Harold Hoffman attacks Jim Kilgore

[charity]

https://youtube.com/watch?v=7sHomVyBghE&feature=youtu.be

[Max Cosme]

Good Apostolic preaching. NOT.

[Grandmasue]

Apostolic Identity teaching needs to be set aside and some good old fashioned manners, compassion and truth telling should be taught. Does anyone really believe that anyone preaches for 20 minutes with someone wrapping the arm around their ankles and snot dripping off their shoes?

[Abiding Now]

If what he says is true it's a sad day for LT.

[n david]

2 hit pieces on Hoffman...what's your beef with him, "Charity?"

[MissBrattified]

If what he says is true it's a sad day for LT.

I didn't even comprehend what he was saying in the Kilgore video, so I guess I'm missing the scandal.

As for the other video--definitely in terrible taste. :foottap I can't imagine my pastor EVER making a reference like that. There were better ways to make sure his audience knew he was talking about someone from Africa.

I don't know enough about Harold Hoffman to connect his comment to racism rather than really poor taste. I hope it's the latter instead of the former, but who knows? I've heard him teach at Oklahoma family camp and I enjoyed his sessions.

People do make mistakes and insert their feet in their mouths occasionally. Well, except for the people who like to post videos of preachers like these--they've never made poor judgment calls or said something they later wished they hadn't. :rolleyes2

[Charnock]

I didn't even comprehend what he was saying in the Kilgore video, so I guess I'm missing the scandal.

As for the other video--definitely in terrible taste. :foottap I can't imagine my pastor EVER making a reference like that. There were better ways to make sure his audience knew he was talking about someone from Africa.

I don't know enough about Harold Hoffman to connect his comment to racism rather than really poor taste. I hope it's the latter instead of the former, but who knows? I've heard him teach at Oklahoma family camp and I enjoyed his sessions.

People do make mistakes and insert their feet in their mouths occasionally. Well, except for the people who like to post videos of preachers like these--they've never made poor judgment calls or said something they later wished they hadn't. :rolleyes2

And there it is...your patented defense of the indefensible.

In the video posted Harold Hoffman:


Divulged private information about a strained relationship between a father and son.
Stated that the son is "an embarrassment" presumably to his recently deceased father and, more importantly, the UPC, which he recently left..
Stated that he didn't care that his comments were on tape.


Now, all of this was prefaced with the remark that Life Tabernacle is "gone" and that it was the largest foreign missions donor before departing.

The real issue here is anger. Anger because the money flow into FM slowed.

So the man impugned Jim Kilgore's character and insulted the relationship between he and his father, all in front of a world wide audience only 3 months after the Elder's death.

At the very least he acted in poor taste. There was no love in that message.

But you will give him a free pass because doing so is necessary to your agenda.

[MissBrattified]

And there it is...your patented defense of the indefensible.

My post wasn't much of a defense. LOL!!! I barely gave an opinion one way or the other, and I confessed I couldn't understand what he was saying about Bro. Kilgore. (ergo, I can't have an opinion about that)

...At the very least he acted in poor taste. There was no love in that message.

Isn't that precisely what I said? :blink (referring to the OTHER video...not the Kilgore video)

But you will give him a free pass because doing so is necessary to your agenda.

Nope, I didn't give him a free pass, and I don't know what "agenda" you're talking about, unless you're referring to the fact that I withhold my full opinion until I have the facts. I DO think it's a contradiction to cry foul because Bro. Kilgore was embarrassed in some way and then make sure to share that video far and wide. The person who is spreading the video is perfectly FINE with shaming Bro. Kilgore publicly--since it suits THEIR agenda.

Nice try, though.

[MissBrattified]

You could have started your post like this:

"Since you couldn't understand the first video, here's a synopsis of what he said:"
Divulged private information about a strained relationship between a father and son.
Stated that the son is "an embarrassment" presumably to his recently deceased father and, more importantly, the UPC, which he recently left..
Stated that he didn't care that his comments were on tape.


Now, all of this was prefaced with the remark that Life Tabernacle is "gone" and that it was the largest foreign missions donor before departing.

The real issue here is anger. Anger because the money flow into FM slowed.

So the man impugned Jim Kilgore's character and insulted the relationship between he and his father, all in front of a world wide audience only 3 months after the Elder's death.

