AssemblyBoard

Sondra and others,

Folks who wish to interact with Sondra about matters that concern her, please do so here.

Thomas Maddux

I don't know what it represents, to tell you they truth I just like it.  It was my avatar back in the day, and with the new board up, I was snooping around, looking at the new ones, and I saw it and decided to wear it again.

Nostalgia, that's all.  Means nothing.

Brent

Doctrine / The Bible / Re: Emptied Himself?  on: February 18, 2005, 11:17:22 pm 
Hi folks,

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.

Thomas Maddux
                                             

AND SO, HERE WE ARE NOW:

A QUOTE MOVED FROM THE THREAD ENTITLED:
THE TRUTH ABOUT RUN AMUK CAMELS AND CANNED WORMS:  
 

Don't need to.

Moonflower

'nuf said

Sondra,

 I started this thread for two reasons:
1.To give you a place to express your feelings about this board and the people who post here.
2. To allow threads on other subjects to focus on those subjects without distraction.  That is the meaning of "#3".

I have not disclosed the content of your e-mails to anyone.

Thomas Maddux

 

Sondra,

I believe you when you say that you were wrongfully labelled as an adultress.  Verne spoke out in anger and wrongfully called you some hurtful names.

Marcia

Sondra,

You were both going at it so I cannot make a judgement call on this. Sorry. :-X :-[ :-\ :'(

Marcia

Sondra,

Having read over everything you have posted as Ruth, I am confident in conceding that you have been wronged on this board, sometimes severely, sometimes consistently, and not just by one of us. 

Besides that, you have made some very revealing points, right on the money, about the source(s) of some of those wrongs.  In my opinion, the biggest hindrance to your getting a fair hearing on this board was not the substance of your complaints, but the manner in which you presented them.  What I mean by that is that:

[1] You insisted on carrying on a personal discussion on a public forum, rather than privately.

[2] Debating publicly, you then insisted that no one else had the right to enter the discussion, and sometimes rudely treated those who did.

[3] You have insisted that everyone on this board is part of a tightly-knit fraternity that shares the same mindset, shortcomings, sins.

[4] You don't offer these thoughts as your opinions, but purport to "know" them to be fact, as quoted above.
("You are family - I understand that.  Known that for a long time.")

I don't know what kind of family you grew up in.  Mine was most unpleasant, godless, and difficult.  The only real family I've ever known is the family that Christ included me into, and the household that my wife & I have had as a result.  The family of our Lord functions on a basis of love, but that doesn't make it a bed of roses.  The basic dilemma with it is that it consists of people who are not yet fully perfect ("not yet fully" covering the broadest imaginable spectrum).

My point is that we don't all agree on this board-- not by a long shot.  I can't imagine that you read over here with any regularity and don't recognize that.  Because we love each other, we are long-suffering with one another (ideas differ on how long we are to suffer!).  We sometimes put up with what seem to be some blatant character faults because many of us are learning that to control someone's behavior is not necessarily to change one's heart.  Sometimes more is accomplished through prayer and patience that by the best-intentioned confrontation, so that is our tactic of choice.

Some of us here are hotheads; some are "fright risks;" some quite brilliant; others not so; some quite well-read; others not; some outspoken; some shy; some just browse and never post.  Many of us try to give to each his/her due respect.  But others may not.

I am not writing this to specifically address your claims of injustice done against you.  Rather I am appealing to you to recognize that we are composed of numerous individuals, none of whom agree on everything, some of whom agree on little.  Please take pity on us and try to address us each according to our individual interactions with you.  We are not a gang, not mafia or yakuza, nor an organization, but merely an accumulation of God's children who have come together seeking comfort and help.

I don't think any of us have been helped or comforted by attacks upon you or anyone else, nor do most of us wish to defend anyone's inappropriate actions or words.

You said, "I understand that most folks over here are blinded by bias."  I suggest to you that most of us here wish to be biased only toward our Lord Jesus Christ, and blinded only to His (therefore also our) enemies.

I have no idea what would actually have happened had you approached this board civilly and presented your complaints in a reasonable, unemotional format.  We will never know, because you had been provoked and you responded in kind.  But it is not too late for us to take off the battle gear and sit at the peace table together and conduct ourselves without malice and antagonism, trusting in the faithfulness of our Lord.

That is my request of you:  Please stop lumping us all together as a distasteful mob, and give us a chance as individuals.  You are welcome to contact me personally via PM or EM (address below), or publiclly if you prefer.  It has been quite some time since we communicated privately, and the Lord has been teaching me since that time.  I could wish that I had learned as faithfully as He has taught, but I am who I am and there is a natural stubbornness and reluctance to change within me that is slow to respond to Him sometimes.  If He is willing to endure it, I can only be grateful.

At any rate, if you would care to offer me a new opportunity, I would welcome it, but if not I will accept your choice and try to be understanding.

Because of Christ Jesus,
al Hartman

Hi al et al,

It suddenly hit me yesterday that Sondra's zeal to expose Verne, is very similar to the zeal we have displayed to expose assembly leadership.  In early 2003 her zeal was her knowledge of Verne while in the Champaign assembly; today it is about that (I think) and the CMA matter.

What I have discovered is that while BBs provide a good forum for discussing matters of "interest", they are not the proper mechanism to hold people accountable for their actions.
Also, I have discovered that I can discuss the matters of "interest" with another, whether or not that person has some sort of history.  I might qualify that re. George and Betty, but if Tim Geftakys presented himself on this board and wanted to discuss various topics, I might enter in to the discussion provided he was not overly rude or something.  So my certain knowledge of a person's history does not keep me from discussion with him/her.  In fact discussion may help each of us to reach a more "enlightened" opinion.

Re. to the CMA matter I suggest that those in the vicinity, who have a burden for this, deal with it objectively.  It looks like there are 2 camps and that each camp has made up their mind.  When I left the local assembly here, I really appreciated the ones who were willing to get my side of the story as well as the other side and then make up their own minds on my motives for departure.

God bless,
Marcia

This exact same thought dawned on me a few months ago.  I realized that George and so many around him were totally blind, for whatever reason, and were unable to hear truthfull criticism.  That was easy to comprehend.

However, what was not so easy was to realize that I could very well be in the same boat.  Afterall, I was trained to be like that, for a long, long time.  Could it be possible that was getting to be like George, minus the babes and cash? 

Yep.

Good post Marcia.

Brent, I do not know if we are saying the same thing here.

I was not equating Verne with assembly leaders, more like equating Sondra's zeal with ours.
If Verne is to be vindicated, then honest objective evaluation of both sides by the 2 camps will settle that.  There are many who do not want to be objective and stick with their perspective, and there is nothing one can do about that.  Also, it is very difficult to get the other side of the story when one makes the effort and then receives the silent treatment.

Marcia

I can agree to similar zeal, but I hope no one is really saying that "we" are following Verne and protecting a phony? Verne's credentials aren't the issue and are not a pre-req for posting on this BB.

SJ thinks she "exposed" Verne? Does anyone here really believe that? Even if all she claims is true about Verne, so what? But anyone comparing him or the situation here to GG and his fiasco, is doing Verne and everyone here a great disservice, to say the least.

Does anyone think SJ "cleared her name"? I never thought she was an adulteress, but I think less of her now, after her immature tirade, than I thought I could of an adult. By trying to make herself look good by putting someone else down, she accomplished the opposite. By her screeching and clawing, her actions speak so loud that I can't hear what she says.

Why didn't SJ give Verne the week to respond like she said  she would. She went back on her "word".

I have to disagree with the positive attribute ascribed to SJ's behavior here: "zeal". It was nothing more than the "me, myself, and I" virus.

It more aptly describes Verne's involvement with CMA. The woman involved misinterpreted a pastor's concern for her well-being. With more experience on the pastor's  part, he would have known to approach her in a different, less personal way. Verne heard her concern, and responded in the way that he felt he should. Just my 2 cents on the issue, but I think it's worth something.

Hi All,

I was specifically referring to "zeal," and not Verne in my post below.  However, Verne as well as myself have exercised plenty of zeal during out BB tenure.

It's not always a bad thing, but has it's negative attributes as well.

For example, you want zeal from soldiers on the battlefield.  You want them to be blind regarding the enemies humanity, and committed to the cause of military victory.  That's not only good, it's necessary.

However, following this victory, if a leader maintains the same zeal I describe above, he becomes a dictator, a monster.

I am not suggesting that we are following Verne, nor am I implying that Verne is on par with George.  To the extent that I have set myself against assembly people, and mistakenly mischaracterized them...I guess that makes me a little like George.

However, the comparison is something on the scale of a paper airplane and an airbus.  Both fly, and land, and use the same principles of aerodynamics, so that makes them alike.  One is a little bigger than the other, however.

Herei is my main point in all of this.  Early on, it was necessary to fight with zeal and tell the truth about George, his assembly, and the many leaders who protected him by silence, collusion and cowardice.  Over the years, most of the people who had the ability to stop George had left, or were run off.  They were systematically slandered.  To combat this and get the truth out, we needed zeal.

However, now that same zeal has made it harder for some of the folks who are later in arriving at the same conclusions to work things out because they are put off by the tone.  I can say that my heart and motive has always been to help people, but I can certainly understand why someone would be put off by my tone.

When I was first trying to figure things out, in the mid nineties, if I had spoken to someone who said,  "George is a false apostle, and the Assemlby is demonic," it would have made me a little shy, to say the least.  What was needed to expose George wasn't a condemnation of his character, but a recitation of the facts.

What we have now, which is problematic, is that we often condemn the character of those who don't agree, but really don't have much in the way of facts to support our condemnation.  Sondra's treatment by Verne is a prime example.

I don't agree with the Deeper life stuff---no secret there.  However, just 'cause I don't like it, and think it is wrong doesn't give me the right to call her a murderer, drug addict or Satanic priestess. 

The broad brush of saying leaders were cowards is correct in one sense.  However, not all of them were, and not all were brave to the same degree.  At some point it has to be safe for these leaders to recover and reconcile with people.  However, it makes it difficult if everyone calls them cowards, etc. 

The war is over.  The organization is all but dead, and people need to be treated as individuals and not as part of the group.

Does this make sense?

Brent

Brent,

Let me run an idea past you.  While it was obvious to everyone that Verne did not like Sondra, it was not obvious, (to me at least), that he was actually accusing her of immoral conduct.

The reason for this is that Verne's Calvinism.  Calvinism is based on one big idea which is then followed through its ramifications through all of their theological thought.  One of their ideas is that the Christian church is the spiritual continuation of Israel.  This is why they have historically been in favor of theocratic forms of government, where the church dominates the secular institutions.

One aspect of this is that many of them violently condemn ANY deviation from their understanding of scripture, as expressed in the Westminster Confession and the proceedings of the Synod of Dort, as heresy.  They also have a tendency to condemn heresy in OT language, which frequently describes it as "adultry", "whoring after other gods" and similar language.  This is because they see deviation from the "truth" as they see it as being on a par with the idol worship that brought judgement upon Israel.

When Verne began to fulminate about Sondra I figured he was speaking of her beliefs, not her personal life.  It is still not completly clear to me where to make the distinction.  Yes, he condemned her in very strong terms...but then...that is exactly how many Calvinists talk!  I know, being a Virulent Dog myself, I have been on the receiving end of some of this.  :o

That is also how Verne himself frequently talks.  Recall that during the debate about the Textus Receptus he adopted the position that virtually all of the scholars involved in textual criticism and Bible translation were part of a centuries-old New Age conspiricy to destroy Christianity!  :o

When I began seeing Verne's diatribes against Sondra, I just figured "that's how Verne talks", along with the guess that he was talking about her spiritual condition rather than her moral practices.  Frankly, it is still not completly clear to me exactly what was going on.

But let me say this as well...it isn't hard to understand why anyone who was on the receiving end of this kind of talk would take offense and get mad.  Especially someone who was alread mad about something from the past.
When Sondra collected all this stuff together and sent it to me in an e-mail, it wasn't pretty.

You said,

Do you actually know that the above is true?  Are there any individuals who can't work this about because of the "tone"?  Or are you saying that it could be true?

Thomas Maddux

Good Morning Tom,

Yes, I totally agree with what you say below.  Right on the money.  I just want to re-enforce that Calvinism is NOT an excuse for abusive speech, as I'm sure everyone agrees. 

With regard to this:


I have heard that this is the case from several people.  I think that there is so much info to be gained here that it is a shame to run people off by misguided zeal.  I'm speaking as a guilty party.  For example, wouldn't you love the opportunity to sit down with Mike Zach and reason with him?  I would. But there is virtually no chance of that ever happening for several reasons, one of which is the "tone."

I am not suggesting we talk phoney to accomodate the most overly sensitive people who may be out there, I am just saying that we have our own little culture here, where we are so comfortable with eachother that we didn't blink when Sondra was getting all that said about her.

I also read the same email you got, and I was stunned.

This is not a broad condemnation of what we have here, it is just input designed to correct, strengthen and improve the forum.  This is usefull, and we don't want to wreck it.

Brent

Thanks for clearing that up Brent and Tom.

Tom, this quote indicates that though Verne's Calvinism sets him on fire he has admitted to it being worong on his part.


Marcia

1.  On the subject of the tone of the board, my position is that it is a problem that we really can't solve because a BB is an open mike and you pretty much get what you get.  Yes, you can control the extreme violations, but you can't prevent someone posting beause they "come across too black and white" or "their posts are too rambling and ditzy" or "they don't read too good what the other person is trying to say".

The only solution I know is for someone to start a blog where the main content is controlled and the comment discussion, though available is secondary (see www.worldmagblog.com (http://www.worldmagblog.com) for example).  In this way, a tone could be set (Is it theological debate?  Is it comfort for the hurting? Is it "just the facts" information? Is it confrontational?  Is it soothing?)

I'm not saying that I want to do a blog or that someone even should  My point is you will never control the tone in this kind of "open mike" forum.

Also...

2.  When the Geftakys statue was pulled off its foundations, dozens - if not hundreds - of folks were hitting this web site.  You couldn't get a word in edgewise.  Where did everyone go?  Some may possibly have been turned off by the tone of "mike hogs".  Others, I think, just got the information they needed and got on with their lives.  What keeps us here?

Basically, the few of us who are left have this need to keep communicating.  Why?  For each of us, the answer may be different.  For some of us it may be healthy reasons.  For others, it may be unhealthy reasons.  Whether for healthy or unhealthy, we keep posting - and there is nothing a BB can do to weed out the goats from the sheep.

For this reason, too, you are just not going to control tone on a BB.
-Dave

Yep, 

don't want to control it, never did, never will.

I do reserve the right to attempt to influence others however.

