a very long thread

[al Hartman]

Al----

The title actually got changed along the way by someone. I had suggested before it should be called "Snoring with the beagles". On a daily basis I get to work a little early and then visit SWTE, RFTW and then this BB. I visit SWTE out of curiosity mostly, and "because it's there" I suppose. I don't stay very long(but I'll check back on occasion through the day as I do with the other BB's too) because it's usually the same thing---posts put up as replies to a few people here for something they have said, or articles dealing with the "problems" most of us"apparently" have over here dealing with bitterness and anger, etc. I'm not sure if that BB could exist if there weren't  this one---because everything written on it has to do with this one, or the people here. But I know I will continue to visit and read the stuff there---I'm a glutton for punishment I guess...

Joe,
     What do you have against beagles?  They're loud, not terribly bright, & good to stay upwind of, but still they are loyal & faithful little beasts.  
     Think along the lines of "Spying With the Smeagols" or "Roaring With Our  Beaks Full."  Now don't those bring endless apt comparisons to mind?
     A few years ago, both Marvel and DC comics introduced to their readers the "crossover" concept, by which various superheroes appeared in each other's stories.  This had the dual effect of introducing readers to various characters they had heretofore not known, and bringing extra income to the publishers.
     While the crossovers between the Smeagols & this BB are not without some entertainment value, they appear to be spiritually unprofitable and their several characters are not new, nor are they superheroes.  
     Let's get together.  You drive.  i'll spring for lunch...

al

[golden]

Isaiah 29
20   For the terrible one is brought to nought, and the scorner is consumed, and all that watch for iniquity are cut off:
21   That make a man an offender for a word, and lay a snare for him that reproveth in the gate, and turn aside the just for a thing of nought.
22   Therefore thus saith the LORD, who redeemed Abraham, concerning the house of Jacob, Jacob shall not now be ashamed, neither shall his face now wax pale.
23   But when he seeth his children, the work of mine hands, in the midst of him, they shall sanctify my name, and sanctify the Holy One of Jacob, and shall fear the God of Israel.
24   They also that erred in spirit shall come to understanding, and they that murmured shall learn doctrine.

[editor]

Brent, I am sorry if I have asked questions that seemed to imply guilt.  I meant no malice by asking these questions.  I was led to believe that there was cover-up and perhaps I was nursing suspicions already??  You have placed yourself and your family in a public place and have waged many charges against others....some who no doubt have some guilt...some who are less guilty.  All of us are sinners and bear guilt.  All who were in the Assembly bear guilt.  A sincere confession to God gets His forgiveness, but when that same servant runs out to grab another fellowservant by the throat, God Himself is angered and takes back His forgiveness....notice Mat 18.  The forgiveness of God apparently doesn't stick when, as a common sinner, we go about counting the sins of others.  I hope you will see the need to be of a penitent heart, yourself, as you have certainly emphasized the importance of repentance for others.  If you think you have no sin - then there is another piece of evidence that proves that you are a desperate sinner as well.

Sondra:

I forgive you for your unfounded accusations towards me regarding a cover-up that you were led to believe existed.  Thank you for asking.

Yes, I am a "public" figure in our small little world, and I expect and deserve criticism.  However, the edifying, faithful criticism that can turn a person from folly must be based in truth.

I believe you acted based on what you thought was true, when you said the things you said, and called me out on false charges.  As it turns out, it wasn't true at all,  and I forgive you for it.

The reason I reacted so strongly was not at all because I had something to hide.  That has never been my style.  It had to do with a genuine fear of having my name associated with the financial dealings of the Geftakys Assembly, especially in such a manner as to imply that I mishandled funds.  I don't want to be standing anywhere near George right now, when it comes to this subject.

If you ever do find out some dirt on me, please let me know about it, and I'll publicly apologize for it.

Like this:

I was foolish to threaten to sue you.  It was the wrong response and was indeed a "soulish" action, brought on by anger.  I was angry, and I sinned.  I am not going to go back and edit what I said about this, otherwise people won't get to see how I can put my foot in my mouth, and then take it back out with the help of my wife.

Please do not re-insert your suggestions on how much money I may have mishandled in order to follow my example.  It could hurt me, or cost me some valuable time.

I have never maintained that I am without sin, and still don't.  

Brent

[Suzie Trockman]

To All--

If I have offended anyone, if I have misspoken, discouraged anyone - I humbly ask for your forgiveness.  