At the very least he acted in poor taste. There was no love in that message.
...

See how much more civil your post is without the completely unnecessary first and last comments? Holding my opinions until I know at least as much as can be known is called prudence; not an agenda.

[Charnock]

You could have started your post like this:

"Since you couldn't understand the first video, here's a synopsis of what he said:"

See how much more civil your post is without the completely unnecessary first and last comments? Holding my opinions until I know at least as much as can be known is called prudence; not an agenda.

Except you do have an agenda, and it colors everything you post.

You jump in at every chance to marginalize those who post threads like these.

The video is not hard to understand.

The man expressed sorrow for the loss of money but none for the death of James Kilgore or his son's exit.

Words matter. He spoke what was in his heart.

Stop defending him.

[Abiding Now]

Looks like nepotism does have a downside. Sad

[Real Realism]

That "shuddery" "weepy" preacher voice that he uses in the video gives me the creeps. Especially when you really listen to what he's saying and are not moved by the emotion of the room or manipulation of "preacher stage voice/acting". Why can't preachers just talk in their normal voices? It's one thing to get excited and passionate when you're talking, but would you ever have a normal conversation (even one where you're getting excited and making an important point) and use that "oooooooohhhhh" moaning type voice? Why do preachers feel the need to put on this show?

Off topic, I know. Just an observation.

[Aquila]

I pray that God grant Rev. Harold Hoffman wisdom and grace.

[MissBrattified]

Except you do have an agenda, and it colors everything you post.

You jump in at every chance to marginalize those who post threads like these.

The video is not hard to understand.

The man expressed sorrow for the loss of money but none for the death of James Kilgore or his son's exit.

Words matter. He spoke what was in his heart.

Stop defending him.

Charnock. :) I couldn't HEAR everything he was saying in the first video, therefore I didn't UNDERSTAND the video. I have no reason to lie about that, but I guess if you want to call me a liar, feel free. :rolleyes2

I guess you jumped on MY post because I asked you for an example of my "defense of the indefensible" the other day (which you didn't provide from past posts), and I guess you thought you had a wonderful illustration with post #6. Unfortunately, you don't. Anyone can read my first post on this thread and see that I didn't defend Harold Hoffman; I did reserve my full opinion, which is my prerogative and only speaks to the fact that I don't like to speak first and think later. In fact, what I DID say was pretty much the same thing you said ("At the very least he acted in poor taste."), so does that mean YOU were defending Harold Hoffman, e.g., "defending the indefensible?" :coffee2

To clarify, here is where I commented on the second video and reserved my comments on the first one, which wasn't clear to me:

I didn't even comprehend what he was saying in the Kilgore video, so I guess I'm missing the scandal.

As for the other video--definitely in terrible taste. I can't imagine my pastor EVER making a reference like that. There were better ways to make sure his audience knew he was talking about someone from Africa.

I don't know enough about Harold Hoffman to connect his comment to racism rather than really poor taste. I hope it's the latter instead of the former, but who knows? I've heard him teach at Oklahoma family camp and I enjoyed his sessions.

Please point out where I defended his comments.

[Reader]

I didn't even comprehend what he was saying in the Kilgore video, so I guess I'm missing the scandal. But I have a hidden agenda and will defend the man!

As for the other video--definitely in terrible taste. I can't imagine my pastor EVER making a reference like that. There were better ways to make sure his audience knew he was talking about someone from Africa.

I don't know enough about Harold Hoffman to connect his comment to racism rather than really poor taste. I hope it's the latter instead of the former, but who knows? I've heard him teach at Oklahoma family camp and I enjoyed his sessions.

Please point out where I defended his comments.

It's very easily seen in the quote. :heeheehee

[MissBrattified]

It's very easily seen in the quote. :heeheehee

Please quote those bits, then, and explain to me how they're defending his COMMENTS. I didn't defend his COMMENTS. I only mentioned that I had heard him at family camp and enjoyed his sessions, and that I HOPED his comments weren't inspired by racism, which seems worse than "poor taste" to me.

Let's review: I didn't comment on video 1 because I didn't get it. I did comment on video 2 and said that his comments were in terrible taste and that I hoped they weren't rooted in racism.

[Reader]

LOL- Brat, it was a joke. Read the small print in your quote from my post. :)

[Praxeas]

MissBratt was not defending this guy. And I too could not even hear what was said, but if what they are saying is true then this guy is way out of order.

