are all in collusion to play a game over this? I can assure you we are not, at least if the "we" includes me. Don't you need a little more to go on before telling someone they are not being truthfull than a quip about the Eagles and Patriots? I really like it when you forgave Verne, that was cool. But do you really think that there is a hidden motive here. Brent : Re:Emptied Himself? : M2 February 18, 2005, 12:36:20 AM I actually have been trying to edit this post but got kicked off 4 times. This was the message that came up - Warning: mysql_connect(): Too many connections in /usr/www/users/ai/briantucker.net/bb/index.php on line 50 Too many connections I got the same message. Maybe it is a subtle hint eh?? (That was a joke) Sondra, I think you are a close relative of soontouchy. Marcia ... Sometimes sarcasm can be humorous and can highlight a point in an effective way. When respectful that can be acceptable. You and I have both used it. Then there is the belittling and the berating and the mocking, that cuts very deep. When you get a mob together they will do things that individually they would never do. That is not real courage. Back on the farm there was frequently a little chick that the rest would peck until it was dead. If you isolated that chick with one or two they would not bother it. In the mass they all jumped into the fray. That’s like the AB. There have been many that have registered and wanted to connect with assembly acquaintances. Once on and say something that did not portray the hatred that the prominent posters had, they were ridiculed and mocked and intimidated until they left. That is similar to what Sondra got the last couple of days. Who there came to her defense? Maybe the AB doesn't agree with her theology, maybe they don't agree with her unwillingness to condemn assembly leadership and that is fine. But who came to her defense when she was seeking justice? I say justice, not revenge. What godly man said, "Gents, she has been mistreated in the past and we don't agree with that.”? What godly man was willing to stick out his neck and say that is enough? You did Brent. My opinion of you rose greatly, though that may not mean much to you. You were the only one that said Sondra has been mistreated and that things need to be made right. ... Bob, It looks like we agree that someone should speak up for the wounded ones who are seeking justice. What godly man/woman will stand up and say "Gents (LBs, LBWs, workers, geftakysServants), he/she has been mistreated in the past and we don't agree with that.”? What godly man/woman is willing to stick out his/her neck and say that is enough? God bless, Marcia : Re:Emptied Himself? : editor February 18, 2005, 12:54:34 AM No, I specificly addressed Joe. His point was about pitting one team against another. It is obvious. That spirit has been here since the outset of SWTE...putting us down and acting like the "big guys on campus" ...Snoring with the Eagles, etc. JS's post is clear. Verne got it and responded in kind. I thought it was hilarious, but I did get the message from JP re. competition between the boards and that you were going to "whip me." Several of you did that "hillbilly" thing when I first posted on AB. Look it up. "Was I not jesting?" is written in the scripture to speak to people who do this. Otherwise, what is the meaning? Sincere question. sj p.s. Need to go measure a kitchen. Well, If people were looking at all of this as entertainment, I think it's wrong. On the other hand, I don't think we should assume bad motive based on a post like Joe's. You could have asked him what he meant about it first. No one is making fun of you here. At the same time, I think that plenty of your views will meet with opposition here. That's to be expected, and is quite healthy and normal. In all fairness, neither AB or SWTE have a "no mocking" rule. I have enjoyed many a laugh reading the "Spriritual Veterans Club Breakfast," that Matt does. Public speaking and sharing of ideas makes us public figures. Public figures are targets, and that's just the way it is. I'll make you a deal. If you NEVER, EVER mock anyone on your website, I promise to do the same here. Having said all that, I still think that you're totally overreacting to Joe's post, the malice just isn't there. Let's try to get a fresh start, shall we? Don't let the years you endured under Verne's abusive speech cause you to become bitter. Let's begin again, with goodwill towards one another. Brent : Re:Emptied Himself? : M2 February 18, 2005, 12:55:51 AM Sondra, I think you are a close relative of soontouchy. Marcia Then, that would make you my second cousin, Soonspeaky, Marcia. :o) sj touche. (smilie) that one has left me speechless. Marcia : Re:Emptied Himself? : Joe Sperling February 18, 2005, 12:58:58 AM Sondra----