Brent

Clearly Tom's word is sufficient.
I thought it good to confirm that he certainly did not send it to me.
Verne

Is this issue with Verne's abusive language settled?  If not, let's settle it now.

I observe that Sondra has not been addressed re. her language and comments about motives of various posters.  I suspect that it might slip and possibly will demonstrate how Verne "got away with it" for as long as he did.  Hopefully we will not have to go through this again in a few months, so what is to be done about Sondra's abusive language?  Should we agree to let it slip?  If so, lets not re-surface it at a later date.

Joe Sperling, I hope that you will continue to post on this BB.

Marcia

P.S.


Verne might benefit from seeing the contents, so that we can move on from this issue.
Marcia

  The beginning of strife is as when one letteth out water: therefore leave off contention, before it be meddled with.






Ms Sondra Jameson came to this BB at your and Brent's invitation, ostensibly to settle her greivances with me.
You evidently failed to give her proper Bibliical counsel as to how she should proceed in that regard.
You both stood by silently while she engaged in the most vicious  and thuggish conduct and even after apologising to here and staying off the BB for 24 hours, it did not take her long to start tearing into others, includindg Joe Sperling and even the moderator, Tom Maddux.
I wondered what you both would do at that point.
I had every intention of taking an extended break.
You have both repeated her charges against me on a public forum but neither of you required her to provide any proof of the various things she has accused me of. Once the accusations  became public, the evidence also should have Marcia.
I question your judgment. The  BB was a relatively peaceful place before she got here. It has been relatively peaceful since she left.
Assembly people got in trouble because they failed to heed their Bibles. You and Brent did the same thing in this regard.
I was unfortunately foolish enough to go along with the program even though I knew better.

Here is my advice to you. If you want to contiue to your own society with this person, please feel free to do so.
I would forego further attempts at facilitating though. I assume you did your best and the results speak for themselves I am sure you will agree.
If you don't mention her, I am farily certain no one here will. I consider the matter closed.
Verne
p.s. I know you may not want to hear this Marcia, but the simple fact is that you and Brent, knowingly or otherwise, were enlisted in a scheme to impugn my integrity in the eyes of the BB community. Look at the gloat in her posts when she thought it was going to work.
I knew she would fail the test of one week restraint. She apparently thought that meant she had the right to immediatlely e-mail with instructions to be quiet.

Yes, I did suggest that Verne and Sondra work at reconciliation, after having to read jabs at her by Verne on AB, and jabs at Verne by SWTE.  I do not regret having done so.

Also Verne, though I PMed you in the past, since this is now on public forum I am stating this publicly, in your particular case your language has offended more people than just Sondra.  I have not seen Sondra's email to Tom and Brent and do not need to.  As a regular poster on AB, there have been a number of occasions where I have felt for the one on the receiving end of your comments.  However, I also understand that it is easy to misunderstand 'tone' on a BB, hence I have, more often than not, given you the benefit of the doubt.  It is possible to sift through and just read what you are saying and respond to that, but not everyone is able to do so.

You consider the matter closed re. Sondra.  Are you saying that you consider it best that we not address Sondra for her language and comments about motives of other posters?  If so, does everyone else agree?  If so,  do we agree also to not bring it up, so that we can go on to other discussions?

I do not agree with Sondra's deeper-life theology.  I suspect that it may be that theology that gave Sondra confidence in 'sticking with her story' re. motives of various posters, even after the posters explained their true motivation.  IMO Sondra demonstrated how it is possible to get riled up about no one taking issue re. offense.  Though I am not condoning verbal abuse, I believe that AB posters, in the past, have expressed their anger at offenses by the Geftakys system.  There is not much of that happening any more.  We discuss matters as it relates to our Geftakys experience, and other matters as well.

God bless,
Marcia

In those cases where I believed I was in error, I was willing to accept responsibility and attempt to correct it.


Christians are to adopt a posture of humility Marcia not, stupidity.
You mean to tell me that we are so dull as to lack discernment concernig whether someone is genuinely interested in settling differences instead of pursuing a divisive agenda?
The fault is mostly mine. I knew better.
The time to have dealt with the things she said was at the time that she said it.
It is pointless at this stage. Why subject the community to any more of this?


You are right about one thing. Confused theology leads to confusing behaviour. You may be making some unwarranted assumptions in all this. My advice is to simply let it be. I am happy to leave her correction to others.
Verne
p.s. Joe we miss your light touch my friend; don't stay away too long...
How 'bout them Illini??!!   ;D

Verne,

At first I thought, "call her bluff, she has nothing on Verne."  I didn't bet her to come here, I said she should take things up with you personally.

She did.  I must say that I was surprised at the repeated, crescendoing language you used to describe her character.  Honestly, you spent more time attacking her morals than you did her ideas.  What's worse, you directly implied that she was an adulteress, and re-enforced that idea by using words like "trollup," and others.  You did this repeatedly.

Then, as is your habit, you follow your ideas with veiled threats or predictions of dire consequences in the near future, but you never come right out and say what is going to happen.


Verne, your words are/were still in print on this forum.  I read them all, and I remember you saying them, and let me say that if it was said about my wife, or me I would be furious.  She is no less a person than I am.  You are the one who has no proof that she is an adulteress, and even if you did, is it wise to use that character assasination in this context?  There was also more than that.

Yes, you admitted you said those things, and then offered an unconditional apology.  It was one of your shorter posts, lacking much of the passion of the others.   However, you certainly have failed to demonstrate any kind of sustained humility in this particular matter, which is a huge dissappointment to me, I must confess.

You said all those things, and it hurt her.  They weren't true, they weren't kind, they weren't noble, they weren't edifying....they were mean.

Are you going to learn this lesson, or are you going to trivialize it?

I don't regret encouraging her to reconcile with you.  Not for a minute.  I do regret the fact that you aren't willing to bear with her in humility in order to reconcile.  Your doctrines don't agree, but that is no justification for your behavior.  She is no George, Verne.  Save the strong language for someone who deserves it.

I must say that I am dissappointed in you.  I honestly thought that you would humbly apologize for your error and change your ways.  Instead, you have actually validated her, and the others who have been offended by you.

Brent

Thank you for your opinon Brent. You are entitled to it my friend.
Verne

I agree with Brent. Thanks.

I only just saw this addendum post script.
Verne, it is like I said, your jabs and SWTE's jabs finally got to me and I was hoping for reconciliation.  I did not consult Brent on this initiative.  It was all my own doing.
Are you saying that her gloating (to use your terminology) has something to do with your lack of humility on this issue?

Marcia

O.K Marcia, I will give it one more try.
Two people are having a heated disagreement with unkind things being said on both sides.
One of them draws up a list of all the unkind things the other person has said and sends it to several people appealing for sympathy and presumably justice.
Two of these individuals appoint themselves facilitators and send the person with the list to seek "reconciliation".
Let's get personal.
You and Brent never talk to me about this list but come on the BB with Sondra and hold up a humility hoop for the well-trained assembly pet to jump through.
At the time, I fully well knew that just an apolgy would not solve the problem as issues involved far more than uncharitable things said on both sides.
By the way, if you or Brent throw out the lack of humility charge again I am simply gping to have to puke.
Ths has nothing to do with humility and that tactic of manipulation is a thing of a by-gone era.
Where is the list of lies, slander and abuse perpetrated by your aggrieved party?
Where were your own voices in protest when even after I had left the scene, this woman immediately became engaged in conflict with others on the BB.
And you and Brent want to make this about me?
Do I look that stupid to either of you?
Do forgive me for trying to be gracious.
The way you have handled this has seriously damaged your credibility with me. There are still some on the BB whose word has some weight with me and you are not one of them.
The things I say in public, are the same I say in private, which is more than I can say for some people.
It was never about reconciliation!!
For the two or you to come on here and try and lay this at my door step is nothing short of sickening.
I suggest we quit while we are still ahead.
Verne
p.s. Both you and Brent have deeply offended me with your slip-shod attemtps at mediation. How about another round of apologies from the both of you?

I don't theink Brent and Marcia owe Verne anything. It Verne who is in debt.

Wow, this is really sad.

First of all, even if you knew an apology would not solve the problem, you should still have done so, regardless of what the other person does or says.

Instead, you apologized, then immediately started defending yourself. Your "Strong Language," should be reserved for people who deserve it, not for people you speak ill of.  Strongly condemning her ideas is one thing, but you actually called her several things she is not.  You were wrong here, Verne.

Secondly, if "far more uncharitable things" were indeed done on both sides, as you indicate, what has taken you so long to make these right?

Verne, you have so much to offer.  Your contribution is so welcome here, why do you want to be so adamant about this?  You said those things. You apologized.  Now, it appears as if you still have a huge axe to grind, and that seem to be implying that you really were justified in saying those things afterall.

This isn't right my friend, and I'd be unfaithfull to not mention it.

Forget about what she said or did.  The only thing you have control over is what YOU say and do.  If she won't forgive, that's her problem.  However, if you won't humble yourself, that's yours.  This is no Assembly tactic, and I don't think I need to explain why it isn't.

I have had plenty of public disagreement with her, and have been the topic of several things on their website which personally bothered me.  However, I didn't call her an adultress!  YOU DID THAT.  I am not laying anything at your doorstep that you didn't put there the night before.

Brent

You have no public credibility if the only thing you do is vigorously hold me to a standard, while ignoring her conduct. That is all that I am saying Brent. You also failed to take a stand when the conflict involved others. Your being
 solicitious to be "faithful" in my case is rather touching. It is simply not credible. You have been spending too much time over there I think.
Verne

I miss those days too Joe. Dave is right in that a BB is not the best place for the resolution of personal differences. Especially of you are thin-skinned. The temptation to engage in self-righeous pontificating when you have an audience is far too great. Folk serious about settling their differences do so in private. I don't buy the poppy-cock for one miniute that this was the proper way to do deal with this kind of issue. Never has been, never will be.
Verne

Verne---

Thanks for saving the post. I deleted it, thinking maybe I should just forget about
it, but I think maybe it's good you saved it and included it in your post. I don't know
really what to make of all that has happened recently, it's all very troubling. There has
been so much said over the last couple of years, a perusal of old posts is very telling.

I'll stay out of this one(the main argument going on),
 but did want to show that I have referred to sports teams
when attempting to "lighten up" a discussion other times before. It's no fun to be
accused of something without foundation, and having an attempt at apology thrown out
because the other person is "sure" they know what you meant---when there was an entirely different meaning altogether. Most roads are not one-way streets.

God bless, Joe

No problem Joe, I can make my case O.K.
You and I were both charged, tried and convicted on that sports charge. The really funny thing, is I did not even make the connection to the SWTE site until Tom pointed it out yet she was so certain we were both referring to them.
I was simply expressing my opinon that the Pats would take it by more than a touchdown.
This is narcissism run amok
I am a little ashamed that no one came to your defense and all seem to be bending over backwards to placate the one hurling such ludicrous allegations. According to Brent, we are now not supposed to defend ourselves from this kind of thing. That is drivel right out of assembly- land if you ask me. Well, I have had it up to here with this sanctimonious posturing. I started talking again because people who should have spoken up seem to have been struck dumb while havoc was being wreaked. Take care my friend.
Verne

     ...had to go back & re-read Matt.5:3-12, to see if I had misread it:

3.  Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

4.  Blessed are they that mourn, for they shall be comforted.

5.  Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth.

6.Blessed are they who hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled.

7.  Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy.

8.  Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God.

9.  Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.

10.  Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness' sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

11.  Blessed are you, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my name sake.

12.  Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets who were before you.


     See, I was wondering where is the meekness, the mercy, the purity of heart, the peacemaking, the rejoicing in persecution for righteousness' sake, the gladness for false and evil persecution...  But then I realized that those things must not apply to us today; must have been for some other, past dispensation (I understand so little about such things).


     Then I thought of Matt.7:

1.  Judge not, that you be not judged.

2.  For with what judgment you judge, you shall be judged: and with what measure you mete, it shall be measured to you again.

3.  And why behold the speck that is in your brother's eye, but not consider the plank that is in your own eye?

4.  Or how will you say to your brother, Let me remove the speck from your eye; and, behold, a plank is in your own eye?

5.  You hypocrite! First cast out the plank from your own eye; and then shall you see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye.
...

12.  Therefore all things, whatever you would have men do to you, do even so to them...


21.  Not everyone who says to me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he who does the will of my Father Who is in heaven.

22. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, haven't we prophesied in your name? and in your name we have cast out devils? and in your name done many wonderful works?

23.  And then will I testify to them, I never knew you: depart from me, you who work sin.


     I'm not ashamed to confess that these verses used to strike me as very sobering, but now I realize by the example set for me on these boards, that they must have applied to some other era, and not to ours or to me.  It seems that nowadays it's OK to be offended by whatever is said against me, to take it all personally and be concerned for my own reputation and not care how it affects the Lord or the gospel testimony.  I really appreciate having that matter cleared up for me-- I can hardly wait until somebody says something snippity to me now!  Boy, I'm gonna really lambast 'em!!!


     ...or could somebody other than me be wrong?  Could those passages really mean what they say?


HMMMMMMmmmmmmmmmmmm...

Verne,

Your comments and jabs at Sondra (and others) were on this board and we all got to read it because you posted it for us to see.  So now you say, "Dave is right in that a BB is not the best place for the resolution of personal differences."  You post public jabs but will not publicly apologize.  I do not believe that that is your issue ie. to reconcile on board or not.

This statement is an exaggeration (akin to a lie), "I am a little ashamed that no one came to your defense and all seem to be bending over backwards to placate the one hurling such ludicrous allegations. According to Brent, we are now not supposed to defend ourselves from this kind of thing."

Someone did speak up on Joe's matter.  On the other hand when someone then speaks up on the matter re. abusive language, you then refer to them as self-appointed facilitators and "engaging in self-righeous pontificating" etc. etc. etc.

BTW this is no longer about facilitating reconciliation.  It is about you and your unwillingness to be reconciled.  It is up to you to be reconciled or not, no one can force you to, but please do not subject us to jabs at Sondra.  If you disagree with her it is possilbe to explain why you do without character assassination.

I quote Brent here, "Verne, you have so much to offer.  Your contribution is so welcome here, why do you want to be so adamant about this?  You said those things. You apologized.  Now, it appears as if you still have a huge axe to grind, and that seem to be implying that you really were justified in saying those things afterall."

Marcia

Verne,

I agree with much of what Brent and Marcia have said.  You went way over the top in your statements about Sondra J.  Now you have a decision to make.  Are you going to start quarreling with your friends?

There are more profitable things to discuss, are there not?



Sondra,

I am quite aware of the things Verne said to you.  I really don't need any more reminders. 