[Charnock]

I didn't even comprehend what he was saying in the Kilgore video, so I guess I'm missing the scandal.

As for the other video--definitely in terrible taste. :foottap I can't imagine my pastor EVER making a reference like that. There were better ways to make sure his audience knew he was talking about someone from Africa.

I don't know enough about Harold Hoffman to connect his comment to racism rather than really poor taste. I hope it's the latter instead of the former, but who knows? I've heard him teach at Oklahoma family camp and I enjoyed his sessions.

People do make mistakes and insert their feet in their mouths occasionally. Well, except for the people who like to post videos of preachers like these--they've never made poor judgment calls or said something they later wished they hadn't. :rolleyes2

This is a defense.

It's also an attack on the person who posted this thread, accompanied by your patented and condescending eye roll.

HH's comments were not "mistakes" in the sense that he accidentally, and without thought, slipped.

He stated that he knew those comments were being taped, and didn't care.

That's something far more insidious than "poor taste."

This is what you do, Bratti. You immediately attack the poster rather than the content and in such a way as to make yourself appear above the conversation.

It's an old schtick.

[Reader]

She did not immediately attack the poster. She gave her thoughts on the two videos first. What she afterward shared about the poster was very mild, more like sarcasm to me. On the other hand, you say negative things about Brat instead of sticking to the content of the video.

[n david]

I don't believe MissBrattified has an agenda. I do believe "Charity" has one though, as "her" 21 posts are drive-bys in which "she" posts something sensational or "scandalous" and then most of the time leaves everyone else to discuss it. "Charity" is either DA or someone connected to him.

[mizpeh]

I don't believe MissBrattified has an agenda. I do believe "Charity" has one though, as "her" 21 posts are drive-bys in which "she" posts something sensational or "scandalous" and then most of the time leaves everyone else to discuss it. "Charity" is either DA or someone connected to him.

The choice of the name "Charity" is ironic.

[Charnock]

I don't believe MissBrattified has an agenda. I do believe "Charity" has one though, as "her" 21 posts are drive-bys in which "she" posts something sensational or "scandalous" and then most of the time leaves everyone else to discuss it. "Charity" is either DA or someone connected to him.

The choice of the name "Charity" is ironic.

So, we can't get past the sacred cow, huh?

Most of the posts in this thread are whines/attacks toward "Charity."

But none of you have discussed the content of the video posted.

[n david]

So, we can't get past the sacred cow, huh?

Most of the posts in this thread are whines/attacks toward "Charity."

But none of you have discussed the content of the video posted.
Re: HH "attack" on Jim Kilgore, I wasn't able to hear most of the video.

Re: HH "joke" about Niger (the country in Africa), it was in poor taste and I don't agree with it. It's below the office of a minister to resort to things like this.

There's my :2cents about the videos. Does that make you feel better?

BTW, since "Charity" is willing to post these drive-by threads, "Charity" should understand and accept the criticism which comes with it.

[Charnock]

Re: HH "attack" on Jim Kilgore, I wasn't able to hear most of the video.

Re: HH "joke" about Niger (the country in Africa), it was in poor taste and I don't agree with it. It's below the office of a minister to resort to things like this.

There's my :2cents about the videos. Does that make you feel better?

BTW, since "Charity" is willing to post these drive-by threads, "Charity" should understand and accept the criticism which comes with it.

No one makes you read, or comment, right?

[n david]

No one makes you read, or comment, right?
Right back atcha. :thumbsup

[Praxeas]

This is a defense.


She wasn't defending the statement. She simply pointed out the truth about us all making mistakes.

She did not justify him doing it nor cleared the man of wrong doing

[Praxeas]

So, we can't get past the sacred cow, huh?

Most of the posts in this thread are whines/attacks toward "Charity."

But none of you have discussed the content of the video posted.
I hadn't noticed that.

In fact I HAVE noticed that many of us HAVE discussed the content of the video. Odd..in fact you quoted MrsBratt commenting on it several times now

[mizpeh]

So, we can't get past the sacred cow, huh?

Most of the posts in this thread are whines/attacks toward "Charity."

But none of you have discussed the content of the video posted.

What sacred cow?

What Hoffman said in this video is similar to what many other preachers do when they call out people from the pulpit. I don't like it.