Brent, I am sorry if I have asked questions that seemed to imply guilt.  I meant no malice by asking these questions.  I was led to believe that there was cover-up and perhaps I was nursing suspicions already??  You have placed yourself and your family in a public place and have waged many charges against others....some who no doubt have some guilt...some who are less guilty.  All of us are sinners and bear guilt.  All who were in the Assembly bear guilt.  A sincere confession to God gets His forgiveness, but when that same servant runs out to grab another fellowservant by the throat, God Himself is angered and takes back His forgiveness....notice Mat 18.  The forgiveness of God apparently doesn't stick when, as a common sinner, we go about counting the sins of others.  I hope you will see the need to be of a penitent heart, yourself, as you have certainly emphasized the importance of repentance for others.  If you think you have no sin - then there is another piece of evidence that proves that you are a desperate sinner as well.

Your apology will read a lot differently when you take the word "if" out and own your confession.  It is what the Lord requires when we confess our sins to Him and to one another.  Yes,  you have offended,  you have misspoken, and you have discouraged.  I do forgive you.

Suzie

[al Hartman]

Your apology will read a lot differently when you take the word "if" out and own your confession.  It is what the Lord requires when we confess our sins to Him and to one another.  Yes,  you have offended,  you have misspoken, and you have discouraged.  I do forgive you.

Suzie
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________


Sondra,

     Suzie is right.  i had to learn the same lesson right here on this BB under similar circumstances:  "IF" sounds very gracious when we hear ourselves say it-- it lulls the conscience into a false sense of having rendered a confession when in reality we have only hinted at the possibility that we might have erred.
     "IF" lobs the ball back into the other parties' court, placing the onus of responsibility back upon them-- "Sure, i'll confess.  Right after you name my sins for me."  This action places those to whom we owe apology into the awkward position of having to appear to be our accusers, demanding our apology (when we should be volunteering it unconditionally), while allowing us to feel wronged, slighted, innocent.
     As you so aptly point out, "All of us are sinners and bear guilt."  Those of us who are "iffy" about the nature of our sin and guilt are often the ones in greatest need of repentance.  i was.

al

[retread]

...
I was foolish to threaten to sue you.  It was the wrong response and was indeed a "soulish" action, brought on by anger.  I was angry, and I sinned.  I am not going to go back and edit what I said about this, otherwise people won't get to see how I can put my foot in my mouth, and then take it back out with the help of my wife.
...

Anger is indeed an interesting animal.  Anger can be brought about by sin, and can lead to further sin, but neither of these things are necessary.  Paul says "Be ye angry, and sin not: let not the sun go down upon your wrath".  Or in the words of Charles and Mary Lamb:

Anger in its time and place
May assume a kind of grace.
It must have some reason in it,
And not last beyond a minute.

If to further lengths it go,
It does into malice grow.
`Tis the difference that we see
`Twixt the serpent and the bee.

If the latter you provoke,
It inflicts a hasty stroke,
Puts you to some little pain,
But it never stings again.

Close in tufted bush or brake
Lurks the poison-swelled snake
Nursing up his cherished wrath;
In the purloins of his path,

In the cold, or in the warm,
Mean him good, or mean him harm,
Wheresoever fate may bring you,
The vile snake will always sting you.

And speaking of snake attitudes and bee attitudes (er, beatitudes that is), the Lord gives us a much better example of how to respond to those who mistreat us:

"Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake." - Matthew 5:11

"But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you" - Matthew 5:44

Too often we have a knee jerk reaction and can be quick to anger, while taking to long to lose the anger (the other way around is much better).

"This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger;" - James 1:19

I wouldn't worry too much about anger as long as you are like the bee and not the snake.  Although sometimes it is hard to be as the bee when one is surrounded by snakes.

And, I see that you are a man that is willing to accept help from his wife, Brent.  Not only are you blessed to have such a wife as Suzie, but she is blessed to have such a husband as you.

[al Hartman]

No comment!

Marcia Marinier

     I may stand alone in this opinion, but I have long thought that a voluntary, unsolicited statement of "No comment" is, in and of itself, a comment.  ...but what do I know?  
     Anyway, in this case, I have no idea how to interpret the comment I suppose Marcia to have made, so the only purpose of my post is to provoke further thought...

al

[al Hartman]

     Today I received a PM suggesting that someone on the Soaring With the Eagles (swte) board indicated the possibility that I have some regular communication with members of that board.