My feelings about Verne's comments are expressed above.

Your complaint about having been given a "consequence" is a little puzzling to me.  A thread devoted to your complaints as long as you don't call folks names hardly constitutes what I'd call a consequence.


Verne and Sondra,

It seems to me that it would be a good idea to give this whole issue a rest.  If you must discuss it, why not do it privately?

Thomas Maddux

Proverbs

10:17 He is in the way of life that keepeth instruction: but he that refuseth reproof erreth.
10:18 He that hideth hatred with lying lips, and he that uttereth a slander, is a fool.
11: 2 When pride cometh, then cometh shame: but with the lowly is wisdom.
11: 9 An hypocrite with his mouth destroyeth his neighbour: but through knowledge shall the just be delivered.
11:12 He that is void of wisdom despiseth his neighbour: but a man of understanding holdeth his peace.
12: 1 Whoso loveth instruction loveth knowledge: but he that hateth reproof is brutish.
12:15 The way of a fool is right in his own eyes: but he that hearkeneth unto counsel is wise.
13:18 Poverty and shame shall be to him that refuseth instruction: but he that regardeth reproof shall be honoured.
13:20 He that walketh with wise men shall be wise: but a companion of fools shall be destroyed.
14:12 There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.
14:16 A wise man feareth, and departeth from evil: but the fool rageth, and is confident.
14:17 He that is soon angry dealeth foolishly: and a man of wicked devices is hated.
14:29 He that is slow to wrath is of great understanding: but he that is hasty of spirit exalteth folly.
16:25 There is a way that seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.
16:28 A froward man soweth strife: and a whisperer separateth chief friends.
16:32 He that is slow to anger is better than the mighty; and he that ruleth his spirit than he that taketh a city.
22:24 Make no friendship with an angry man; and with a furious man thou shalt not go:
22:25 Lest thou learn his ways, and get a snare to thy soul.
25:28 He that hath no rule over his own spirit is like a city that is broken down, and without walls.
26:12 Seest thou a man wise in his own conceit? there is more hope of a fool than of him.
26:22 The words of a talebearer are as wounds, and they go down into the innermost parts of the belly.
29:20 Seest thou a man that is hasty in his words? there is more hope of a fool than of him.
29:23 A man's pride shall bring him low: but honour shall uphold the humble in spirit.
30:32 If thou hast done foolishly in lifting up thyself, or if thou hast thought evil, lay thine hand upon thy mouth.

Hi Verne,

I don't recall ever saying anything like what you posted above.  When did I say that?

And another tihing, people are speaking up.  Quite a bit actually. I think what you mean is that there werent' enough people saying the things you thought should be said.  That is certainly your perogative.  However, people are hardly keeping silent on this topic.  You just don't want to listen.

One more thing: I'm trying to see how this is Assembly drivel.  In the Assembly, I vividly remember people being told what to say, or to keep quiet.  The exact opposite is going on here.  Can you please enlighten me?

Brent.  ( I really am your friend, whether you agree with me or not.)

Verses on actions by friends from Proverbs:

17:17 A friend loves at all times, And a brother is born for adversity.
27:6 Faithful are the wounds of a friend, But deceitful are the kisses of an enemy.
27:9 Oil and perfume make the heart glad, So a man's counsel is sweet to his friend.

We could become your yes-persons, but then we would not truly be your friends.

As Brent has said, I will restate that I speak as a friend as well.

God bless,
Marcia

Brent---

In your post just below above the highlighted area it says "Quote from Joe Sperling"--but
this is not my quote---just thought I'd make that clear. But I do feel I should have just kept
my mouth shut. I apologize for adding any more fuel to the fire in regards to this thread. I
think Tom is absolutely right, in that this issue should be resolved privately, and let the Lord
deal with the hearts that are involved. Thank you Al for the reminders from Matthew--I myself
know I need to take them more to heart. I have been posting on the board for quite a while now
and I know that at the beginning I got in some heated arguments with Al, Luke Robinson, Matt
Peeling and Sondra and others at times. I apologize for anything I said(I said so much it's hard to be
specific) which was hurtful or "attacking" towards others. I admit I had great animosity towards
the other board, lableling it "Soaring with the egos" or "Snoring with the Beagles".

I decided it was best to stay away--and it was a good decision. I was a little hurt by the comment
on my "quip" about football, but I don't want to harbor ill will or ill feelings towards anyone. God
bless Sondra, God bless Matt, God bless Verne, and everyone else on this BB and SWTE
too. After all, were all brothers and sisters in Christ, and "dear children" of the Lord. We all have a habit of thinking we know one another, when in reality we really don't--only the Lord knows what is really
in each of our hearts. I want to thank everyone for all of the discussions, opinions, arguments,
ideas, and prayers that have helped me out in the last couple of years. I mean that sincerely.

Thanks,Joe

P.S.    How 'bout those bobcats?

Hi Joe,

I was quoting Verne, but somehow all the quote jargon came up with your name.

Brent

Brent---

Thanks---I figured something like that happened. Have you been sailing lately?
I haven't heard you talk about those adventures for quite a while. But maybe
that's best for another thread. I've also got a few really good chiropractor jokes
I'd like to run past you.  ;D

God bless, Joe

Joe,

I have actually just sold the boat.  It was heartwrenching. However, my kids are so involved in stuff that requires travel that it makes no sense right now for me to own and maintain a sailboat.

My neighboor, also my  best friend has a boat that I can sail any time I wish, so I do that when I'm not playing poker of travelling to a match with the kids.

My main hobby right now is poker.  I'm playing daily on-line and face to face about 1-2 times per week.  My game is improving, but I have hit the most mathmatically improbable state of "bad luck"----no such thing really---lately that my mind is spinning.

It's all part of the game, which is amazingly satisfying, not to mention profitable at times.  Look for me on TV withing the next 2=3 years.  Maybe next month I'll have my first HUGE win.  Biggest so far is 3600 for a 12 dollar entry.  Of course, I lose the entry more often than not.....

Around here it's mainly wrestling, gymnastics and Bball.  It looks like the gymnast is going to switch to pole-vaulting soon.  We have an Olympic silver medalist who is coaching the girls, and he takes gymnasts.  Most of them win CIF.  We'll see how it goes.

Brent:

Wrestling is an interesting sport.  My son did it for a while so I traveled around North Carolina going to all-day-Saturday matches.  I got to enjoy it and kind of miss it.

Joe:

Don't feel bad about feeling bad.  There would be something wrong with you if you didn't feel a bit violated about the sport comment.  Healthy people react like this:

Joe:  How 'bout them Patriots.
Other:  Hey!  You're being mean making as if our differences out like compitition!  I don't appreciate that.
Joe:  No. I really didn't intend it that way.  It is just a cultural reference like (explanation).
Other:  OK.  I guess I just took it wrong.  (or) Well, OK.  It still fell a little snotty to me but I'll accept your explanation.

Unhealthy people react like this:

Joe:  How 'bout them Patriots.
Other:  Hey!  You're being mean making as if our differences out like compitition!  I don't appreciate that.
Joe:  No. I really didn't intend it that way.  It is just a cultural reference like (explanation).
Other:  No, that is not what you meant!  You are just being deceitful.  I know exactly what you mean and now you are trying to sidestep the issue in your life.  Blah blah blah . . .
Joe:  No, really. It was just a joke. I'm sorry.
Others:  What do you take me for!  I'm onto you and your sinful motivation. You need to repent.  Blah blah blah . . .

The latter, unhealthy approach creates a chilling environment where folks feel they have to guard their words, never venture out with a joke (jokes are a risk as they always have the real possibility of failing) or speaking completely truthfully because you never know if some unintentional nuance is going to crash back over your head.  Kind of reminds me of couples retreats with Betty.

In response to SWTB:

When someone has spead rumors about me, I confront the person, one on one, to try to rectify the problem; to explain what the situation really is. On occasion, I have talked to someone else, if I'm having a hard time dealing with the shock of a rumor.  I have run into that problem many times. To try to keep a squeeky clean rep is not possible, even if one has one. Someone is always going to bash you, or make up a lie based on a partial truth.

To gather a crowd to observe the anger, accusations, apology, and refusal to accept the apology, is like holding an episode of Jerry Springer.

IMO Verne apologized to SJ, but she is wanting him to change. God makes that determination. Verne apologized for the names he used. If he wants to continue to use "strong language" that is his prerogative. He apologized for calling her names. Leave him be.

Thanks for the post Dave. I've always enjoyed your perspective on things.  Hey Brent--
be careful with the poker. Have you ever seen a movie called "Owning Mahony"? It's
a true story about a Canadian guy who worked in a bank making like $15,000 a year. But
his position as a loan officer gave him the ability to make fraudulent loans which he then
used to go gambling in Vegas. He started out small, but wound up stealing about 10 million
dollars in total---and he lost all of it gambling!! He was finally caught and has not gambled since.
It's really an amazing story. Not that you would do the same ;D.

Too bad about the boat, but I'm glad you have an outlet with your neighbor. In regards
to wrestling, Jacob was probably one of the best of all time.

--Joe

Hi Joe,

Im not robbing too many banks at this stage....

Also, contrary to popular misconceptions, poker is not necessarily gambling.  It can be, and many players do gamble out of ignorance or stupidity, but the game itself is one of skill.  California legalized it, unlike 21 or slots, because the house has no advantage over the players.  In like manner, no player has an advantage over another, unless it be due to skill, or luck, the latter being nothing more than mathmatical variance.

The psychology behind the game is absolutely fascinating.  Winning money is also fun.   :D

I'm actually playing a No-limit Holdem tournament and a 3-6 Omaha hi/lo split as I type.

Brent

What did Sondra speak out about?  Who is Sondra?

On a different note...

Brent - I'm glad to hear that there are other poker players on this site.  You are absolutely right that it is a game of skill. I also agree that the psychology behind it is definitely fascinating.  Somebody the other day was admiring how patient I am when I play.  I explained to this person that it is easy to be patient when from the time you are 2-17  years old, you sat through 3-4 one and a half to three hour meetings per week that you absolutely had no interest being at.  Passing the time playing poker is simple and enjoyable compared to that.

Look at that...I admitted some good did come out of that assembly.

Hi Folks. I invoked my 24 hour rule on this and in accordance with Tom's entreaty this will be only post on the subject.

The definition of humility in the assemblies was that you accepted any and all criticism and accusations without reflection and/or rebuttal. Particularly if it came from a worker or leading brother or one of their agents. It did not matter if there was no factual basis in what was being asserted, nor if there were mitigating circumstances, you were guilty as charged, and permitted to demonstrate your humility by promptly and meekly agreeing with whatever was said in accusation. Sounds familiar?
I apologized to Sondra for calling her an adulteress and my apology stands.
It does not matter whether I think someone married more than once qualifies or not for that is not the point. The spirit and purpose attending the statement was intended to injure and that was wrong. Any thing said in that spirit, factual or not is wrong and I readily admit that. I have made many such statements in referring to her and they also were wrong.
I have not repeated such statements to the best of my knowledge with the exception to state that her recent conduct on the BB was “vicious” and “thuggish”.
I get the impression the in the minds of some, my apology to her meant that I would never again criticize anything that she did, nor publicly disagree with her.
Why would any one make such an assumption?
I remained silent as shortly after accepting my apology, she trained her guns on new targets.
How is it that she insists on being treated with respect and deference by those visiting her website, yet she is allowed to come here and insult the moderator of this board, and hurl ludicrous accusations at one of our regular posters? This person in the face of this kind of accusation then felt the need to delete an entirely innocent post. Why were some of you e-mailing me in private to criticize her while remaining silent when this was going on?
This is rank hypocrisy! While I am loathe to mention this, even after we had agreed to wait a week to talk about our differences, she got on the BB and launched another unbelievable slew of charges as a result of outrage over my not responding to an e-mail I had not even read!
Every one who knows the history of her website knows that she has been on a search and destroy mission so far as Verne Carty is concerned since the day it was launched. While she may criticize and disagree with me, she does not have the right to slander and lie about me. My own failing was to respond to her in kind. This is undoubtedly the street-fighter instinct in me (an instinct which has saved my life more than once) but it was certainly not Christian conduct.
I knew this woman was insincere when she admitted that she may have posted false statements about my tenure at Champaign Alliance Church yet did not have the decency to retract it.
She clams to be a believer.
Why is she sending lists of things I have said to her that offended her to everyone but me?
Why is it that she chose not to follow the Biblical standard and confront me as a brother in Christ with those matters privately?
Is it possibly because her conscience would not allow it?
Was it because it was always her intention to enlist the support of presumably credible people in her non-stop attempts to discredit me?
Is it possible that she realized that there were cat’s paws she could employ by playing the sympathy game and using that to present me in the poorest light?
Here’s the biggest the biggest disappointment of all.
Rather than advise her, as was proper, to send that list to the offending party and recite her grievances, the list is apparently accepted as fact, no opportunity for rebuttal is given, but everyone involved gets on the BB during her full-scale assault and makes  public statements about the ball being in my court.
To try to publicly ambush me (to say nothing of subjecting the BB to this fiasco) instead of allowing  me to deal with this in private, was not mediation.  It was grand-standing. I ought to know for I have done my fair share of it. I am happy for them if it won you her respect for those involved, but at what cost?.
I apologized not because of the Brent, Marcia and Sondra troika. I apologized because God used what what Dave posted to prick me in the conscience and I had to admit that he was right; that I myself  had often been heavy- handed even on the BB and that was not right.
An apology at the time was proper, regardless of what I personally felt about this person..
Despite the statement about everything she said about me being validated by my now speaking out against her on-going conduct, the apology was sincere.
I will repeat that my own conduct toward Sondra Jameson was not right and my apology was genuine. I am deeply disappointed that those of you calling yourselves her friends, and mine, did not have the courage to say the same thing to her and say so publicly.
Tom, I want to say to you as moderator this will be the last time I use this person’s name or refer to her in any way on this BB. Thanks for your patience.
Verne

Where and what do you play?

Brent

I play 3-4 times per week.  I am in a league here in Omaha that "thefantasypokerleague.com" puts on.  Its a free league played in bars/restaraunts that I play in two - three times per week.  You can accumulate points based on how you do. The grand prize is a seat at the World Series of Poker. More than anything though, Its great practice for cash games.  I also play about one cash tournament per week - usually with aquaintances at a house.  When I went to Vegas in September, I played in a 160 person tournament and finished in the top 20.  That was fun.  I was one bad read away from being in command of that whole deal.