Have you ever said something like that when preaching? maybe you left out the names but some folks are able to connect the dots.

[Charnock]

She wasn't defending the statement. She simply pointed out the truth about us all making mistakes.

She did not justify him doing it nor cleared the man of wrong doing

It wasn't "a mistake."

It was planned, and he made sure everyone watching/listening clearly understood that he meant what he said.

"It was a mistake" are your words, not his.

You're defending his words, trying to soften the blunt damage.

You're like the husband who finds his wife in bed with another man and believes her when she says it's "not what he thinks."

HH expressed sorrow for the loss of money and disgust with JK. He used his best sobby preacher voice to express that disgust.

[Charnock]

What Hoffman said in this video is similar to what many other preachers do when they call out people from the pulpit. I don't like it.


This will suffice.

Thanks. :highfive

[Charnock]

This "pile on" behavior is very typical of abusive systems.

Those connected with the group pile on anyone who has the temerity to cry when kicked, beaten and bloodied.

In their minds, the victim needs to grow up, take it like a man, and stop whining.

[crakjak]

It wasn't a mistake, the preacher meant what he said, and he believes what he says!!

Fine, alot of folks simply believe he is wrong, and that what he said was in extremely bad taste.

I'm sure JK had a lot of misgivings about the direction of LT, however, he never rejected his son, and I don't believe for a minute he felt like was presented in this video.

[MissBrattified]

This will suffice.

Thanks. :highfive

Yes, her comment that she "doesn't like it" will suffice, but my comment stating that it was in "terrible taste" (re: the N word) does not suffice. I think YOUR agenda is showing. :heeheehee

[MissBrattified]

This is a defense.

No, it's related to the fact that I always look at both sides of an issue. Two wrongs never make a right. The response to wrong has to be done in a way that maintains integrity and stays above the fray.

It's also an attack on the person who posted this thread, accompanied by your patented and condescending eye roll.

It was the coffee cup that was dubbed condescending. :)

HH's comments were not "mistakes" in the sense that he accidentally, and without thought, slipped.

I didn't say they were accidental. Sometimes people say things on purpose that they regret later because they don't think through the consequences. The fact that he parsed it doesn't mean he didn't regret it later--but obviously that's a hypothetical and I have no way of knowing if he regrets anything.

He stated that he knew those comments were being taped, and didn't care.

That's something far more insidious than "poor taste."

Then why did you call it "poor taste" at the very least? Why is your summation fine but my almost exact same summation bad?

This is what you do, Bratti. You immediately attack the poster rather than the content and in such a way as to make yourself appear above the conversation.

It's an old schtick.

Actually, I don't. I do call a spade a spade and if you respond to wrong with wrong, I will call you out on it. You and others don't like that because you want it to be one sided. You want to rake people over the coals for their attitudes, lack of self-control, meanness, vindictiveness, etc., WHILE you are being mean, vindictive and having an attitude. I have a lot of respect for people who address issues respectfully. If I had the time (which I don't), I could go back and find multiple threads where I have participated in discussing serious issues with church leadership, organizations, etc., without attacking the poster for bringing it up. I don't have a problem with issues being raised and I don't have a problem with this thread being posted. Never have. If I did, I wouldn't participate in this forum, and I wouldn't comment on similar threads on Facebook. I'm not scared of issues.

I don't feel respect for people who address issues without integrity and self-control, e.g., I won't give your complaints any weight. If someone screams at me in anger and I scream right back, I'm just as wrong. If someone cusses me and I cuss back at them, I'm just as guilty. Etc. If you're going to call out people on their mess, you'd better be squeaky clean, or you're no better than them. IMO, the reason you feel comfortable being disrespectful and rude is because you have devalued certain groups of people (UPCers/conservative Apostolics) and given yourself permission to do so. Giving yourself permission to be ugly and rude because you think negatively about someone's values or belief system doesn't mean it's okay in God's eyes.

[MissBrattified]

This "pile on" behavior is very typical of abusive systems.

Those connected with the group pile on anyone who has the temerity to cry when kicked, beaten and bloodied.

In their minds, the victim needs to grow up, take it like a man, and stop whining.

Utter nonsense. No one on this thread has indicated that the "victim" (Bro. Kilgore's son?) should "grow up, take it like a man...." I certainly don't feel that way about anyone offended by the N-word reference.