     My most recent exchanges of emails with two of the regulars there were as follows:  They each EM'd me to politely request to be removed from my address book.  That was the first time I had heard from either of them in months.  I complied with their requests, notifying them each that I had done so.  Shortly following that, one of them EM'd me to criticize a recent post of mine on this BB, to which I responded, to which he again responded.  Then the other one EM'd me to criticize my response to the first one.
     My last responses to both of these have gone unanswered, for which I am grateful.  There is also a third party at swte with whom I once corresponded, months ago.  I care very much for the spiritual welfare of all three of these, and I pray for them.  But my correspondence with them has reached an end.
     I have not visited swte in months, so I cannot comment on its present state.  The reason I stopped reading there is that I perceived the board's format as being dishonestly conducted and spiteful in nature.  Christ was not central, was not being honored.  Openness was not only discouraged, but was denied.  I don't recall that I ever posted there.  My opinions are now outdated, but I have no desire to revisit.  What goes on there doesn't concern me, and I haven't time for idle curiosity.
     I am not criticizing any who do visit or post there, nor suggesting that anyone stop doing so.  I am only stating my own position because someone over there has apparently indicated a current link with me which does not exist.
     I will still read EMs from anyone, but I will not reply to messages that show me no hope of commonality.  My response to such is to pray, not react.  I have reacted to provocation in the past.  It has borne no fruit.
     If this post does not answer questions you may have, or raises questions, please address them to me here or by PM or EM as you see fit.  There is nothing hidden that shall not be revealed...

God bless,
al

[al Hartman]

     Today I received a PM suggesting that someone on the Soaring With the Eagles (swte) board indicated the possibility that I have some regular communication with members of that board.

     My most recent exchanges of emails with two of the regulars there were as follows:  They each EM'd me to politely request to be removed from my address book.  That was the first time I had heard from either of them in months.  I complied with their requests, notifying them each that I had done so.  Shortly following that, one of them EM'd me to criticize a recent post of mine on this BB, to which I responded, to which he again responded.  Then the other one EM'd me to criticize my response to the first one.
     My last responses to both of these have gone unanswered, for which I am grateful.  There is also a third party at swte with whom I once corresponded, months ago.  I care very much for the spiritual welfare of all three of these, and I pray for them.  But my correspondence with them has reached an end.
     I have not visited swte in months, so I cannot comment on its present state.  The reason I stopped reading there is that I perceived the board's format as being dishonestly conducted and spiteful in nature.  Christ was not central, was not being honored.  Openness was not only discouraged, but was denied.  I don't recall that I ever posted there.  My opinions are now outdated, but I have no desire to revisit.  What goes on there doesn't concern me, and I haven't time for idle curiosity.
     I am not criticizing any who do visit or post there, nor suggesting that anyone stop doing so.  I am only stating my own position because someone over there has apparently indicated a current link with me which does not exist.
     I will still read EMs from anyone, but I will not reply to messages that show me no hope of commonality.  My response to such is to pray, not react.  I have reacted to provocation in the past.  It has borne no fruit.
     If this post does not answer questions you may have, or raises questions, please address them to me here or by PM or EM as you see fit.  There is nothing hidden that shall not be revealed...

God bless,
al

     Since my last post (above) I have received the following in an email:

Sondra said this last night:
 
"Yes, Al.  As long as you don't private mail anyone and disagree with Brent behind his back.....because he reads the private mail you know now...and if you aren't in league with his control behind the scenes....you will be blackballed for several more months.  Isn't that what you meant to say Brent?  I think one should be more transparent and honest as to what the word friendship really means.  It means different things to different people....like the word love...."
 
and also this:
 
"This is very confusing Brent.  I think you like to argue, but you are like a dog chasing his tail in this discussion.  First of all the discussion was about the Inner Ring...but now you've made it a point to speak very condescendingly to Al...who had it right, for the most part.  Do I detect that in a small way you feel threatened with Al?  He's light years ahead of you in reality in my estimation.  You, however, flex your muscles and he crumbles in humility.  What does that show you and all of the rest of us.  He has been using his backbone a little more as of late, but he seems fearful and insecure with you and others who have a lot of history apparently.  The pecking order is messed up in my humble opinion. "

     It is odd that someone would address remarks to me and to someone else about me on a board that she should know I have not visited in months.  I still have not gone there and don't intend to, but since someone has drawn to my attention the above comments, I will respond here.  This seems appropriate, since the swte'ers apparently come here for material to discuss on their forum.
 