I don't play online, simply because I think half of the fun is reading people, plus, to many weird things have happened on line when I have played.  For ex.  An ace of spades will make someones flush, someone elses A high straight, make someone elses ace low straight, give someone trip aces, etc.  At least that is the way it seems.  I don't like playing for free online because I get in to many bad habits.  I do realize that people have tells online as well, but to me its just not the same as playing in person.

I am actually playing in a tournament tonight here in Omaha that should have over 150 people.  Should be fun.

Back to my first question...Who is Sondra?

Reply to SWTB:

She hasn't been called anything I haven't already been called. Get over it.

Im gonna play in Vegas the end of March. I plan to play some low-limit ring games with Suzie, she likes to play, and then take a few sattelites for the big NL tourney at Bellagio.  I had a similiar experience to the one you describe above on my last trip.

In the Tues nite NL tourney at the Mirage, I was about 100 bucks below chip leader with 16 people left.  They paid the last nine, and I had enough chips to limp into the money.  I got AQspades and called the chip leader, who came in for a good sized raise.

The flop had an ace and two spades.  He pushed all in, and I agonized.  I knew he had AK, but I had the flush draw...and what if he didn't have AK.....what if I hit my flush, or a Q?  So, I called, and never hit a spade.....and he took all my chips and went on to easily win 10k!!

Since then, I absolutely hate AQ.  No hand has cost me more than that hand, except perhaps AA, in loose games.

If you're out here, look me up and we can make the rounds.  There are 3 cardrooms within a halfhour of my house.  In CA, they are all Non-smoking, Non-drinking and non-cussing.  Decent group of people for most part.

Anyhow, as I'm typing this, I'm playing.  Today I've placed in a tourney, got busted out of one, and made about 300 in a 2/4 Omaha hilo game.

Are you familiar with Doyle Brunson?  He has an awesome Christian testimony, and is my favorite card player by far.

Brent

I really do like how the Sondra thread has turned into the no limit hold em thread....

No drinking, smoking, or cussing card rooms in CA.???  That sounds way to good to be true.  Smoke drives me crazy, which really limits where I play.  I do also like Doyle Brunson.  I read his original book.  It was more geared towards cash games and I mainly play tournaments, but there are some really good points in there.

I am in a slump right now.  I am playing the percentages, but gettting extremely unlucky.  In my game last night I had pocket tens.  I raised a fairly substantial amount pre flop.  I had only one caller.  At this point, he was the chip leader but I was a close second.  The flop came 7, 10, J. No flush draw out there.  I went all in thinking if he had called my raise with 89, then so be it.  He called my all in and had AJ.  The turn was a jack which game me my boat.  The river was an ace which game him a higher boat.

Ouch!!!

I also hate AQ.  I always just seem to get drawn on out on it or beat somehow.

Anyone interested in ending this thread and the remembrance of the Jerry Springer episode?

Poker is changing.  It is becoming so popular now, housewives, school teachers, celebrities, doctors, lawyers, everyone is playing.  The trend is identical to what happened with Harleys.  Once upon a time, they were associated with unsavory characters and Hell's Angels.  To give an example, I played a cash game couple months ago with my son's football coaches, the wrestling coaches, his biology teacher, and a couple of their friends.  All nice, normal guys.  They were so nice I almost felt guilty taking most of their money!  (amateurs....been there, done that.)

Anyhow, we decided to do a No Limit Hold'em tournament as a booster club fundraiser, we the athletic department keeps half, and the players get half for prize money.  It should be the most profitable fundraiser ever.

Ok, here's my badbeat story---yours made me feel much better, thanks! ;D ---

Played Omaha Sunday and Wednesday night, this week.  I won Sunday, did very well, but lost about 200 dollars I should have won in the following manner:

I had A2AK double suited, and raised pre-flop.  I was called by the usual fish.  I flopped the nut flush and a draw to the nut low.  I check raised on the flop, bet out on the turn, jammed the pot, and got heads up with a guy who wasn't sure what he had.

He called on the river and hit his only out to make a straight flush.  He had no low draw, and the low never got there for me.  I ran the odds on the computer that night, and he had less than 1 percent chance of winning that hand on the turn!  Here's the bad part....he did the same thing to me about an hour later!   >:(

Wednesday nite....exactly the same situation.  People thought I was cursed, and said stuff like,  "I'm not sitting next to you, a meteor could hit me."

Everything seems to be evening out though.  I look at that as being cheap lessons in good poker.  People who are "lucky" the first few years they play never develop their game, whereas I have learned how to fold.

Anyhow, all the cardrooms here are as I descibed above.  It's really funny to run into someone from church, but hey, the game is changing.

Brent

PS, let me sign you up as a buddy on Ultimate Bet, and we'll both get a cash reward.

I don't know a lot about cards. The last game I was at people were saying things
like "got any sixes?" or "got any fives?" I kind of lost interest at that time, but maybe
poker might prove more interesting. I'd just have to understand some of the terminology
a little better I think.

--Joe

Sorry to bore you with the proprietary language, Joe.

Watch the Travel Channel and you can see exactly what we are talking about and learn the game.  It takes about 20 minutes to learn, and a lifetime to master....

   ...kind of like the gospel! ;)

al

On my mom's side, my grandfather and aunt both liked playing poker.  I never was much into games of chance.  Back in High School, there were some students in the calculus class who liked playing Bridge.  Bridge seems to have more strategy in it than poker, but I never got into playing Bridge either.


This link has info on the worlds best poker-playing computer software:

http://www.cs.ualberta.ca/~games/poker/

Some technical details about the software:

http://www.cs.ualberta.ca/~darse/Papers/IJCAI03-ov.html


A Science News article about computers playing various games:

http://www.sciencenews.org/pages/sn_arc97/8_2_97/bob1.htm

Go is by far the most difficult game for present computer technology.

     Maybe it all depends on where you Go! ;D ;D ;D

Actually, the strategy for poker is about on par with bridge, because both use the same deck and therefore have the same mathmatical odds for hitting certain cards.  The only difference with poker, other than the rules, is that there is a tremendous amount of psychology that has nothing to do with the cards.

I can play a game with beginners, and actually win, or break even without looking at my cards, just by bullying them with my betting.  I've done it.  It's a good exercise for people who are trying to develop their game.  Plus, with poker, greed, fear, survival insitnct and competition come into play.  Also, you can train your opponents to react to you a certain way, and then trap them.  You can also create a false table image of yourself and take advantage of it, etc.

Strategy wise, it is mostly based on an emotional level in the advanced games.  Having a great memory helps too.  People tend to play certain types of hands, and play them the same way every time.  Knowing this tells you when you can bluff, and when you are being bluffed.  The probability is fundamental, and every intermediate player knows it. However, the real skill is the people skill, knowing how to apply maximum pressure to protect your mediocre hand,  or suck someone in to a trap.

Poker is the Bridge of today. The difference is that Poker is a multibillion dollar industry, while Bridge is becoming a lost pastime, although I wouldn't be surprised if it made a comeback.

Brent

Hi Verne,

Thank you for re-stating and for clarifying where you stand on this matter.  I am posting this on public forum because I have stated my opinion about this issue publicly.  I do not wish to revive the whole discussion again.

Personally, I believe that I can still have fellowship with you and discuss topics with you, and we sometimes may simply have to agree to disagree.  So that would mean that I have settled in the pro-Verne camp eh?? 8)

God bless,
Marcia

That you and Brent are my sister and brother in Christ there is no doubt. What's a family without an occsional spat?
Always in His love,
Verne

Mathematical game theory is actually most relevant when playing against experts.  Predicting and influencing what an opponent will do based on psychology amounts to taking advantage of weaknesses of the other players.  A strong player can't be taken advantage of in that way, so if you want to succeed against top players, you will need to become skilled at mathematically precise play.

A simple example of mathematically precise strategy is the scissors-paper-stone game.  The optimum strategy is to choose each possibility with equal probability.  If you're playing the game against a poor player, then you will often be able to guess what your opponent will do and take advantage of it.  Against a good player, you won't be able to guess, so the random strategy is the best.

The weakness of poker computer programs is that they don't take maximal advantage of poor players.  Against expert players they do fairly well.

This description of poker seems to apply to several things in life.  For example, at a car dealership today where I'm testing/checking out some new stuff, I get the feeling that the salesman is trying to pull things of similar nature.  The I open the hood and ask the dealer how much it would cost to change the alternator that's buried beneath layers of hoses and rigid lines(which I know is $400 for parts, and mostly labor)  and confirm my notion with his answer:  $150. 

Hi Steve,

Please, for your own sake, don't start playing poker for money.  You could learn how to play mathmatically precise in about a day.  You would lose so much money to the experts it would make you cry.

Probablility, or mathmatically precise play, is for beginners.  Sort of like dogpaddling and floating for swimmers.  You don't play waterpolo unless you know how to float, and you don't use perfect freestyle either.

Same with poker.  For example, against an expert, you would be quickly identified as a player who only played quality cards, in order to press your advantage.  The expert would note that, and pretend he also had quality cards, even better than yours.  However, when the type of cards coming off the deck (the flop) were low, trashy cards, he would bet into you, causing you to fold, and lose your money.  It happens all the time.

Deception is a much greater part of the game than math.   You must use the math, you must understand the odds, but you must also play your opponent.  If they can see your cards, you can never win!  And by playing mathmatically precise, it's almost the same as if you show them your cards.

So, if you want to succed against beginners and recreational players, math is important.  If you want to succeed against experts, a whole lot more is involved.

Dan, your observation about the car dealer is right on, and by playing along you were able to catch him in a lie, which gives you vital information about his ethics and motivation.  That's poker.

Brent

Of course, I wouldn't play for real money without learning the game first, but I don't feel motivated to invest a lot of time in learning the game, at least not at this time.


You must not have read the description, in the second link that I posted, of what mathematically precise play actually is, nor understood the analogy of the scissors-paper-stone game.  By precise, I don't mean doing the same thing every time you get a certain hand.  Precise means taking into account the whole history of events during the process of playing the game, and using specific probabilities based on that info to decide randomly what you should do.

Here is a quote from the second link:

---

It is impossible to compute the complete game-theoretic solution for Texas Hold'em (the poker variant used to determine the World Champion), because the 2-player game has more than a quintillion states (ie. 10 to the 18th power, or a billion billion).  We used abstraction techniques to create smaller games that have about 30 million states, but retain most of the key properties of the real game.  The solutions to these smaller games produce an approximation of the game-theoretic optimal solution for the real game.

---

This is obviously not something that anyone could ever completely learn, let alone in one day.


The scissors-paper-stone game is an illustration that shows how the mathematically precise randomness evades revealing your cards.  The randomness is unpredictable, so the opponent won't know for sure what your actions mean.


You yourself already said that beginners are more vulnerable to psychological tricks, and that you don't need math to win against beginners.  Any success with using psychology against experts is simply revealing their weaknesses.  Of course, you can argue that some weakness will always be there.  It is also difficult to choose randomly without some kind of randomizing device.  I wonder what other poker players would think, if an opponent used dice to decide what to do.  Would they be annoyed?


The car dealer obviously wasn't a good poker player, since he fell for that.  My grandfather was a car dealer, and then in later years went into selling Airstream trailers and mobile homes.  He was an expert salesman.  I remember him saying that it is foolish to lie to the customer about what you're selling.

Here's an interesting curiosity.

RoShamBo (rock-paper-scissors) Programming Competition:

http://www.cs.ualberta.ca/~darse/rsbpc.html

Or how about a strategy guide from the World RPS Society:

http://www.worldrps.com/advanced.html

In a Chinese lesson book, I read that this game is popular in China, as well as variants involving different numbers of fingers.  A typical way they play the game is that the loser of each round has to drink some wine.

Sometimes the University of Alberta Computer Poker Research Group hosts a challenge to test their poker playing algorithms.  You can prove your skill against their computer logic.

http://games.cs.ualberta.ca/webgames/poker/Contests/contest.html

can't we kill this thread?

Moonflower, this thread is now all about poker, so you'll have to "talk to the hand!" ;D ;D ;D

al ;)

Hi Steve,

I think I pretty much understand what you said and what the link said.  Playing by probablilities is what a good intermediate player does.

A beginner bets when he has a good hand, and is basically unbluffable, cause he has something.  A novice bets because he likes the idea of winning a big pot, and he'll worry about whether he has a hand or not when it's showdown.  Novices and beginners rarely know when to fold their hands and are thus harder to bluff.

I was speaking about No-limit poker when talking about beating people without looking at cards.  You can only do it online, cause in real life people would begin to notice that you weren't looking at your cards.

I don't care what a computer does, I guarantee that a computer can't beat a really good player, let alone a table full of them. 

Example, let's say the computer has Ace Ace, the best possible starting hand.  I have 22, a decent hand, but a huge underdog to AA.

If I hit a 2 on the flop, I am now a huge favorite to AA. However, usually a person with AA isn't afraid of a 2....and I doubt the computer would be either.  However, in real life, you can watch the person swallow, watch their eyes "pop" and pick up on body language in order to tell you that they have a huge hand.  The computer can't do that, as all it can do is play mathmatically, and the game is all about human stuff at the higher levels.

Anyways,  I love  talking about poker.  Tonite I took 4th in a tournament, and then got 4 Aces in a game that followed.  Hopefully that hand will hold up and give me a few hundred dollars for the high hand jackpot.

I would love to play against the computer you speak of, that would be fun.

Brent

Yeah, cool. I like the investment tips, too.  :)

The post below brought back a time in the Assembly for me. I said "no" to one of the wives
of a brother who was leading a "brother's house". It concerned some of my own property,
and I was completely warranted in saying "no"---but not according to Assembly criteria. By
saying "no" I had said "no" to God.(according to the teachings of the Assembly).

I was asked to make a decision: to sell my car or remain in the brother's house. I chose to sell
my car so that I could remain in the house. But this wasn't good enough. I was asked to apologize
to all of the brothers at the dinner table. I did apologize saying "I was wrong for what I said".

But this was not good enough. I was told "Next time you apologize, do it with more feeling and
sincerity would you?" I was told "I know you would just like to close the door on this, but before
the Lord you don't get off so easily". I sold the car, made apologies, and on top of that was given
a list of extra stewardships to do. I was literally doing "penance" for my sin. This is the absolute truth--whatever I did it just wasn't "good enough" to appease those who were looking for my repentance and apology.

When someone admits to their "wrong" and plainly states it as such, who are we to judge them further? Do we say "that wasn't good enough--I want you to tear your clothing, pour ashes on your head, and admit what a sinner you are to the whole world?" When a person admits that they have been more than unkind, they have been wrong and they admit that, what more do we want? Does the Lord treat us like that? When we admit our wrong to him, does he say "Sorry, that wasn't good enough?"