Are you just mad because I don't like that the videos were posted? It's the wrong way to handle offenses, and that's all there is to that. I don't care about "protecting" Bro. Hoffman or anyone else in the UPC or church world. I do care about the biblical manner of resolving offenses, and I would hope that you care about that, too. I also care about protecting the reputation of the church as a whole, and IMO, that is why scripture basically tells us not to take church issues to the secular world for judgment.

Taking a matter public is actually UNbiblical, aka, disobedient to the Word of God. Taking a matter before the "whole church" is biblical, but only after a couple of other methods are used. THAT is why I object to these expose' style videos being posted, after the manner of some news rag that's out to air everyone's dirty laundry. I AM interested in church discipline and leaders who get out of line being corrected.

So what places you or any other Christian above the biblical protocol for resolving offenses?

[Pressing-On]

It was the coffee cup that was dubbed condescending. :)


:heeheehee :thumbsup

[n david]

Now, all of this was prefaced with the remark that Life Tabernacle is "gone" and that it was the largest foreign missions donor before departing.

The real issue here is anger. Anger because the money flow into FM slowed.

At the very least he acted in poor taste. There was no love in that message.
The bold part is a massive leap. I re-watched the clip with the volume up full blast and still didn't make out everything. As I heard, there was one passing reference to foreign missions and that's it.

HH said Jimbo was an embarrassment, but doesn't say why. He follows that with telling the people there that they need to stop being embarrassed by "this."

Unless you've watched or heard the entire message, you can't make the claim there was no love in the message. This 80 second clip doesn't show enough to make that claim.

As far as HH faking emotion, as a couple here have claimed...how do you know? You have no idea.

[Reader]

Yes, her comment that she "doesn't like it" will suffice, but my comment stating that it was in "terrible taste" (re: the N word) does not suffice. I think YOUR agenda is showing. :heeheehee

:heeheehee :thumbsup

[Charnock]

No, it's related to the fact that I always look at both sides of an issue. Two wrongs never make a right. The response to wrong has to be done in a way that maintains integrity and stays above the fray.

Um, BWAHAHA!

Your immediate and continued response has been to show way more disdain for the person who posted this thread than the racist and cruel remarks of HH.

[Charnock]

It was the coffee cup that was dubbed condescending. :)

Um, that is your trademark. Hover over it and you will see that it is labeled "rollseyes." Is that not meant to be condescending? Why do you use that smiley if NOT to be condescending. :nod

[Charnock]

I didn't say they were accidental. Sometimes people say things on purpose that they regret later because they don't think through the consequences. The fact that he parsed it doesn't mean he didn't regret it later--but obviously that's a hypothetical and I have no way of knowing if he regrets anything.

No, you referred to it as a "mistake." As if it were accidental.

By his own admission, it wasn't. He was/is proud of his racist and mean-spirited remarks which you somehow feel compelled to defend and explain away.

[Charnock]

I don't feel respect for people who address issues without integrity and self-control, e.g., I won't give your complaints any weight. If someone screams at me in anger and I scream right back, I'm just as wrong. If someone cusses me and I cuss back at them, I'm just as guilty. Etc. If you're going to call out people on their mess, you'd better be squeaky clean, or you're no better than them. IMO, the reason you feel comfortable being disrespectful and rude is because you have devalued certain groups of people (UPCers/conservative Apostolics) and given yourself permission to do so. Giving yourself permission to be ugly and rude because you think negatively about someone's values or belief system doesn't mean it's okay in God's eyes.

You operate under the mistaken impression that I crave your respect and long for your opinion.

Nothing is uglier than abuse other than perhaps those who laugh with and defend the abuser. Of course, I would never suggest that you would do anything like that. :nobodycares

[n david]

No, you referred to it as a "mistake." As if it were accidental.

By his own admission, it wasn't. He was/is proud of his racist and mean-spirited remarks which you somehow feel compelled to defend and explain away.
She just posted that she didn't mean it was accidental. There are many times I refer to a "mistake," and none of which I meant an accident. People make mistakes, it doesn't mean it was done accidentally. It means something was done in error or bad judgement.

Open a dictionary and look at the meaning of "mistake," I doubt you'll find it referring to something done accidentally.