     I have defied Brent, even accusing him of deliberately practicing "insanity" against the Lord's people.  The posts are still there for anyone to see.  His response was harsh, severe, but honest and open.  I was never blackballed.  I have never asked Brent or Brian why, but I suspect it was because I was open and honest on my end.  Even in PMs & EMs to Brent, I entreated him from my point of view and made known that none of my communications were secret; that he could share or publish anything I had written.
     Those who walk in the Light need have no fear of the darkness.  I seldom PM, but I have no fear of anyone finding out what I have written.  Such secrecy is for children and for those who live by their wits and not by faith in the Son of God.
     There are discretion and confidentiality, but those warrant an entirely different discussion than this.
     It is true that such words as friendship and love mean different things to different people.  That is precisely why we need to discern from His Word what they mean to God, and convert our hearts and minds to accept His definitions.

     The second quote is the more troubling.  Brent has admitted that he enjoys debate.  And it's true that he can be "dogged" at it.  I called him on a comment that I thought was uncharitable ("condescending" is not an unreasonable term for that one remark), and we moved on.  On the whole, I consider His posts to be blunt, but again, condescending is how he may come across to some.  How one interprets another's words is often dictated by one's own self image and sense of security or lack thereof.
     Some of the main posters on this BB exude self confidence.  I have always been in a natural awe of such persons.  But I have learned & am learning to fear God more than these.  What possible worth could there be to projecting before men an illusion of being right if God is displeased?  No, I don't think Brent and I feel threatened by each other, but even if we should feel so, we are not likely to be governed by such feelings.  Faith in Christ puts the lie to the fear of men.
     Sondra is the second "eagle" to mention my backbone recently.  Backbone at swte seems to define doing battle with Brent, or Verne, or Tom M., or Mark C., or whoever is making declaratory statements about the vast gulf between the gospel of Christ and the assembly.  What I have been using more of lately is not backbone, but a renewed faith in the goodness and strength and completeness of the Lord Jesus Christ.
     As for crumbling in humility, humility is characteristic of Jesus and I'm happy if His humility can be seen in me.  But Jesus never crumbled, so if that's what you see me doing, it's me falling short.  It would explain why I keep having to sweep the floor aroung my computer chair...
     Pecking order?  There's only one to be concerned with:  God first, my neighbor second, me last.  All that about the first being last & the last first is God's call, not ours.

Sondra and associates,

     I don't mind your talking about me on your BB, but if you have something to say to me, please use email so I don't have to get it secondhand.  I say this because I stopped visiting swte after realizing that there was nothing there for me.  These quotes I was sent do nothing to change my mind about that.  I will read what you email me.  But I probably won't reply.  I wish you all that the Lord holds in store for you, and hope that you may enjoy it.

al Hartman


     

[al Hartman]

 


     Fascinating:  I am the only one posting on this thread, and the only responses are coming to me secondhand from that other BB...
     Here's the latest:

I would respectfully like to ask for the specifics of what you are talking about when you refer to people who have emailed you from SWTE.  Matt Peeling and I are the only two people here.  All others are members only and I cannot be responsible for what our members do.  And besides, most of our members are anonymous.

With the exception of a time when I may have emailed you when we first opened  SWTE I have had no communication with you.  I don't want to be misrepresented in this.  I would like to have some communication on this since you are lumping me together with others who may have offended you.  I do think you may be making a federal case out of nothing, but I think I have the right to know just what you are alleging as the Administrator of SWTE.

If you no longer have my email address you may ask Brent for it.  

The fact that you think you need to go on the AB board and explain your involvement with someone from SWTE seems rather "flogged" to me.  Surely you may email/correspond with whom you please without an explanation.  

I would appreciate it if one of you bad girls or bad boys who regularly reads our site would pass this message on since Al doesn't read this site.  I don't think I will be emailing him anytime soon.  

Sondra Jamison, Admin.

     I have posted this just so all on this BB can see the devious mentality behind that board.  The whole purpose of the post quoted above appears to be to draw me into dialogue.  The person who sent it to me asked to not be named or talked about on this BB (or anywhere else), but invited me to feel free to badmouth their BB.  I had to receive the message through a second party because its author, although having access to my email address, elected to address me again on the board I never read.

     My previous two posts on this thread were in the interest of the common good to readers both here and there, but the game is already afoot to twist my words and intentions for the sake of quarreling.  I will not be drawn into pointless bickering.  I was once a very good arguer, but I finally realized that even when I won, I won nothing.  The victories were empty.  Nothing good or lasting or even honorable was achieved.  So I gave it up.
     This is my final post addressing swte or anyone associated with it.  God considered them worthy of the sacrifice of His Son.  If they have a problem with my conduct, they may take it up with Him.

al Hartman

[M2]

God considered them worthy of the sacrifice of His Son.
al Hartman

Perhaps.