I fully forgive everyone involved in the above story from so long ago. I share it only as an example of what
can happen when we become "judgers of others humility and repentance". When we presume to put our-
selves in a place where we say "your repentance wasn't good enough" or "your apology wasn't good enough for me" we are literally lifting ourselves up to a place where only God sits and judges.

When someone tells me they're sorry I accept it. I just don't understand this at all.(the post below) The Lord is "filled with
kindness and is READY TO FORGIVE". We should also be "ready to forgive"--not ignoring apologies and asking
for deeper humility from others. That was the old Assembly attitude, where no matter what you did it just wasn't good enough. "Your repentance wasn't good enough brother, you need to humble yourself more". "Your apology wasn't sincere enough brother--I need to see more humilty before I'll forgive you". Thank the Lord He isn't at all like that.

--Joe

Martin Luther, John Calvin, C.H. Spurgeon, Jonathan Edwards, Stephen Charnock, D. Martin Lloyd Jones, George Whitefield, John Newton, John Bunyan, J.I. Packer, R.C. Sprole, James Montgomery Boice and the vast majority of Christians in America through colonial times - I think you need to get to know more Calvinists before you begin to make broad, sweeping judgements based upon your "deeper" understanding.

Sounds like geftakyism to me.

.[/color]

Sondra---

It happened long ago, and is a very long and involved story, and that is why I haven't spent half the thread expounding on it. It did indeed happen, and was the result of saying "no" to the wife of a leading brother about that very car. This "sin" was considered so great that I was given a choice of selling the car, or moving out of the brother's house. Because I was so confused, and in such great fear, I sold the car and remained in the house. This was a "Catch-22" situation, because no matter what I did, I still KNEW that somehow God had come to have to deal with me very severely(Remember, in the Assembly, saying "no" to a leader was tantamount to saying "no" to God).

For years I felt I was worth far less than other Christians to God because of this fiasco. The Assembly God was an exacting God, who made one pay to the last cent for a supposed "sin". When you say that the Jesus I believe in is not the Jesus of the Bible I think you are quite wrong. The God of the Bible is "ready to forgive". The God of the Bible "hath not dealt with us according to our iniquities"--if he were to we would all be toast right now. He is the Good Shepherd of the sheep who leaves the 99 and seeks after the one. I don't expect to be able to explain sufficiently an experience I went through several years ago---but I can explain that the attitude shown was one of strictness and unforgiveness. And much of the attitude in the Assembly during that time was like that.

The Lord is good. One day, a few years later, I sat in an office and suddenly realized that I had a company car for which I made no payments for, neither paid insurance or gas either for that matter.I heard no audible voice, but suddenly I knew inside that God had given back what was taken from me unfairly at that time. And then came the BB and my reuniting with all people involved at that time--and the gift of forgiveness from them, and from me to them also. We had all learned over the years how wrong that system had been, and how many people had been hurt by it. God had restored what had been taken, physically, but most importantly,  spiritually from our lives.

When You say "I still don't buy your story about the sports quip, but I'll give you the benefit of the
doubt" I remember the Assembly. The Assembly was like that--you apologize for something you don't even need to apologize for, try to explain until your face is red, and still you hear "I still don't buy it". Why? Simple pride. They believe they no more about you than you know--they've got you all figured out. They have the true wisdom, and the true understanding. They are the spiritual ones with the ability to judge others and determine when repentance is true repentance, and they determine when one has repented enough to receive an "I forgive you". Yet,  even then they may take it all back if someone says something that appears to offend them once again. I've seen it and lived through it.

They are so proud of their humility that they believe they should maybe even receive an award
for enduring so much and being so humble in the midst of their sufferings. ;D   I know--I've received  several of these "humility" awards myself---and the presenter was: me. In Ephesians it says to become as "dear children", forgiving one another. In Matthew it says to be peacemakers. I will state that turning away an apology, belittling it and saying it isn't good enough is not being a "dear child" of God. Being "ready to forgive" and seeking to restore the peace rather than stir up strife is a true fruit of a child of God. As I said in an earlier post, God bless Sondra and God bless Verne. I've seen apology from both sides that I thought was sincere--who needs more?

--Joe

Thanks Joe, that was a blessing.

Sondra, you are entitled to your opinion re. Calvinism etc.  It's nice to be out of the assembly where we do not have to toe the party line, nor have any party line to toe.  But we can agree to disagree and still have good honest Christian fellowship with one another.

God bless,
Marcia

I was about to say, Well, so much for poker!

But then I realized that the game is still in play:

Player #1:  I'll bet three indiscretions.

Player #2:  OK, I'll see your indiscretions and raise you two wrongs.

Player #3:  Hmmmm...  I'm in.

Player #4:  I'll see all your indiscretions and wrongs, and raise two lies and a blatant sin!

Dealer:  Cards...

---

When the pot is continually being filled with more & more of that which needs to be forgiven, there's no way that the "winner" will reap any blessings.  Godliness isn't poker.  With God, you reap what you sow, or in poker parlance, you win more of what you bet.  Play with fire: get burnt.

The wisdom that comes from above is easily entreated-- it doesn't arrive with a chip on its shoulder preaching "This is how it is-- I dare you to prove me wrong!"

Rather, the wisdom from above speaks with the voice of God, saying, "Come, let us reason together..."
Let all things be done reasonably...

Some of us may seem to do all the talking on this board, but I have had the impression all along that we come here to learn from each other, and not just to establish a reputation.  This surely varies among us by degrees, according to our spiritual maturity or lack thereof...  But, to the best of my recollection since I've been onboard here, those who show up with an axe to grind end up either apologizing or simply going away (often erasing their tracks behind them).

God has appointed some teachers in the church, but the teacher's job is the proper telling of the truth-- an assignment calling for much humility, sensitivity and prayerfulness.  Only the Holy Spiriit of God Himself can bring the message to fruition in the life of the hearer.  The teacher may have a great heartfelt desire for both the message and those to whom it is delivered, but that burden is meant to motivate the teaching and the praying.  The convicting and the bringing about of repentance and change is the work of the Holy Spirit alone.

You can state your message again and again in many different ways, but you can't make it work!  In fact, only our Lord knows how, when, or even if, it will work.  Not all who hear the word believe...
We have need of patience...

In Christ,
al

Sondra,

I'm no defender of Calvinism.  I just felt that your sweeping generalization of a vast body of believers and the trivialization of the work of many minds greater than ours in favor of your personal encounter in the spirit seemed a bit much.

-Dave

You're right about it being like a poker game Al. But Sondra did ask for an explanation
of the "car" story. All these things have been forgiven, but they do however remain
"facts", and bits of history we can draw on in comparison, and use to show the mind-
set that did exist back at that time. I brought it up because it was a good example of
how one had to "work" to be forgiven back in those days, and how that same attitude
can exist when we don't accept the apologies of others as being "good enough".

I really didn't mean it as a "I'll raise you an indiscretion and two sins", because we are
all guilty of those from that time. But because we are all so guilty we should be so
much the more "ready to forgive" one another now. But there existed a mentality
back then that we all need to flee from(and I point heavily at myself too) of feeling
spiritually elite, and of feeling one had the power to judge and know another person's
heart to the point of judging them for "crimes" which didn't even exist.

When a person has made an attempt at apology, and has said that what they did was
wrong, why can't that be accepted? That was my whole question. If I'm out of line
for asking it then please correct me. I just wasn't sure whether I should "call"
or "fold".

Thanks,Joe

Al---

After more consideration I think I will fold. I don't have a good enough hand to continue
in the game. Like you mentioned once--with all of us there is "Some Assembly Required" ;D
Bringing up past experiences in this context really isn't a good thing to do. In the Assembly the
game was 21. It was either "I'll stay", or "hit me". I'd rather play poker--on second thought
I'll raise you two "I forgive you's" and a "God bless you." :D

God bless, Joe

For the benefit of all,  I wrote my previous post while Joe was posting his car story, and I posted it before I had read what Joe had said.  My thoughts were general, and referred to no one in particular.

I have some familiarity with the incident to which Joe refers, and considerable awareness of the way things worked in those days, as I was there & a part of it all.  Joe wasn't dealing with "monsters," but with other people like himself, who were straining under the same heavy yoke of the assembly chain of command-- everyone just trying to survive one day at a time.

We were to consider ourselves as the saints of Acts, who sold all their belongings and had all things in common, therefore Joe's car was fair game to be ordered disposed of.  I don't think he was required to turn over the proceeds to the assembly coffers, but just to be carless.

Joe's points are well taken.  There is a great simplicity to confession and forgiveness.  The final settlements will take place in the visible Presence of our Lord Himself, but we are at liberty to forgive and think and hope the best of our brethren at present.  We are not called upon to judge their innermost secret hearts, or to know their deepest motives.  Why not accept what is said at face value?  God has promised that one's secret sins will be exposed, but the exhuming of those of our brethren is not our present calling.  We all have as much as we can handle keeping our own personal accounts honest before God.  Only by His grace can we manage that.

When someone risks personal attack to offer an illustration, can't we just accept the gesture as it is presented, trusting God to uncover any falsity behind it?  Suspicion is not a fruit of the spirit.  We need not dig up all the ugliness of the past in order to "make a judgment" when no judgment is needed or called for.

I believe that Sondra is right in saying we should all read each other carefully:  trying to understand exactly what is being said (not reading in "hidden" implications that were unintended by the poster), having respect for what has not been said, and asking honest (not biased or "leading") questions for the sake of clarification only (not argumentation or provocation).

In Christ,
al

P.S.-- There will be no Calvinists or Arminianists in heaven-- only redeemed sinners, through the grace of Christ.

Sondra---

I didn't take Al's post as a reprimand. Al has an excellent sense of humor,
which he sometimes mixes with some seriousness to get across a point.
I saw his post made after I posted concerning the car. No harm, no foul.

--Joe

Oooooooooooo, that's a broad brush.

I was raised with Calvinists, and have yet to meet one who believes what you just stated to be true.

Amen and praise God for that.

Let's all say it together now: VERNE APOLOGIZED FOR WHAT CAUSED OFFENCE TO SJ, AND HASN'T DONE IT TO HER AGAIN.

After I made the above comment I realized that it could be mis-understood, but I could not retract it because it had been quoted by another.
Now I see that I should have clarified at the time, so here goes.
I did not mean that I was siding with Verne against anybody.
I did not mean that I was adopting Verne's perspective, though I do sometimes agree with him.
I simply meant that I was for him as I am pro-everybody-else, though I might sometimes disagree with him/others.


Sondra, I am clueless.  What are you referring to here?

Marcia

Reply to Sondra, part 1 of 2:


No, I don't.  It's his story, to tell however he wishes to tell it.


What people?  Joe mentioned no names (obviously, in my eyes, because he doesn't want to drag up the past or make anyone uncomfortable), and he told us that he has forgiven all concerned, and has been forgiven as well.


Who cares, decades after the fact, what you or I may think of this person who remains nameless and unknown to us all?

Again I ask: fair to who?  No one has been named or implicated and the whole issue has been pronounced ended and closed.


You are free to think what you wish and live by whatever rules-of-thumb you choose, as is Joe and all free people.

 
My question regarding this statement is: How seriously are you trying to not argue?


Indeed.  And that is often because it is too simple.  There is no glory in it; no garnering of attention to oneself.  One is convicted.  One acknowledges the Lord's gracious forgiveness.  One repents.  What could be more simple?  But where's the fanfare?  Where's the "Hey everybody-  Looka me!!!"?


Jesus didn't say that knowhow is required, but childlikeness (simplicity).


Personal matters, best settled personally, but I understand that it is too late for that because what should have been personal (or better yet not at all) was made public and wants for a public settlement.  Perhaps abandoning the "I know you are, but what am I?" approach of exchanging insults in a spirit of one-upmanship, and replacing it with a precise description of exactly what it is you want to accomplish, i.e. to receive from the other party, might actually allow the matter to be concluded.  Such a description would seem to be in keeping with your thought that "words really matter," as stated above.
 

You will havce to take up this question with the Author of the Bible, which says much about Hope, e.g. "Love hopes all things..."


Maybe one is not to know.  Maybe one is to walk by faith, and not by knowing.  The Bible also says a great deal about "knowing," but I don't recall it mentioning knowing anything about knowing about modified apologies...


Well, I'll have to concede to you that point, Sondra.  You are ahead of me in that respect.  I have neither the time nor the wisdom to ride herd on my brethren's sins.


Presumably your "don't trust" is directed at people and not at the Lord, in which case I'm certainly inclined to agree with you.  People are quite consistent in failings, and will usually manage to let you down sooner or later.  On the other hand, Jesus never fails.

The fact that you or I think something is not enough to establish it as a "should be."

Honesty and disclosure may be vitally important or not, depending on the circumstances.  In the case of Joe's story, it's ancient history-- there's nothing there to be disclosed.  Just my opinion, of course, & certainly no more valid than yours.


Same here.  Seriously.

(continued in next post...)

Reply to Sondra, part 2 of 2:



Two points:

1.]  The scripture tells us to cast down our imaginations and to bring every thought into obedience to Christ, so there's really no need, nor excuse, to let one's imagination fill in anything.

2.]  If you think it is reasonable for you to ask, then it is...  If Joe thinks it is reasonable for him to not answer, then it is.  We aren't here to control one another, and if we have control issues, we ought not foist them upon each other, but pray and request prayer to be delivered from them.  I, for one, have a tendency to want to control my environment (including the saints I'm around), and would appreciate your prayers in support of my own to be delivered from this ungodly trait.
 

OK, Sondra, being perfectly honest, what exactly did I say that makes you think I have tried to shift blame for anything onto you?  The quote to which you addressed this remark was:
   ...in which my only mention of you was to say that I believed that you were right about what you had said.  Your trying to turn my statement into a casting of blame upon you illustrates the very point I was attempting to make:   "not reading in "hidden" implications that were unintended by the poster."


If it was a private conversation, it didn't belong on a public forum.  If it wasn't private, where's the foul?
I have already explained that I posted before even reading Joe's post, and wasn't "treating him" at all, much less "like a kid."


Joe has and does speak for himself.  I don't think he was weak-kneed.  Joe used to live in my house, but perhaps you know and understand him better than I do.  It seemed quite evident to me that his Eagles post had nothing to do with your BB, and that his apology, although unnecessary, was completely genuine.  But what do I know?


You are more than welcome to think whatever you choose about me, and to post it.  I have no idea what you need or what you should do, so don't expect a comeback from me.


I say this only to go on record:  Sondra, IMO, there is nothing H about your O.


As is becoming more and more the case, I have no idea what you base your "impressions" upon.  Is it because I made the neutral statement that the Lord won't be welcoming us to His kingdom according to our doctrinal preferences?  Why are you asking me why you get a sudden impression?  How does this fit in with your thinking that "words really matter?"  Please just say what you mean.