Again, my statement was in pure humor--it was not pointing at "competition"--it was saying that the whole argument is so useless let's change the whole subject. I can't believe you haven't heard someone say that before. Two people are arguing and in an attempt to diffuse it someone else says "How 'bout those Yankees?" There's a place in "Planes, Trains and Automobiles" where John Candy and Steve Martin have to share the same bed. They wake up wrapped up in one another's arms and both jump out of bed nervously. John Candy says "How 'bout them Bears?" in an effort to show his masculinity and diffuse the situation. It's a very funny scene. When I see you continue to state that I meant some sort of "competition" I am amazed, because the whole thing is so obvious. It would take some digging, but I have chimed in with something like that several times on the BB when a spirited debate is going on like"How 'bout those RED SOX?" or something to that effect. It's not to pick out anyone personally, but to state something so far from the current conversation or "argument" that's it's almost ridiculous--sometimes causing people to slack off a bit and laugh at themselves. Sorry if you refuse to see it that way and want to read far more into than that. I hold no animosity towards you and haven't visited SWTE in ages(accpet by mistake when I clicked on a hyperlink), so I have no reason to want to start a fight, or joust with you at all. I'd rather talk about football. --Joe : Re:Emptied Himself? : sfortescue February 18, 2005, 01:53:25 AM Joe,
I believe you when you say that you were merely suggesting a change of subject, but there is a problem even with that. Such a suggestion impies that what Sondra has to say is not welcome here. Proverbs 26:17 He that passeth by, and meddleth with strife belonging not to him, is like one that taketh a dog by the ears. : Re:Emptied Himself? : M2 February 18, 2005, 02:09:19 AM Joe, I believe you when you say that you were merely suggesting a change of subject, but there is a problem even with that. Such a suggestion impies that what Sondra has to say is not welcome here. Proverbs 26:17 He that passeth by, and meddleth with strife belonging not to him, is like one that taketh a dog by the ears. Interesting observation Stephen. Joe has clearly told us his motives for his original post, and I personally do not have any reason to doubt him. Joe has often helped to use to humor to ease the tension in the midst of heated discussions. I would hate to see him silenced just because of a silly coincidence with the name of a football team and the SWTE site. And even if he was referring to some competive state between the 2 sites, what of it? Blessings, Marcia : Re:Emptied Himself? : Joe Sperling February 18, 2005, 02:14:44 AM Stephen---
That really isn't true. I saw posts going back and forth in an endless manner and threw a little humor into the fray. Sondra is welcome to say whatever she wants to say. I think this is all a case of taking everything far too personally. Someone mentioned editing, and she immediately thought she was being referred to. I throw in a joke about "How 'bout them Patriots" and she immediately thinks I'm referring to her personally, and referring to their discussion as a "contest" of some kind. Often in my life I have seen humor diffuse an argument, or cause those involved to halt for a moment, and not take themselves so seriously(I need this often myself, that's for sure). As I mentioned, I have used that statement before, when an argument starts to get out of hand a bit. I have said "How 'bout them RED SOX?" not to imply someone is not welcome, but to throw some humor or lightheartedness into the argument. But when someone thinks that everything revolves around themselves, they naturally see all comments as "attacks" or "comments" about themselves, rather than seeing they were made about someone else, or simply made in humor. I see this pattern as I read the long posts made below. I wasn't attempting to "meddle with strife that's not my own", but to help diffuse it a bit if possible--If I wanted to meddle I could have said a lot more than mention a football game. But, in an effort to help keep the peace, and avoid any more misunderstanding, I will stay off of this thread and pursue the inane, ridiculous and sarcastic euphemisms(lol) I enjoy so much in other areas. And I'm going to talk a lot about football too. :) --Joe : Re:Emptied Himself? : outdeep February 18, 2005, 02:25:45 AM Joe, I wonder of Sondra is going to take this to mean you are calling her a dog. Maybe we should all put on our WWST? wristbands.I believe you when you say that you were merely suggesting a change of