Verne

Verne, Is your comment based on a Calvinistic mindset?

Al, I will say it again, I am happy for your emergence from the fog of Geftakysism. Obviously, it will take some time to come-clean of the assembly influence, but you have made the most important step in your decision to emerge. The righteous are bold as a lion.

At this time I would also like to make this comment about Sondra. When I received a private email to join SWTE, I refused to do so because of my past experience with Sondra. In my annonymous days, I used to PM and EM (yes, she knew my identity) Sondra. We would discuss a topic, and then we'd circle around and be back at where we had started. After a while I decided that it would not be profitable to continue my communication with her and emphatically told her that I would not be siding with her or anybody on the BB, because I was looking for the truth of the matter re. the assembly. This all happened while I was still MGov. Sondra's spirituality is akin to GG's and I saw no point in debating with her. Also, she has a particular bent against Verne, and it would appear, Brent as well. Though I still disagree with Verne and Brent on some issues, I do not have a bent against them because of those disagreements. For the most part however, I agree with Brent and Verne and others. I see no point in 'fighting' and prefer to have a 'no comment' attitude to what is posted on her BB. At one point I warned them to leave my family out of it because I knew that my husband was considering 'exitting' the assembly. So all of their comments on how does my husband feel, are now clearly answered. ....

That's all for now,
Lord bless,
Marcia

[Joe Sperling]

Al---

Unlike you, I had been a regular visitor at Soaring With The Egos for quite a while. Curiosity drew me there, because you were always "guaranteed" to see a post regarding what someone posted on this BB.

Even the articles were written in such a way(most of the time) as to comment about this BB or the  people on it through some "spiritual lesson".  I have made the commmitment not to visit there any more, and so far have kept the commitment. I'm a person of habit, so I would daily visit all 3 BB's and read new posts each morning. It's hard to break some "habits" even if it means not clicking on a simple website. But I sincerely think I will be much better off for it.

Thanks for your comments Al, and your honesty.

--Joe

[al Hartman]

                                            NO COMMENT

           ;)al

[jesusfreak]

God considered them worthy of the sacrifice of His Son.
al Hartman

Perhaps.

Verne

Verne, Is your comment based on a Calvinistic mindset?

Marcia

Not necessarily Marcia. Many of us for example at one point concluded that George Gefatakys was a godly man, and on what basis?  What he said, of course.
In view of what we now know, do you think that a reliable basis for arriving at any such conclusion regarding any one?
Verne

Verne,

Perhaps I totally misread your post, but your explanation seems either contradictory or rather......condescending?  Since your conclusion reached is basically centered on the thought that we are unable to infallibly know another Man's "heart", and as it was in reference to "universal salvation" - it is rather brash to make any statements regarding said salvation to be exclusive to a certain set of people out of the whole ("salvation" being used to describe the availability of such; not the application).  

Basically, what train of logic will hold the first contention; yet allow parameters for the second?  It just seems to be wrong or inappropriate to me.

--
lucas

[Scott McCumber]

God considered them worthy of the sacrifice of His Son.
al Hartman

Perhaps.

Verne

Verne, Is your comment based on a Calvinistic mindset?

Marcia

Not necessarily Marcia. Many of us for example at one point concluded that George Gefatakys was a godly man, and on what basis?  What he said, of course.
In view of what we now know, do you think that a reliable basis for arriving at any such conclusion regarding any one?
Verne

Verne,

Perhaps I totally misread your post, but your explanation seems either contradictory or rather......condescending?

I have to be careful about the way I say things sometimes...sorry about that Lucas.

Since your conclusion reached is basically centered on the thought that we are unable to infallibly know another Man's "heart",

True. Infallibly being operative...

and as it was in reference to "universal salvation"

Actually it was in reference to making  assumtions about who is (not can be!) saved.

- it is rather brash to make any statements regarding said salvation to be exclusive to a certain set of people out of the whole ("salvation" being used to describe the availability of such; not the application).

And whom exactly did I exclude?  
The only exclusive statements that can be made are regarding those who are already in hell - clearly an a priori argument for their exclusion, and those whom the Bible specifically designates as being slated for such destiny. Regarding those we meet, our statements are clearly speuclative, even if Scripturally informed...  

Basically, what train of logic will hold the first contention; yet allow parameters for the second?  It just seems to be wrong or inappropriate to me.

--
lucas

Matthew 7:15,16

Verne
p.s. In a word, Lucas, how do you know that someone is saved??!!...careful, the answer is ridiculously simple...!  

You don't.

S