Just so you may understand, I have no problem at all with any discussions that have occurred so far re: calvinism.  I was just weighing in with my own opinion.  Whatever "impressions" you gathered beyond my actual words, I'm unable to account for.


And I don't think I said that you said anything at all about what you said.  It may seem incredible to you, but when I don't name names it is because I am speaking generally.  If I have something to say to you personally, I will address it to you by name, e.g.:

Sondra, you may take up your differences with Spurgeon when you meet him-- as far as I care, you are entitled to whatever opinion of him you choose to hold.

I hope these statements help to establish where I stand...

In Christ,
al

on edit:


I am still clueless, but will take a stab at what you mean.

I do not have any boat to rock at this time because IMO Verne has apologized to you, and you have apologized to Verne.

I would really like to move on and discuss other topics now.

Marcia

Some of "us" ?  !

I think what she is trying to say is, "If things were as bad as you say they were, why did you stay in that situation?  Why didn't you get up and leave?"  I assumed it was a question aimed at a large audience, namely those of us who believe we suffered abuse of one form or another in the Assembly.

In my opinion it is a valid question, and one that each of us should really answer.  Why did it take so long for some of us to get up and walk out?  

It is due to a character flaw/weakness in each of us, which has been discussed at length on this very forum.  That weakness, coupled with other factors allowed us to become entangled in George's world.  It's the same type of dynamic that enables a woman to stay in an abusive relationship.

We all need to face this, in order to own our own culpability in the matter.  Certainly George "did it" to us, in many ways....however, what sane person would allow him to do this?  That's a tough one to swallow.

I would say that the Assembly sympathizers, who are still following God's perfect pattern of testimony, and reading George's books, etc.....they really need to face this, as do those who inisist that they were serving God, in spite of the problems.  I maintain that even the most sincere among the latter group need to ask themselves why there were oblivious to the hurting sheep around them, and why they continue to place most of the blame on the victims, and not on those  who have the greater sin.

I'm not directing this at anyone in particular, because I think each of us falls into at least one of the groups I listed above.  All I am trying to say is that in the final analysis, very few people were physically held captive.  There were some who came close, like Judy, and some of the children, but most of us were there by choice, and remained there because we were too cowardly to stand tall and walk out.

If there is anything I'll say about Sondra, it is that at least she had the courage to get up and leave.  Regardless of anything else she may say, think or do, she certainly bested me on that count.

Brent

Sondra---

I really don't need anyone to come and "kiss my wounds" as you state. I brought up the car
issue as a "historical" thing, to show what lack of forgiveness/warping of the concept of for-
giveness can lead to, not for any pity. This event happened happened many, many years ago,
and all involved have been forgiven, and have completely changed their ways since that time.

Bob Smith hit the nail on the head with his post below. A lot of us were "followers of men"
at that time---but I must point out--the Assembly taught us to do so. "Obey them that have
the rule over you" was taken quite literally. This was shown by "Leading Brothers" having the
power to "control" people to extreme limits---even to whom one should marry. I admit I was
extremely weak at the time--I was 21, yet inside I was like a 14 year old kid--scared, and with
no self-esteem at all. I "allowed" myself to be manipulated, and I "allowed" myself to be trodden
down without taking a stand. The Assembly was a system that was set up that way though--the strong ruled over the weak(though the "strong" were really extremely weak people themselves if
they had lived in the REAL world--they were given the ability to be "leaders" in this microcosm of a
world called "The Assembly"--there they were considered "strong" and "spokesmen for God").

We were adults who were ruled over as children--especially in the "brother's houses". You were expected to report everything you were doing, and to never say "no" to one considered a leader. In one of the articles on the GA website a brother mentions "taking a walk" one Saturday and having a leading brother come to a screeching halt in his car and asking "Where are you going"? The brother states he's simply going for a walk. "Did you tell anyone where you were going?"  Now, this brother was like 25 years old at the time--does he have to "let someone know" that he is taking a walk?  I can attest to the same things for sure--I lived through them too. We "allowed" men to rule over us--but these same men had a very powerful manipulator they could use--it's called the Bible. And they could open that Bible and quote "Obey them that have the rule over you", and "rebellion as is the sin of witchcraft" to keep everyone in line.

There is no need for me to repeat the very long story of what happened with the car--I know what happened, and if you choose to disbelieve it that's your right. I would just like to say that I have no desire to come on the BB, in front of the Lord, and make up a story for kicks. I also do not want to repeat an old story to get "pity" from anyone. Everyone suffered different things in their experiences with the Assembly. I think a lot of it depended on what Assembly you were in, and at what time-frame it happened. The important thing is that I have learned a lot from what I went through back in those days, and one of the most important things is to be quick to forgive. That was the whole basis for my original post. 1 Corinthians says that "love suffers long and is kind" that love thinks "the best" of someone else, especially a brother or sister in Christ. I have not learned this completely, that's for sure, but I want to have a tendency to believe my brethren in Christ rather than distrust them or cast doubts upon their integrity. In that "event" that happened so long ago I can say that I love the brothers and sisters who were involved with all of my heart, and I have forgiven it all long ago. I know they have forgiven me for those days also, because they have told me that, and I have no reason to doubt them.

God bless, Joe

In 1Cor.1:12, "Now this I say, that every one of you says, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ.", there are at least two crucial points to be seen.  First, the verse leads into a question in verse 13, "Is Christ divided?", based upon the previous verses, in which Paul takes note of the situation at hand: 

[10] Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that you be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.
[11] For it has been declared unto me of you, my brethren...that there are contentions among you.

Second, the question hinges upon declarations of partisanship which include the phrase "I am of Christ."

Stating the obvious, the answer to the question is clearly an emphatic "NO!"  Christ is not, and can never be, divided.  To think otherwise is to put the destiny of the Son of God under the control of men.

Paul is exhorting the brethren in Corinth to unity not because they did or could divide Christ, but because their denominational behavior (making divisions among themselves), gave testimony to their community that they were themselves divided-- a testimony which dishonored the very Truth of God.

In citing his objections to their articles of division, he included not only their adherences to various men, but even the concept that I am of Christ.  What could possibly be wrong with claiming to belong to Christ?  In itself, nothing, BUT those who Paul was addressing were apparently excluding all others who were, in fact, Christ's own but who followed men's teachings such as those of Paul himself, Peter, Apollos...

The importance of what Paul is teaching is that, even though some believers may be following the examples and/or leadership of certain men, Christ cannot be divided.  This fact applies to Christ as Head over all things to the church and to the church itself, which is the Body of Christ. This being true, Paul is urging the saints to stop acting as if there were divisions, by enacting them among us, for God does not recognize them and neither, therefore, should we.

Put in simpler terms, the many and huge divisions that we see in what we view as the church of our Lord, simply do not exist in the true church as God sees it.  He sees the end from the beginning, looks upon the perfect completion of His beloved bride.  We cannot yet view that reality by sight, but we can acknowledge its existence by faith as we honor Him as our Head.


Most of your views of human nature, as stated above, are much like my own, Bob.  To your question, "How do you find real believers who stand for truth?" my answer varies slightly, but significantly I think, from your own:  Stand with Christ alone (in all He stands fo)r, and you will never have to question the sincerity of others because He will direct your paths, He will grant you wisdom to see what needs to be seen, when and how it needs to be seen, and He will deliver you from evil.  Axioms may be useful tools, but they are not Christ.  Christ Himself in the scriptures and in the Spirit is all we need-- our only absolute Essential.

Your comments are most genuinely appreciated.  I will further address Sondra's thoughts in another post...

In Christ,
al

This thread has certainly taken an interesting turn.

The reason I didn't leave the Assembly sooner than I did was because I honestly believed it would offend God...at least that's what had been reinforced in my thinking by the lb's and the head stewards of the various homes I lived in.  I would have left the group day one if I had known what direction my life would go in.

But...I am glad I went through that experience, because I wouldn't be where I am today.  I am a much stronger young woman, more assertive, more alert, more devoted to my God.  I have made lifelong friends with the very people who shared that Assembly experience with me.  The Assembly was like a 40-year wilderness experience...I came out a victor! :)

Glad you enjoyed the mirror checks.
All Mirror checks, SJ

Sondra, I omitted the first paragraph of your post because it was addressed to Joe & I believe he has already answered it.  In the above paragraph you state, re: Joe's car story: "I could make one phone call and know."  Since Joe has already explained why he doesn't want to expound upon it further, and you seem to be the only one on this board who insists on having the whole story so you can "make a judgment" about something which is completely unrelated to Joe's point, why don't you just make the phone call & find out whatever it is you want to find out?

Do you hope to badger Joe into doing something he doesn't want to do, so that he can thereby cleanse his soul?


People will make their judgments no matter how little or how much information is available, and some of those judgments will be wrong, possibly most of them.  That's why our Lord said "Judge not, lest you be judged," and "By what measure you mete, so shall it be measured unto you."  We are each accountable to Him for our judgments, and each will reap according as we sow.  Shepherds may guide, urge, even prod the sheep in better ways, but are not to (brow)beat them into submission.

Joe's telling had no smattering of "intense bias"-- that concept has arisen, if at all, from the ensuing commentary upon it.


I don't recall making such a statement about the country.  My references to your freedom were regarding the freedom that the redeemed have in Christ, and the freedom allowed by this board for expression.

The patriotic phrase "Freedom isn't free" (which has been around since at least post-WW2 days) refers to the idea that the freedoms enjoyed by residents of the USA were purchased by the blood, sweat, tears and lives of those who fought for their country.

The same IS true spiritually, as you suggest above.  Our spiritual freedom was purchased at the unspeakably great and precious cost of the blood of Christ, once and for all, shed in place of our own.  What He suffered was so that we do not have to suffer it.  We are crucified with Christ, but never for Him nor for ourselves nor for others.  When we present ourselves to Him, it is to be as a living sacrifice.


I'm not sure whose offenses you refer to above, or if you may have meant to use a different word, but the operative word in the paragraph is "personally."  The concept is 100% valid, as I see it:  Each of us answers personally to the Lord for our thoughts, words and deeds.  What you or I think personally is what we should do, and what others think personally is what they should do, and we should all pray fervently for ourselves and for each other, that God will keep us safe from devices of our own making and teach us to know and to do His good will.


In the case of Joe's story, a simple illustration about forgiveness was the point-- it is the details of the story which he omitted that compose "the dirt" to which you refer.  Joe sometimes embarrasses somewhat easily, but he doesn't hold back from embarrassing himself when he feels the truth is of greater value than his feelings.  In the case of the now infamous car story, he didn't embarrass anyone except himself, which was precisely his point in omitting the details.


I have red-lettered above what I consider to be an excellent short analysis of the situation in the assembly machine.  At the end of the red lettering I would change the sentence ending to say "...of George Geftakys."  The Bible was not taught so much as mis-taught, being used to reinforce one man's ideas of how things should be, and enforced by those who he favored with special position and privilege.

The "we are of the letter" and "we are of the Spirit" camps are as devisive as the factions Paul addresses in 1Cor.1, or the Arminius/Calvin disputes, and as meaningless.

The Bible is useless to anyone without the eye-opening work of the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit never teaches anything contradictory to the Word of God.

Personally, I have no dispute with the beliefs of Calvinists or Arminianists, although I think that the extremists in either camp miss the mark by a long shot.  Only rarely have I met anyone willing to discuss these doctrines with an open heart and mind, without agenda, wanting only to learn more of Christ in order to better please Him.  Such discussions are unbounded joy!  All others are at best veiled arguments and, at worst, open hostility-- total wastes of time.

Our minds need be firmly made up on but one thing: Jesus Christ the Same, yesterday, today, forever.  He is the Fountain from which all else good springs.  Attend wholly to Him, and we shall want for nothing. Ever.  I believe this, please pray with me that I will learn it.

In Christ,
al

Hi Sondra,


I believe you told this story to illustrate the point that there are 2 sides to every story.  I do not believe that you told it because you are bitter at the LB who wanted to control your life, and then GG intervened.  Even though you have forgiven the LB, you told the story anyway.

In most cases many are telling their stories for similar reasons, ie to illustrate a point.   The point for the sories told on the BB and the website is to demonstrate that there was something drastically wrong with the assembly system.  If the person telling the story is bitter, then, yes, we trust and hope that he/she will find healing from the bitterness, but it does not take away from the facts of the story.


Sondra, you make a good point here, and have capsulized quite nicely what many of us have been saying on this BB for quite a while now.

Herein lies the ability to add 2 + 2 and come up with the correct answer.  When I read Kristin's story, I was totally amazed that an well respected assembly elder could not add 2 + 2.  Why did the elder put 2 and 2 together and come up with 'preserve the testimony'.  We are talking about an elder here.  What went so drastically wrong that it took a non-LB to actually finally believe Kristin and take action?

For years before the assembly collapsed I would comment to my husband that the leaders and workers were not following the Spirit of Christ.  When the announcements were given, on of the LBs presented them as a sales-pitch do-it-or-else....  Another announcer presented them as a 'the show must go on' ....  This and other things kept us "naive" and hindered us from growing up in Christ.

I have a comment about GG's intervention, but will have to post that later.

God bless,
Marcia

My posts on this thread have pretty much been in response to the posts of others.  Now I would like to share my thoughts concerning all that has happened on this board since Sondra rejoined us:

My intentions here are positive, not intended to be perceived as anti- anything or anyone.

Personally, I have been treated with respect and love for the most part in all these discussions.  I allow for the emotional flareups of others and do not generally worry about receiving apologies.  This doesn't make me special-- it's just the place I've presently come to in my journey...

In the exchanging of ideas, I have learned more about myself-- a perpetual goal, secondary to learning more of Christ.  I have learned that my sense of humor sometimes entertains only me -- no one else is amused, including my Lord.  Other times it works as it should, as a blessing.  It's my job to subject my desire to yuk it up to the Lord's scrutiny & do my best to speak unto His glory and the edification of others, be it humor or otherwise.  I owe this new, greater awareness primarily to Sondra's posts.

Sondra, I don't agree with some of your emphases, while I also do very strongly agree with some of your thoughts.  I appreciate your willingness to discuss things openly, although I think you limit your openness on some matters.  I'm sure I do the same, although I try, and wish, not to.

I have some very clear-cut ideas about most of the regular posters here, but they are just my finite and extremely limited and narrow opinions.  I try to not let them influence my onboard relationships.  We are united in Christ if we have heard His voice and answered Him with Yes, Lord, and I have no desire to trample on that kinship with my paltry prejudices.  For that reason I tend not to post my opinions of others, nor even to dwell on them in my own mind.  My preconceptions regarding others has never served me to any good purpose, while I am learning that my active trusting in Christ allows me both wonderful fellowship with those who I might have rejected, and ample warning when someone is up to no good.