subject, but there is a problem even with that. Such a suggestion impies that what Sondra has to say is not welcome here. Proverbs 26:17 He that passeth by, and meddleth with strife belonging not to him, is like one that taketh a dog by the ears. : Re:Emptied Himself? : sfortescue February 18, 2005, 03:07:51 AM Stephen--- That really isn't true. I saw posts going back and forth in an endless manner and threw a little humor into the fray. You've misunderstood what I said. My use of the word "implies" was not intended to ascribe motive but rather perception. Often in my life I have seen humor diffuse an argument, or cause those involved to halt for a moment, and not take themselves so seriously(I need this often myself, that's for sure). This may be true in a more balanced conflict, but when the conflict is very one-sided, you are considered part of the majority by default. A story of something that happened to me in junior high school illustrates this. A petition was being passed among the students in a class for the impeachment of the teacher. Of course, I didn't want to sign such a petion, so I signed it with the name Mr. Magoo, since he was known for not knowing what he's doing or where he's going. Someone else did a forgery of my name on the petion, so I got into trouble along with the rest of the class. In fact, the joke signature wasn't even recognized for its implied meaning because others signed the names of a lot of other cartoon characters as well. : Re:Emptied Himself? : moonflower2 February 18, 2005, 05:23:00 AM Stephen--- That really isn't true. I saw posts going back and forth in an endless manner and threw a little humor into the fray. Sondra is welcome to say whatever she wants to say. I think this is all a case of taking everything far too personally. Someone mentioned editing, and she immediately thought she was being referred to. I throw in a joke about "How 'bout them Patriots" and she immediately thinks I'm referring to her personally, and referring to their discussion as a "contest" of some kind. Often in my life I have seen humor diffuse an argument, or cause those involved to halt for a moment, and not take themselves so seriously(I need this often myself, that's for sure). As I mentioned, I have used that statement before, when an argument starts to get out of hand a bit. I have said "How 'bout them RED SOX?" not to imply someone is not welcome, but to throw some humor or lightheartedness into the argument. But when someone thinks that everything revolves around themselves, they naturally see all comments as "attacks" or "comments" about themselves, rather than seeing they were made about someone else, or simply made in humor. I see this pattern as I read the long posts made below. I wasn't attempting to "meddle with strife that's not my own", but to help diffuse it a bit if possible--If I wanted to meddle I could have said a lot more than mention a football game. But, in an effort to help keep the peace, and avoid any more misunderstanding, I will stay off of this thread and pursue the inane, ridiculous and sarcastic euphemisms(lol) I enjoy so much in other areas. And I'm going to talk a lot about football too. :) --Joe Morespeaky, Joe. We need you here. : Re:Emptied Himself? : al Hartman February 18, 2005, 09:15:43 AM Foregoing the temptation to reference quotes from the last 24 hours, I'll just shoot from the hip: First, I am extremely disappointed that more space was not devoted to making fun of my name. As hollywood and sports have shown us, there is no such thing as bad press. "Alvin" was amusing, and I was not in the least offended. If Bob meant it to discredit me in some way, I'm afraid I missed it. I've been called Alvin since the first Singing Chipmunks song came out, not to mention Mary Hartman, Al Bundy, & numerous other nicknames. Of all the posters on this board, I may be the most nit-picking when it comes to grammar, spelling, & editing in general. That's no doubt due to my higher education: a high school diploma and a year's worth of "101" college courses for dummies. OR, it could be because [1] I have a natural propensity for those things and [2] I have OCD (obsessive compulsive disorder), which turns one into a psycho-perfectionist. I have tried to use my skills constructively to help and encourage some who are excellent thinkers but have difficulty with their posts. I have also occasionally entertained myself by poking a bit of fun (always in private, I believe, except for once). So What? We all have strengths and weaknesses. We weren't redeemed by grace because of either. We have nothing in which to boast but for the cross of Jesus Christ our Lord. Anyone whose self-approval relies upon the debasement of others is more to be pitied