Re: anonymous posters

[2ram]

You are kidding, right?  Suggesting publicly that a Christian believer has another mediary besides the Intermediary (Medium) of the Holy Spirit is a very serious charge and not a casual thological topic of discussion.

People who suggest "demon possession" are usually trying to suggest that they are Spiritual Giants and are worthy of the sending in of special troops from Satan himself.  In other words, it's an ego trip.   

Additionally, how can one be so well informed about a living and active devil and so uninformed about a living God?  Isn't this contradictory?  Tom is impressed with the power of the devil to possess and speak in and through people.  But he limits God in this capacity.  God doesn't possess the hearts of men and speak to and through them   If you believe that God can speak to your heart, lead you, caution you, move you - you have a demon?

Meeko

Well put Meeko.  Good point.

Marcia

[Marty]

Verne,



 I don't think that resorting to name calling and personal ridicule is evidence of advanced spriritual stature. 


Blessings,

Thomas Maddux

Tom,

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

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

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

[Oscar]

Frank/Ruth/Sondra.

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

If you wish to continue posting here, please comply.

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

Thomas Maddux
Moderator

[Oscar]

Frank/Ruth/Sondra,

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

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

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

Stop.

Thomas Maddux
Moderator

[2ram]

"Beware of wolves in sheep's clothing".

The above post is shameful and I really mean it. To take someone's great accomplishment, even if it is
40 years after the fact, and use it to infer that somehow it has made the person proud, is not only mean,
it is extremely insulting. Inferring Tom has problems "admitting error" or "admitting wrong" is inferring this
poster is "right" and Tom is wrong. What a bunch of hogwash. What does Tom have to apologize for? The person who made this post should apologize. To infer Tom is "weasling in" on the vast kingdom of the BB,
and that Brent did all the work and took all the blame, is an attempt to incite and to insult.

Tom can defend himself, but I want to say that I think that Tom getting a degree in theology when in
his sixties is not only admirable, but also puts great weight behind what he has to say. None of us is
perfect, and Tom has his failings, as we all do, but nothing warrants the mean, attempt at character
assasination offered above. I have seen the wolves at work before(they always like to come in and
pick one sheep to flambe' in front of everyone), and they always have the same M.O.--enter a discussion,
disagree, attack and become attacked as a result, become offended, incite others to side with them, then
demand an apology. Same time, same channel, same behavior.(I can hear the defense already: "I didn't
say "Tom", I said "not in reference to Tom directly", just a person "like" Tom, when clearly, the whole post
has nothing more of a purpose than to put Tom down).

--Joe

P.S. Wolf is a strong word to use, and by it I am not inferring the person is not saved---just acting in a
wolf-like manner.

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

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

2r

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

[brian]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Joe Sperling]

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

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

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

[matthew r. sciaini]

All:

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

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

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

Note how Tom figures in all of these? 

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

Matt Sciaini

[moonflower2]

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

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

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

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

[2ram]

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

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

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

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

Marcia

[outdeep]

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

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

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

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

Marcia

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

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

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

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

[moonflower2]

  Debate is about winning your audience, not just the argument.

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

[2ram]

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

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

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

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

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

Marcia

[outdeep]

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

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

[moonflower2]

I mean that one should persuade with sound facts but not do it in a way that the person you are debating stops listening to you.  

I know.