In its early days, this board hosted much bitterness, sarcasm and ill will.  In my early days here, and much more recently than I wish were the case, I have contributed my share of the same.  Witnessing Verne's and Sondra's posts and those of others has convinced me of the folly and outright destructiveness that I may have introduced-- and even if not that, how my self-centered postings have dishonored the name of Christ.

No one except God Himself can humble a person, and He does not humble His children, but exhorts us to humble ourselves under His mighty hand, so that He may exalt us in the time and in the manner of His choosing.  These discussions have been useful in further teaching me the need to humble myself before Him.  For this I am grateful to our Lord, and thank you all for your participation.

In Christ,
al

Sondra, I am only aware of having stated my opinions, some of which agreed with yours, and more of which did not.

I am not aware of having "creamed" you-- if it seemed I did, it was unintentional, but I apologize for even projecting the appearance of having intended you ill.  Profusely.  It was stupid of me.

In Christ,
al

P.S.-- Let me know next time you'll be in central Ohio & I'll take you to lunch! ;)

Sondra---

I never said "she made me sell my car". Nor was I told to sell the car due to "bad driving"(that's actually quite funny).    It was a choice I was given by a leading brother
for my having said "no" to another house leader's wife. It's amazing how you pick me
apart for telling a "partial" story, but then in the same post do the same thing. But it's
OK when you do it. You mention one-sided stories--well, we have to take at face value
what you are sharing with us about the house--we have to believe YOU because you
are telling us these things. No matter how little you share, or if you did the opposite and
shared massive details, we still have to accept and believe what you are sharing with us.

I have no reason to disbelieve you. Do I want to question the abuse that was given to
you? Do I want to even suggest it might not be true? Why should I? Why would you
want to share something that is untrue, especially before the Lord's people on this board?

Would I want to come to the board and share something untrue about past abuse? I'm
the only one who experienced what I shared. What I shared is the absolute truth--I was given a
choice of selling my car or staying in the Brother's house because I said "no" to a leading
brother's wife about something concerning my own car. I wound up selling the car so I
could remain in the house. Either you believe me or you don't. If you don't believe me
now you won't even if I give the strictest of details, because it is set in your mind that no
such abuse took place in the first place. I don't know what details you are looking for---names,
dates, receipts for sale of the car? You mentioned in small detail what happened to you
and your crying at breakfast--that's enough for me--I believe you--I've seen Assembly abuse
in my own life and in the lives of many others, so I have no reason to doubt.
Why should my story be considered any different? Why is my story being questioned by you
in the first place? I've been on the board for a long time and I am not a liar. I mainly joke
around, but when I do share something from my past it is the absolute truth.

But if you want more I will do it. In the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, the Word of God,
son of the Everlasting Lord Jehovah, and in front of the Almighty and loving Holy Spirit of
God---Blessed Trinity, Most holy, whose eyes scan the whole earth and know each man's
heart I swear I was made to sell my car for saying "no" to someone in Leadership concerning
what to do with that same car. I was given a choice to sell the car or stay in the home. Being
so afraid of offending God by leaving "his place" I sold the car, even though I KNEW in my heart
this just could not be right. I swear I was given additional stewardships, was made to apologize
in front of all the brothers for my "sin" of saying "no" to a sister, and was told afterwards "apologize
with more feeling and sincerity next time would you?" I swear when asked to sell the car I said "The Lord require it of you" and was given the extra stewardships for saying this. If this isn't enough to
believe these things happened then I don't know what else to say. They profoundly affected my
life for years--but as I have said, The Lord brought me to a place where I could forgive, and where  I could also ask forgiveness of any I may also have offended. I swear before God the aforementioned
statements are all true--not according to emotion or perspective, but according to fact.

--Joe

Don't let the conduct of others lead you to error.

 Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one hair white or black.  But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.   
Matthew 5: 36,37

If I have learned anything on this BB, that is it. Your word is good enough for most here Joe...
Verne

Verne---

You're absolutely right. I felt my integrity was being questioned, and felt "If I have to
swear to God in front of everyone that these things are true I will". I should not have
allowed myself to be driven to such a conclusion.

I just need to realize  how much the Assembly has done for me. I have been deceived
for so long. There was no abuse. I just "perceived" it as abuse at the time. it was actually
quite good for me, and I am very thankful I experienced it. I need to sit down and write
George a letter of thanks for providing an atmosphere that wound up doing so much good
for me. I think I took the car thing a little too personally--it really was nothing. Yes, yes,
I swore to God that it happened, and it did,  but perhaps I just blew it all way out of proportion,
or perceived it as abuse when the whole thing was really on me.

I have to stop telling my "half-truths" because others know better what happened to me than
I actually do myself. I need to recognize this and thank the people who have so recently been
so enlightening concerning the past and my perception of it. My Assembly years were actually
"golden years", I just haven't  realized it yet. On another thread I mentioned a "lovefest for the
Assembly" going on recently. These words were misplaced. Tonight, I'm going to go back to
my old Assembly journals, filled with "Cycles of Devotion" and other wonderful notes, and bask
in the entries filled with trying trying trying. All this trying was actually quite beneficial in the
long run, and has led to my present appreciation of those grand old days. What I wouldn't give
to be sitting in a Seminar right now, or listening to a Tape Study for that matter, or vacuuming
at five in the morning. Geez how I miss those glorious days!!


The light has dawned,  I know where my lack is
I've forgotten the blessedness of Geftakys
The meetings, the stewardships, the exhortations
I wish these were my daily rations.

Being talked down to by a red-faced angry brother
Is a secret blessing like no other
And preparing next day's dinner by a bright lit moon
These things are like a soothing tune.

Five or six meetings, maybe even seven
Please let me return to my Assembly heaven.


--Joe

THEN STOP MAKING ARGUMENTS OUT OF SO MANY POSTS ON THIS BB, SJ.
Bobcat Stalks Camel

sondra,

this is not an isolated incident. you frequently post in a way that is offensive and inciteful, which is why we all react to you the way we do. i don't think there is a single regular poster that you have not torn into. this needs to stop if you want to continue posting here.

sincerely,

brian

Sondra's latest post on SWTE reminds me of the time Marie Antoinette said, "Let them eat cake."  We've seen the outcome of such languge in France.


Jeremiah 23:1
Woe be unto the pastors that destroy and scatter the sheep of my pasture! saith the LORD.

Jeremiah 22:13
Woe unto him that buildeth his house by unrighteousness, and his chambers by wrong; that useth his neighbour's service without wages, and giveth him not for his work;

Jeremiah 22:17
But thine eyes and thine heart are not but for thy covetousness, and for to shed innocent blood, and for oppression, and for violence, to do it.

Matthew 3:7
But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees come to his baptism, he said unto them, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come?

Of the Pharisees:

John 5:42
But I know you, that ye have not the love of God in you.

Of the Pharisees:

John 8:44-45
Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.  And because I tell you the truth, ye believe me not.

John 9:39-41
And Jesus said, For judgment I am come into this world, that they which see not might see; and that they which see might be made blind.  And some of the Pharisees which were with him heard these words, and said unto him, Are we blind also?  Jesus said unto them, If ye were blind, ye should have no sin: but now ye say, We see; therefore your sin remaineth.

John 10:1,10
Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that entereth not by the door into the sheepfold, but climbeth up some other way, the same is a thief and a robber. ...  The thief cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy: I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly.


Jesus is the door.  We receive salvation through faith in his propitiation for our sins, not by our efforts to make ourselves better.

I had thought that Sondra was merely confused, but her insistence on thinking to save herself by her own efforts, followed by her attempts to destroy Joe, these seem like evidence that she is like the thief and robber.  The Pharisees were like that, and Jesus said that their father was the devil.

Howdy folks,

I have been pretty busy and haven't had much time for the board lately, but I have been reading this thread.  I have no intention of getting into a conversation with Sondra about her oft repeated views.  But I am going to make a few observations.

1. Yesterday I looked at the SWTE website.  It's been about a year since I took a look.  I noticed that it says that there are 26 members.  I looked at a few threads.  There seem to be about 5 people that actually post there.  I noticed that Brent and Marcia are among this number.  The others seem to be Sondra, Matt (Spilling?), and "Bob Smith".  Also "M2" or something like that.

I found myself wondering if there really IS a Bob Smith.  He sounds so much like Sondra that the thought arose in my mind that he might actually BE Sondra.  Anyone know this guy, or know of him?  Right or wrong, it is an interesting idea eh?  (See, I can speak some Canadian)

What is not in doubt is the parasitical relationship that SWTE has with this board, which they refer to as the "AB".

It was a combination of interesting and weird to see that people have been holding conversations with me that I didn't know about!  What they do is to copy my, (and other's) posts off this board, quote them over there, and then talk to us.  "Well Mr. Tom Maddux you say that.......but I say........and you are.........and filled with.......just like all the others on the AB board."   Strange and stranger.

Its sort of like a kid talking to his invisible friend, only in this case they don't LIKE their invisible friend(s).  "Affirming" ie Sondra is quite clear as to her contempt for those who post on the AB.  We are arrogant, hateful, bitter, ambitious, on and on and on.

2. In reading Affirming-Ruth-Sondra's posts on this board, I noted that she refers to herself as "a daughter of George and Betty"  In this, she is absolutely correct.

Have you noticed the fundamental characteristic of her accusations?  She attacks folk's character.  This is SOOO George Geftakys.  It was his FAVORITE tactic when people questioned or disagreed with him.  How well I remember.  She knows, as did her mentor, that it is impossible to defend yourself against such filth.  Problem is, it is also impossible to prove that these accusations are true.  In George's case, he got to define his victim.  Sondra only has that power if you choose to give it to her.

Verne, who apparently knows her from the past, spoke of her in very strong language.  By adopting OT language and by making rude comments implying sexual misconduct, he opened the door to her claim that she had been mistreated, which has some legitimacy, that got her a hearing on the "AB".  I created this thread in order to give her her say. 

But it is quite evident that it is not about Verne.  She has come here for all of us.

3. What she is doing is to actually create a past for each of us.  Our past statements are combed through, remembered or quoted, and used in support of her accusations.  We then are expected to relate to her on the basis of what she has accused us of!  :o

But, she is magnanimous.  If we approach her with enough deference she will deign to converse with us, but our "past" is always there.  You will never be allowed to "live it down".  She "knows" who you really are.

Sound familiar?

4. She presents herself as a person of great spiritual discernment and understanding.  Claim after claim after claim of spiritual discernment and understanding...which allows her to explain our failings to us. 

Sound familiar?

5. She claims to have a deep understanding of the scriptures, which she obtained by "listening to the voice of the Spirit."   When she attempts to support her ideas with scripture, it is nothing more than GG's method of making the Bible say whatever you think it should say through his bogus "typology" and "spiritual understanding".  Joseph is a type of the "spirit man", the brothers are types of worldly men etc. etc.

I threw Watchman Nee's "The Spiritual Man" in the trash years ago. 

George didn't...and apparently neither did Sondra.

6. Her tactics against Joe are pure GG.  You see, Joe didn't mean what HE thought he meant, he meant what SHE SAYS he meant!  No Joe, don't try to explain yourself, Sondra has discerned you.  She knows the hidden meaning of what you post.  On and on. 

IMHO, Sondra's treatment of Joe was evil.

7. She has accused the regular posters of "seeking a place".  I, it seems, want to be "the Bible teacher".  Mark, "the pastor", etc. etc.  This was GG's standard accusation against anyone who had any abilities whatever.  I heard it again and again.

One wonders who Sondra holds conversations with.   ::)

8. Enough of this.  I let Sondra have this thread to let her have her say about Verne's accusations.  I am not going to lock it.  But I am going to delete any of her posts that contain any more of these nasty accusations against people's characters, such as her reply to Steve Fortescue today. 
Blessings,

Thomas Maddux

Go Tom!!!

I checked out that board myself awhile back and kind of had to laugh.  I'm not sure why they need their own bb when there is fewer that 3 or 4 people posting.  Those people ought to just create an email list and save themself the expense!  I agree with Tom that Bob Smith has got to be make believe.  He is Sondra's version of Snuffleuplegus...."Bob Smith" - come on, come up with something better than that!  I am thinking we should create a character on this board.  Lets call him "John Doe".

The new name for Sondra's website is officially "soaring with the schizo's"....

Bob F.

re-post again


Bob Smith has mis-understood me (again :o ::)) and I realize that others may as well.  Hence I am re-posting and clarifying, because I would not want to post lies about anyone.

In my post quoted above I said, "We had stuff like that happening in Ottawa ... all the time."
I did not mean that we said No to the LBW all the time and we all had to sell our cars as a result.
(Bob, most of our kids either walked or were bussed to school anyway, so we did not need our cars to drive them to school.)
I meant that there was an abusive system of control by the LB/LBW such that we were criticized for every little decision we made if it was not the same decision that the LB/LBW would have made in the same circumstances.
We had these 'flavour of the week' rules that those of us outside the inner ring had to figure out since we were not in the know.  Then there were the doorkeeper rules which I called the rules of the Medes and Persians which could not be revoked. etc. etc. etc.

This might be a good time to talk about George intervening on behalf of Sondra.
George may have intervened for any of the following reasons:
1.  He felt compassion for Sondra especially since he might have seen or heard that she was weeping over what the LB said.
2.  In intervening, he secured someone who would be sympathethic towards him, and possibly maintained control over the LB as well.

I heard many similar (ie not exactly the same, but similar) stories.  I will re-count one.
GG intervened on behalf of a sister whose husband did not want her going on some trip, and GG told the husband to "Let her go."  The sister had really wanted to go, but the husband may have been considering other factors like finances and health, or maybe the husband was just being a you-know-what.  GG made it a habit of referring to this sister as a Deborah.  Added to the fact that she was a 'chosen' one, well her undying loyalty was secured, until the news of his excommunication.

There are other stories too, but needles to say that GG and his servants were masters at psychological manipulation and control.  There is a very good reason that Johnson and VanVonderen have entitled their book The Subtle Power Spiritual Abuse.

Got to go,
Marcia

on edit:

The brother in Sondra's story was not identified by her as being a LB.  I mistakenly referred to him as one.  I apologize.

I presented 2 possible scenarios re. GG's motivation for intervention.  I do not know which one it was and am not inclined to verify with GG himself.