than despised. Now a bit of BB history: Back in the days when I was new to this venue, I was opinionated and arrogant, and didn't know my right hand from my left. I believed I was right, and that those of opposing views were wrong, and I said so. In so doing I offended people, and was called upon the carpet by the powers that ran the show. I was told I needed to repent, apologise, and find a good church. I was deeply hurt, believing that I had been falsely accused, misunderstood, etc. But I wanted to know the truth, no matter what the cost, so I prayed about it all, asking to be shown whatever I needed to see and what to do about it. The first thing I realized was the impropriety of my attitude: pride, arrogance, self-important. I repented before the Lord, then brought my plea to the BB: something to the effect of "If anything I have said has offended anyone, please forgive me and accept my apology..." I was told in no uncertain terms that that was unacceptable. "Not good enough, Al," were the precise words as I recall. I was told that such a vague statement was not an apology, but that it put the blame on the other people for having been offended-- I was to confess specifically for the exact offenses I had committed (although I truly still believed I had said nothing wrong). "This," I thought, "is really unfair!" But I returned to seeking the Lord, and by His grace I eventually came to an understanding that, regardless of whether others were right or wrong, I was wrong about certain things. And so I repented and confessed and apologised on-line, and was forgiven by God and my brethren. On the last two pages of this thread, there have appeared "If..." apologies, to which no one has apparently raised an eyebrow. That, I believe, is because the residents of this board are maturing; beginning to be more aware of the humanness of us all. My castigation was timely and needed, and it worked its purpose in me and others. But there is now, for the most part, a greater healing taking place here. We are beginning to realize the implications of "And be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, even as God for Christ's sake has forgiven you. Eph.4:32. I am not saying these things to excuse anyone from wrongdoing, lying, rudeness, or any such thing. But it behooves us all to realize that "implication," like beauty, is in the eyes of the beholder, and just because it sounds a certain way to your ear does not mean it left the speaker's tongue with that intent. Likewise, because your intendend meaning is clear to you when you speak, is no guarantee it will be received that way. Wherefore, my beloved brethren, let everyone be swift to hear, slow to speak, slow to wrath: For the wrath of man works not the righteousness of God. Jas.1:19-20 And, on a personal note, I, the most notoriously rigid proofreader among us, wish to apologise to Sondra for calling her Sonja. It was unintentional, but inexcusable. Please forgive me, Mrs. James. (*wink*) In Christ, al P.S.-- I also found a wonderful church, but that's a story for another time. : Re:Emptied Himself? : moonflower2 February 18, 2005, 10:12:06 AM First, I am extremely disappointed that more space was not devoted to making fun of my name. As hollywood and sports have shown us, there is no such thing as bad press. "Alvin" was amusing, and I was not in the least offended. If Bob meant it to discredit me in some way, I'm afraid I missed it. I've been called Alvin since the first Singing Chipmunks song came out, not to mention Mary Hartman, Al Bundy, & numerous other nicknames. The first thing I realized was the impropriety of my attitude: pride, arrogance, self-important. I repented before the Lord, then brought my plea to the BB: something to the effect of "If anything I have said has offended anyone, please forgive me and accept my apology..." I was told in no uncertain terms that that was unacceptable. "Not good enough, Al," were the precise words as I recall. I was told that such a vague statement was not an apology, but that it put the blame on the other people for having been offended-- I was to confess specifically for the exact offenses I had committed (although I truly still believed I had said nothing wrong). "This," I thought, "is really unfair!" But I returned to seeking the Lord, and by His grace I eventually came to an understanding that, regardless of whether others were right or wrong, I was wrong about certain things. And so I repented and confessed and apologised on-line, and was forgiven by God and my brethren. On the last two pages of this thread, there have appeared "If..." apologies, to which no one has apparently raised an eyebrow. That, I believe, is because the residents of this board are maturing; beginning to be more aware of the humanness of us all. My castigation was timely and needed, and it worked its purpose in me and others. But there is now, for the most part, a greater healing taking place here. We are beginning to realize the implications of "And be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, even as God for Christ's sake has forgiven you. Eph.4:32. In Christ, al P.S.