[Charnock]

Taking a matter public is actually UNbiblical, aka, disobedient to the Word of God. Taking a matter before the "whole church" is biblical, but only after a couple of other methods are used. THAT is why I object to these expose' style videos being posted, after the manner of some news rag that's out to air everyone's dirty laundry. I AM interested in church discipline and leaders who get out of line being corrected.


Odd, I don't see you complain when your fellow admin gossip-monger, CC1, posts his Thad-like threads. Seems you only get upset when the old guard racists are exposed.

[Charnock]

She just posted that she didn't mean it was accidental. There are many times I refer to a "mistake," and none of which I meant an accident. People make mistakes, it doesn't mean it was done accidently. It means something was done in error or bad judgement.

Open a dictionary and look at the meaning of "mistake," I doubt you'll find it referring to something done accidently.

If you are going to lecture me about word meanings please make sure you spell them correctly.

All of your blathering is misguided. You and your cronies have exerted a lot of energy defending Dirty Harry when you should have expressed sympathy for his idiocy and outrage at his comments.

[n david]

If you are going to lecture me about word meanings please make sure you spell them correctly.
I'll blame the autocorrect on this. You are correct, it was the wrong spelling; however, it doesn't change the meaning of "mistake." It's not about something done accidentally.

All of your blathering is misguided. You and your cronies have exerted a lot of energy defending ... when you should have expressed sympathy for his idiocy and outrage at his comments.
That's a lie! I haven't defended him at all. I already said his comment about the country in Africa was below a minister, in poor taste and I don't agree with it. That's not defending him.

Regarding the Kilgore video, it's impossible to make an unbiased statement which correctly describes the 80-second clip. You're reaching when you claim he was angry about losing FM money. I heard one comment about FM being "gone." He sayd Jimbo was an embarrassment, but didn't say why. He then told the people there to stop being embarrassed about "this," but didn't define what "this" meant.

That isn't a defense of HH, either. It's simply stating the facts. That 80-second clip leaves a massive hole as to what's being said, and you nor I can claim to know what he was saying in that 80-second clip.

[Charnock]

I'll blame the autocorrect on this. You are correct, it was the wrong spelling; however, it doesn't change the meaning of "mistake." It's not about something done accidentally.

Auto correct is responsible for your mistakes? :spit

[Charnock]

That's a lie! I haven't defended him at all. I already said his comment about the country in Africa was below a minister, in poor taste and I don't agree with it. That's not defending him.

Regarding the Kilgore video, it's impossible to make an unbiased statement which correctly describes the 80-second clip. You're reaching when you claim he was angry about losing FM money. I heard one comment about FM being "gone." He sayd Jimbo was an embarrassment, but didn't say why. He then told the people there to stop being embarrassed about "this," but didn't define what "this" meant.

That isn't a defense of HH, either. It's simply stating the facts. That 80-second clip leaves a massive hole as to what's being said, and you nor I can claim to know what he was saying in that 80-second clip.

You seem upset. Are you upset?

Methinks you've ignored one very important fact. HH begins his little diatribe with this description of LT..."the largest Foreign Missions church in the United Pentecostal Church...He said "it's gone!"

He is upset at lost money. How can you possibly surmise anything else?

[n david]

You seem upset. Are you upset?
I'm not upset, I'm simply stating you're lying when you claim I'm defending him. I haven't.


Methinks you've ignored one very important fact. HH begins his little diatribe with this description of LT..."the largest Foreign Missions church in the United Pentecostal Church...He said "it's gone!"
That was one line. One single reference in the 80-second video.


He is upset at lost money. How can you possibly surmise anything else?
You're reaching on this.

[n david]

Auto correct is responsible for your mistakes? :spit
:blah

[Praxeas]

It wasn't "a mistake."

mistake

  Use Mistake in a sentence (http://www.reference.com/example-sentences/mistake)
mis·take

[mi-steyk] Show IPA
noun 1. an error (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/error) in action, calculation, opinion, or judgment caused by poor reasoning, carelessness, insufficient knowledge, etc.



It was planned, and he made sure everyone watching/listening clearly understood that he meant what he said.

"It was a mistake" are your words, not his.

You're defending his words, trying to soften the blunt damage.

No I'm not. I said already before that his words were wrong if he said them. There is nothing to defend
You're like the husband who finds his wife in bed with another man and believes her when she says it's "not what he thinks."