When Sondra tells a story about her assembly past she has a good reason for doing so.  When we do, we are labelled as bitter unforgiving etc. etc. ::)

I remember the year that Steve and Margaret Irons came to the Mid-West seminar.  It was circa 1984.  Steve and Margaret had missed the spring seminar in Fullerton that year because they were visiting family at Easter, so in order to catch up they attended the Mid-West seminar (which was the same seminar as the Fullerton spring one).

Marcia

P.S.  Tom, M2 on SWTE is my login name.  Since I deleted my account there, all my posts are now identified as M2 Guest.

Marcia

Sondra---

You signed the post below:  Sondra--Bob, Bob--Sondra.  So are you saying you really are
the same? I ask this because in a post further below you tell me to read a hyperlink put together
by "Bob" because he can "say it better than I can". This I cannot understand. And in your
post you are still questioning the same things you did before afte numerous attempts to
explain. Do you ever hold to the fact that you might be wrong about something? It truly
appears to be in the negative. When you believe something is one way, only your way is
the correct way. If anyone disagrees with you they are "bitter" or "argumentative".

You put forth a partial story and immediately expected everyone to believe it--and it held
a theme of abuse. Because you stated it, it was "OK". I cannot even begin to imagine how
you would have reacted if I had questioned the veracity of YOUR story. But you felt free to
cast doubts on my story from long ago. These things I do not understand. If I had referred
you to a hyperlink for a "Bob",  and it turned out to be me, you would hold my feet to the
fire for being secretive and less than truthful. But you apparently are allowed to do these
things because in your own mind you are right and everyone else is wrong.

I wish you would go back and seriously read your own posts. If you had simply said "Joe,
I'd like to hear more about your story--if you don't want to share it on the board, could
you E-mail me with it?" But in your posts there is a purposeful attempt to cast doubt "Doesn't that sound suspicious?" "I never heard of anything like that happening in the Assemblies" "Don't you find it strange that he only shares part of the story?"  This is an obvious attempt to cast doubt,
discredit, and question integrity. When you shared your story of abuse, and crying at breakfast,
did anyone question your integrity? Did I say "Doesn't this sound suspicious? etc. etc.?"

I had no reason to doubt you, and I still don't. I think it is terrible that you suffered at the hands
of others to the point you had to weep at breakfast.  But it never appears that you come to the
board to build anyone up, or to try to encourage, or try to uplift. You have every right in the world
to come and clear your name, and seek apologies. But you don't have the right to try to tear everyone else down in the process. If you carefully read your posts you will see an "attack mode"
that seems to be perpetually on. You seem to only be concerned about how YOU have been wronged, and what others have said to you. You even attack and cast doubt on the apologies
that people try to make towards you--myself included. I really want to understand you better,
and as you yourself have said "give you the benefit of the doubt", but you take every post and
pick it apart, attacking the person personally, or casting doubt on their integrity.

You mention fighting and bitterness, but you seem to be the one spreading the most of it on the
board. I've tried to apologize to you, explain myself to you, use humor on you, and all it has done
is to drive more negative remarks in my direction from you. This is true in the case of just about
everyone on the board. If you perceive this as an attack then there is nothing else I can do. I am
being as honest as I can be towards you. If you expect only the most glowing of posts towards you
without any disagreements you will be waiting a long time. Because there definitely are disagreements that will probably always exist. I don't see "eye to eye" with everyone on the board, but I don't have to cast doubt about them every time we disagree.
One of your themes is "spirituality"--one of the greatest signs of "spirituality (and I admit fully I need to learn it more and more myself) is to "remove the log from your own eye before you seek to remove the speck from your brother's eye". Perhaps you'll pick this post apart as the rest, but I wanted to give it one more try.

--Joe

Sondra,

It is good to see that you actually can and do state the name of Jesus and refer to Him as Lord.  I had honest doubts...

I believe I have stated my thoughts openly and clearly to you on this and the previous (now locked) thread.  I have attempted to be both honest and gracious, attempting to not argue and allowing the benefit of the doubt to you in such cases as I doubted your sincerity.  In so doing, I have incurred the displeasure of some of my brethren who think that I should have sided with their views and been hard toward you.  That is as may be, and is a matter between them and the Lord who I seek to satisfy.  I have no hard feelings toward anyone and no regrets for my posts nor my private communications.

Now I have something to ask of you.  It is not an obligation on your part-- you owe me nothing at all.  It is a request for a favor.

One good thing I salvaged from my assy years is the format of chapter summary.  While I have no fond memories of chapter summary meetings, the basic principle of study has served me well though my life:  *Find out what is being said; ** identify how it applies to me personally; ***determine what I am to do about it.  This process has been useful to me in all phases of living.

Now I have followed these threads diligently from before your first post under the name Ruth, and I honestly still have no idea what you are trying to say or what you want of any and/or all here on this board.  So here's the favor I'm asking of you:

If you will, please, following the pattern I have just outlined above, tell us clearly in plain language:

1.]  What exactly is your message to us?  What are you trying to say-- to get across to us?

2.]  What do you think your message should mean to us, individually and/or collectively, on a practical, practicable level?

3.]  What do you want us, individually and/or collectively, to do about it?

Please, Sondra, before answering give some serious prayer and thought to the request & its component parts.

If I post again on this thread, I would like it to be in response to your answer.

In Jesus Christ our Lord,
al

Sondra,

Please take notice that I edited the nastiest paragraphs out of your post.  Brian warned you, and so did I.

Mr. Thomas Maddux

This was also something that happened frequently, in the past Geftakregime, and that was to read your problems into another person, and believe that they were doing what, in fact, you were doing yourself. I don't know what causes this phenomenon. Maybe Tom would have some insight.

A while back, some of Matt Peeling's posts seemed as if they were written by Luke Robinson.

Sondra's latest post says that it was written by "Bob Smith".

I'm beginning to think that a few of Sondra's posts on SWTE, or at least parts of them may have actually been written by George Geftakys himself.  This might explain the extaordinary "search and destroy" attitude toward anything said that even hints that there might have been something wrong with the assembly.  I remember seeing a post by Sondra on SWTE in which she agreed that the assembly had serious problems.  This contradiction is further evidence that we're dealing with more than one person here.

Steve,

When I posted:

I was wondering if Sondra/Affirming/Ruth/Bob? is in contact with GG.  Interesting idea.

Thomas Maddux

My opinion they are all SJ. GG wouldn't "waste" his time posting on here, and they are too silly to be his posts.

In a previous post, someone was told that "Bob Smith" left an assembly before they (the someone) came out there. If I remember correctly, the town was Champaign. Is that where S.J. lives now?

Would GG have communications with someone who left the assy much earlier than this?

Curious thought though................

Looks like it's time to play the theme music from Twilight Zone eh?? :)

I seriously doubt that GG is directly involved here, though I do not know for sure.
Bob Smith is someone other than Sondra.
Sondra is who she claims to be and formerly from the Champaign assembly as she has stated on AB or SWTE.

Sometimes or even oftentimes, it helps to put oneself in the others' shoes to understand what they are attempting to communicate.
If the other person tends to sidetrack the conversation, it is no reason for me to behave likewise.

I'll use Joe's story to illustrate my point here.  Personally, I have no reason to doubt Joe's story.  But I can see how someone from SWTE would need more of the scenario to decide for themselves whether or Joe's story is valid.  For example, if Joe was a bum and couldn't afford to pay the rent and then he had this car, I might be inclined to advise him to sell his car if he wanted to remain in the home.  Since they, SWTE, do not know the reason that Joe was compelled to sell his car, they then question whether or not his story is legit.
Of course, the fact that we, on AB, had a recent experience where Sondra would not accept Joe's explanation for his joke, meant that we doubted the validity of Sondra's request for an explanation of the reason he said No to the LBW.
Joe, may not feel comfortable will giving more details and I would respect that.  There are other stories to illustrate the point.

Blessings,
Marcia

Whoa, everybody...how about taking a week off from this and see if you can stand it. if not, you might need some counseling for BB addiction.  8)

OK---I have had enough. When one makes an honest post and is told they
"crucified" the other person that is just a bit too much. You apparently haven't
just pushed MY "hot" button, but almost everyone's "hot" button on the
board. But that's because you look for the hot button to push in the first place.
I guess will have to agree to disagree.
Happy hunting.

--Joe

This is a very interesting topic.  Here is my opinion.

If George wanted to "make things right," he would have to do the following, in order:

1.) Confess, admit, apologize, etc. to Betty
2.) Admit what he did with the "women," and publicly, in writing and in person demonstrate a zeal for repentance, and a consistent pattern of humility regarding the same.
3.) Demonstrate what he did with the money, etc.   In short he must give account for his actions as leader of the group.

He need not go through this board, but the people on this board should certainly be made aware of what was going on, one way or the other. 

I think the above is a biblical pattern of repentance in light of George's circumstance.

Brent

Howdy Folks,

I think Brent has described what GG would have to do to evidence true repentence very well.

I don't, however, think there is any danger of GG not being able to "get through" to those he wishes to reconcile with. 

He knows my phone number.

Well, that's all for now....I've got to go sit by the phone just incase he calls.  Let's see...its been 15 years.  Maybe he's trying to get through right now.  I'd better get offline.  Just in case.   ;) :) :D ;D

Thomas Maddux

Sondra---

No, I don't think you should shut up. This thread was actually set up so that you
can share anything you want to share. And I hope you will continue to do that.
It just seems that many of the posts become "inflamed" very quickly by comments
being made. Maybe it's your communication style, or my lack and others of under-
standing where you are coming from. That is why I stopped visiting the SWTE
site a year ago or more. So, I am going to "try"(can't promise that I will permanently
remain quiet ;)  ) to stay away from this thread (at least from posting on it) and
stick with some of the other threads. Thanks for your explanation.

--Joe

I can see that an email like this would encourage you re. SWTE.
I can see that someone who only has good memories of their time in fellowship would find AB distressing.

Stuff like that is useful if one can learn something from it.
Your emailee is saying that he/she does not like the tone of AB and there are just about 7 regular posters on AB, but there are many, ie the ones who only have good memories of their assembly days(pronounced daze ;)), agreeing with SWTE.

You probably will not be getting an email like that from the regular AB posters.  A good question to ask is "Can we do the right thing regardless of the number of emails we get to encourage/discourage us?"

This kind of thing only promotes the you vs. me mentality.  Comparison words like "just" (7 posters) and "many" silent majority.  How does it help you to find truth?

Marcia

I don't usually "out" a pm, but this one suits the purpose, and the writer of it has given permission:

Hello ________,

I'm so encouraged at my every visit to briantucker's BB. It is so good to finally be seeing things clearly and not running into the "I'm okay, you have the problem" mentality. The veil is finally off the Geftakys empire and a spade is being called a spade.

The doctrinal discussions are really refreshing. It is so good to be able to discuss things that were previously brushed under the carpet and considered unimportant.

I'm glad to be away from the rigidity, laws, and spiritual hierarchy that were characteristic of all the meeting groups.  I'm glad to be able to come to a place where things are seen clearly, people are accepted and encouraged to join in.

I'm sorry you have that odd little trio on the other site that seems to justify their existence by criticizing the people who post on this BB. It brings back memories of being in the assembly. Sondra can't seem to shake her assembly way of thinking and she fights any way of thinking that differs from her own by trying to trash everyone that posts here.  

I'm sorry for the disturbance that she caused on this BB, and hope that soon she can begin to forgive people who she feels wronged her, stop accusing posters here of doing what she is doing herself, and focus on something else besides this BB.  

Thanks, Brent, for starting up a BB where the truth can be told.

In Christ,
________

Right about the words being able to fuel fires, and words of encouragement can make one feel good.  But like criticism, encouragement is only helpful if it is truth.  Flattery is not encouragement.

Marcia

SONDRA CHANGED MY POST AND THEN QUOTED IT AS IF IT WERE WHAT I SAID IN MY POST.

ISN'T THIS CROSSING THE LINE??

Nice!   :)

As James Brown(??) would sing "I feel good"   :) 8)

Marcia

P.S.  Sondra, you have crossed the line with the lies you posted re. the PM that you modified. :P >:( :(

Marcia

So you want to throw some sand before you get thrown out of the sandbox for not playing by the rules?

Suit yourself.


BTW, I had only girls, not boys. Sounds like nice ones, though.

  Quote from: moonflower2 on Today at 12:38:13 AM

---

 
Posted on: Today at 01:17:35 AMPosted by: ruth  

---

Posted on: Today at 01:24:49 AMPosted by: moonflower2  

---

Posted on: Today at 01:31:08 AMPosted by: ruth  

Sondra,

I am astonished that you can deliver such a reasonable response as you did to my enquiry, then turn around and post such a deceitful thing as to actually create a lie against someone.  How does this reflect the love of Christ?

How can you and your associates not see that you do, over and over again, the very things that you accuse the posters on this board of doing (not just in response to them, but initiating hostility against almost everyone you address)?  If you are trying to stir up support on SWTE, it may be working.  Anyone who would read your posts on this board and not recognize your radical mood swings, back and forth between ranting-&-railing and cooing-&-making nice, would buy the Brooklyn Bridge.  But honestly, Sondra, I don't think a single soul over here hasn't recognized that you appear to be at best seriously emotionally disturbed or, at worst, seriously demonically influenced.  

I am not condemning you or pronouncing judgment, Sondra, because I honestly can't figure out what is wrong with you and your associates.  But whatever it is, I believe it to be serious and in need of immediate attention.  I have looked for the love of Jesus Christ in your posts, for your love toward the brethren, but I can't find it.

Say whatever you will about me, I will stand or fall at my Lord's discretion.  But I implore you, Sondra, to humble yourself under the mighty hand of God and let Him do a new work in your heart.

For Jesus Christ's sake,
al

I actually thought that we were having a nice discussion, until you labelled the whole consideration as being petty.  This is where my discussions often end up with you, Sondra.  If I do not say, "yes-maam", then my motives and morals get speculated on and I get labelled as petty bitter unforgiving and/or other colorful metaphors.

This is not a matter of liking/disliking you as a person, but more a matter of agreeing/disagreeing with your POV.  Sorry, I cannot be your yes-man, and I do not have the talent/gift to discuss matters with you.  However, if I happen to be online and if you post something on public forum, I might just attempt to enter the discussion anyway.

Encouraging emails/pms etc. are great, but I was attempting to communicate that we need to take both the ecouragement and the criticism to heart such that we can grow as individuals.  Sometimes the encouragement can be flattery, and can actually be harmful to maintaining a poisoned POV.

Marcia

Yup!

Thomas Maddux

Yes Sondra,

You are taking a break...an extended one.    I asked you not to demean the posters on this BB. 

Your reply to Al shows that you have no intention of complying.

I am locking this thread. 

Mr. Thomas Maddux