-- I also found a wonderful church, but that's a story for another time. Lovable, huggable Alvin doll, I was a recipient of one of the "IF I have offended/hurt you" statements, but I didn't feel that I was offended or "done wrong." I don't even know the person, except for what I've observed in her posts, and she seemed completely out of control at the time. (I also don't know where she got her information that she was "apologizing" for, which is another interesting item for a Sooper Snoop wanting to make a few bucks.) The discovered leak would be the one owing the apology. If I had been offended, I would not have accepted her apology as a true apology. I agree with what you just shared about what you and most of the rest of us have had to learn about apologizing. IF is conditional. One is not truly sorry for what they did or said. I don't know that the maturity you mentioned is an issue here. Sj just seemed to have been given free reign. Again, thanks for sharing what you've learned. Moonflower : Re:Emptied Himself? : editor February 18, 2005, 10:36:47 AM I don't know that the maturity you mentioned is an issue here. Sj just seemed to have been given free reign. Again, thanks for sharing what you've learned. Moonflower Sondra was given the same priviledges that every member of the board has. She is free to post her thoughts, share her ideas, etc. Along with that freedom comes vulnerability. She is open to criticism, agreement, etc. It's the same for all of us. When this BB was first set up, I determined that there would be "no editing, no deleting," by the moderators, unless someone was impersonating someone, using profanity, or being really, totally over-the-top rude. I received some of the harshest criticism for 2 things: Letting people speak their mind, like John Malone Deleting the "humor" thread after GG was excommunicated and the SLO brothers repented, etc. (Happy Sunday, I call it) Many of the BB members were furious that I went back on my word and deleted 88 pages of mockery, humor and Leno/letterman style jokes about the Assembly, George, Betty and many leaders. I felt that in light of the repentance, the least I could do was remove some of the totally unneccessary mockery and sarcasm. I was told I was a sell out, and that I was letting them off easy, etc. It was OK to hammer LB's etc. That was OK. Then, John Malone came on here and blasted everyone. Well, THAT wasn't OK. It was fine for us to blast LB's and workers, but no one could talk like that to us! It was just wrong! You can't believe the heat I got when I didn't ban John! There was no way I was going to ban him, but people were almost as mad at me as they were at John. The message I had for them was, "ignore him, or figure out a way to deal with it. You gotta grow up." Also, there is always the possibility that you just might learn something. I think this situation is similiar in some ways, with a few notable differences. We think nothing of talking about people in negative ways. They deserve it, we are sure. In some cases, maybe most cases, we are totally right in doing so. However, things look differnetly when you are on the receiving end. Sondra said a bunch of stuff, some of which I don't agree with, some of which I do. Regardless of that, how did it feel to be on the receiving end? None of it is true, of course.... ;) but those we criticise feel the same way. They feel they are without fault, and we are attacking them. It is always hard to see oneself as anything other than being persecuted when someone calls us on the carpet. Just something to think about. I'm not suggesting right or wrong, just pointing out the dynamic that takes place when tempers are hot. Brent : Re:Emptied Himself? : Oscar February 18, 2005, 10:57:14 AM Dave, Thank yu fur yur advize abot editin, I wil tak it tu hart: Tomus Madddix Howdy folks, I've been reading the posts of the past several hours. I can see just a teeny-tiny bit of connection in Joe's post to Sondra. He used the word "eagles", which, of course is the name of her website. I can also see that to get your underwear in a bundle over an imagined slight on such a slim pretext is irrational at best, deliberate and manipulative at worst. As to the "hidden message" in the above post, which is supposedly a criticism of Sondra's educational level, ????? , there isn't anything to say. The idea is absurd. But about the name calling in her reply. "Pinhead" was the term used. Any furthur abusive name-calling, and "delete" is the name of the button I will push. Thomas Maddux : Re:Emptied Himself? : M2 February 18, 2005, 10:57:46 AM ... This may be true in a more balanced conflict, but when the conflict is very one-sided, you are considered part of the majority by default. ... So, are you saying that if one enters the fray then there might be some music to face? Marcia : Re:Emptied Himself? : editor February 18, 2005, 11:04:48 AM May I suggest that we each declare ourselves winners and stop this?
The ancient wisdom of "If you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all," applies here. Let's drop it, or we may invite more of the same. Brent : Re:Emptied Himself? : moonflower2 February 19, 2005, 12:08:13 AM I don't know that the maturity you mentioned is an issue here. Sj just seemed to have been given free reign. Again, thanks for sharing what you've learned. Moonflower Sondra was given the same priviledges that every member of the board has. She is free to post her thoughts, share her ideas, etc. Along with that freedom comes vulnerability. She is open to criticism, agreement, etc. It's the same for all of us. When this BB was first set up, I determined that there would be "no editing, no deleting," by the moderators, unless someone was impersonating someone, using profanity, or being really, totally over-the-top rude. I received some of the harshest criticism for 2 things: Letting people speak their mind, like John Malone Deleting the "humor" thread after GG was excommunicated and the SLO brothers repented, etc. (Happy Sunday, I call it) Many of the BB members were furious that I went back on my word and deleted 88 pages of mockery, humor and Leno/letterman style jokes about the Assembly, George, Betty and many leaders. I felt that in light of the repentance, the least I could do was remove some of the totally unneccessary mockery and sarcasm. I was told I was a sell out, and that I was letting them off easy, etc. It was OK to hammer LB's etc. That was OK. Then, John Malone came on here and blasted everyone. Well, THAT wasn't OK. It was fine for us to blast LB's and workers, but no one could talk like that to us! It was just wrong! You can't believe the heat I got when I didn't ban John! There was no way I was going to ban him, but people were almost as mad at me as they were at John. The message I had for them was, "ignore him, or figure out a way to deal with it. You gotta grow up." Also, there is always the possibility that you just might learn something. I think this situation is similiar in some ways, with a few notable differences. We think nothing of talking about people in negative ways. They deserve it, we are sure. In some cases, maybe most cases, we are totally right in doing so. However, things look differnetly when you are on the receiving end. Sondra said a bunch of stuff, some of which I don't agree with, some of which I do. Regardless of that, how did it feel to be on the receiving end? None of it is true, of course.... ;) but those we criticise feel the same way. They feel they are without fault, and we are attacking them. It is always hard to see oneself as anything other than being persecuted when someone calls us on the carpet. Just something to think about. I'm not suggesting right or wrong, just pointing out the dynamic that takes place when tempers are hot. Brent The point I was making was that the response that Al got for an "IF I offended you" apology was different than the lack of response to Sondra's "IF I offended you" apology, which in my mind is a bogus apology. However, I was also saying that I didn't feel I needed an apology from her, but from the person who gave her the information about my name. (I have never been in contact with SJ, to my knowledge, but apparently many in champaign have been/and still are.) I don't know what she was apologizing for, which is also why I suggest it was a bogus apology. Maybe she thought she needed to explain that she was "pushing" everyone out of her way, which was already very obvious. Compared to Malone, SJ was very biting, scratching and cruel. She doesn't really have a match on this BB as far as verbal assault goes. Personally, I don't care to watch a woman castigate a man, especially one who I know is a true Christian. Too bad you felt you had to delete all the Gefjack empire jokes. I especially enjoyed the purgatory ones. Moonflower : Re:Emptied Himself? : editor February 19, 2005, 02:11:40 AM I have been told that people can express what they think over here and then others have the right to say what they think. I think I am seeing a double standard though. Name-calling has interesting and various subjective definitions. Of course there is a double standard of sorts. People have preferences, and tend to pull for their "team" if you will. When a ref makes a questionable call that causes your team to miss a first down, you can't help but wonder if he is biased. Conversely, when the other team gets a touchdown called back for clipping, you can't help but think, "It's about time they called that! He's been doing it all day!" What isn't a double standard is what you referenced above. You have been given total freedom to say whatever you want to say, and you have not crossed the line, nor come near the line that would cause you to be censored. Of course you have made some people mad, you knew you would. You also got what you came for, and that is Verne's admission and apology. Name calling will continue, I guarantee. However, the type of name calling you were subjected to has stopped, and will not occur again. Many people don't agree with your views, and if you share them, you will find resistance. That's normal and healthy. People are going to defend you, and people are going to defend Verne. Do the right thing and you need not concern yourself what others think. Your name and reputation have been cleared, as is proper. If I demanded retribution for every time someone said something negative about me, I wouldn't have time to apologize to everyone I said something negative about! Again, I will appeal to both sides here, take some time off and cool down. Let Sondra and Verne talk together if they want to. On another note, Moonflower, The person who told Al that an "If I offended" apology was not going to cut it was none other than my wife, Suzie, and also me. The reason I did it to him, and not to Sondra is simple. The situations were totally different, and Al and I had the issue. People can use that sort of apology any time they wish. If they use it with me, I am going to have something to say about it, perhaps. Brent : Re:Emptied Himself? : editor February 19, 2005, 03:58:48 AM Jan is a regular here and I am not. She represents your board. I don't have unbiased advocates on this board- so I must speak for myself and I will until booted for not sharing the same bias. You're not going to get booted unless Brian does it. I agree that you don't have many advocates here. Nothing I can do about that. You are still free to speak your mind, no one is stopping you. I honestly think that you would cease to be a topic of conversation in under 24 hours if you took a break, but I also know about protecting one's reputation. I've done it on occasion for one reason or the other. Brent : Re: Emptied Himself? : Oscar February 19, 2005, 10:17:22 AM Hi folks,
Sondra said: "I responded to Tom in a private email giving him many examples of names that have been called on this board in the past and I am waiting for a response. I chose private communication as a first option so as to not to reopen old wounds. Tom, since you addressed me openly I would like a public response if you don't mind." This morning I checked my e-mail and there was a long message from Sondra. It contained a long list of quotes from Verne's previous posts demonstrating quite a pattern of denigrating name calling. Some of it was pretty strong stuff. I therefore cannot dismiss Sondra's complaint as unfounded. She criticized me for allowing this to go on. She is right, I did. There are several reasons for this: 1. I don't read every post on the board. Sometimes I have more time to read, sometimes less. Sometimes I don't read the boards for a day or two. 2. I don't read some of the posts carefully. When someone gets long winded, particularly if they type single spaced, I tend to skim through it. 3. I have become used to Verne's way of speaking. He tends to speak of anything and everyone he opposes in very strong terms. People aren't just wrong, they are agents of Satan etc. etc. So, I let some strong talk slip by me. I will try to be more vigilant and evenhanded in the future. However, Sondra, I must say that I don't agree with your justification of your own name calling on the grounds of "he did it first", and "you let it happen." As a teacher, I had to deal with this excuse many many times. It usually came from the mouths of kids who were 12-14 years old. But my answer was always the same, and still is. Two wrongs never make a right. So, here's what I am going to do. 1. I am going to lock this topic. 2. I am going to start a new thread called "Sondra speaks out". Those who wish to interact with Sondra about whatever she has to say may go there and do so. 3. I am requesting that Sondra not take her issues with people on this board into threads that do not specifically deal with those issues. Thomas Maddux |