HH expressed sorrow for the loss of money and disgust with JK. He used his best sobby preacher voice to express that disgust
You don't know what you are talking about. I did not defend the man nor his words.

[Praxeas]

It wasn't "a mistake."




 



mistake

  Use Mistake in a sentence (http://www.reference.com/example-sentences/mistake)
mis·take

[mi-steyk] Show IPA
noun 1. an error (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/error) in action, calculation, opinion, or judgment caused by poor reasoning, carelessness, insufficient knowledge, etc.

Being a mistake does not mean it wasn't intentional or done with malice





It was planned, and he made sure everyone watching/listening clearly understood that he meant what he said.

"It was a mistake" are your words, not his.

You're defending his words, trying to soften the blunt damage.

No I'm not. I said already before that his words were wrong if he said them. There is nothing to defend
You're like the husband who finds his wife in bed with another man and believes her when she says it's "not what he thinks."

HH expressed sorrow for the loss of money and disgust with JK. He used his best sobby preacher voice to express that disgust
You don't know what you are talking about. I did not defend the man nor his words.

[Praxeas]

It wasn't a mistake, the preacher meant what he said, and he believes what he says!!

Fine, alot of folks simply believe he is wrong, and that what he said was in extremely bad taste.

I'm sure JK had a lot of misgivings about the direction of LT, however, he never rejected his son, and I don't believe for a minute he felt like was presented in this video.
the preacher man was WRONG for saying it and that makes it a mistake.

[Praxeas]

The bold part is a massive leap. I re-watched the clip with the volume up full blast and still didn't make out everything. As I heard, there was one passing reference to foreign missions and that's it.

HH said Jimbo was an embarrassment, but doesn't say why. He follows that with telling the people there that they need to stop being embarrassed by "this."

Unless you've watched or heard the entire message, you can't make the claim there was no love in the message. This 80 second clip doesn't show enough to make that claim.

As far as HH faking emotion, as a couple here have claimed...how do you know? You have no idea.
If you and MissB can barely hear it then I wonder where this reporting of what this man said came from..

[Praxeas]

She just posted that she didn't mean it was accidental. There are many times I refer to a "mistake," and none of which I meant an accident. People make mistakes, it doesn't mean it was done accidentally. It means something was done in error or bad judgement.

Open a dictionary and look at the meaning of "mistake," I doubt you'll find it referring to something done accidentally.
Exactly...

[MissBrattified]

Um, that is your trademark. Hover over it and you will see that it is labeled "rollseyes." Is that not meant to be condescending? Why do you use that smiley if NOT to be condescending. :nod

No, actually the coffee cup has been my long standing trademark since FCF, and Pressing-On dubbed it the "condescending coffee cup" a long time ago. I assumed you were making reference to that, and if you were making a new reference to condescension, I suppose that was my mistake. .

No, you referred to it as a "mistake." As if it were accidental.

By his own admission, it wasn't. He was/is proud of his racist and mean-spirited remarks which you somehow feel compelled to defend and explain away.

I think you're mixing up the two videos now. I thought the first one was the one where he said he didn't care if it was being recorded? We don't have any context at all for how he feels about his N-word reference. What I actually said was that I HOPE it wasn't coming from a point of racism, but that we really don't know. (Which, if you understand the English language, means I left room for the possibility.)

You operate under the mistaken impression that I crave your respect and long for your opinion.

Seriously? :spit I'm well aware that you don't crave my respect or care about my opinion, and I really don't care. The thing is, I'm free to give my opinion anyway, and if you don't like it, that's okay with me. I didn't state my opinion for YOUR personal benefit in the first place. So, um, oh the narcissism? The only reason we're interacting at all is because I took you off ignore a few weeks ago and you made the posts on THIS thread personal--probably in retaliation for my post on ILG's thread which was absolutely personal, but I can't say that for sure. That's okay, though, I've put on my big girl panties and I'm dealing with it. :dogpat

Nothing is uglier than abuse other than perhaps those who laugh with and defend the abuser. Of course, I would never suggest that you would do anything like that. :nobodycares

You shouldn't, because I don't--and neither has anyone else on this thread.

[crakjak]

the preacher man was WRONG for saying it and that makes it a mistake.

Yes, that is true, however, if you asked him if it was a mistake, I suspect he would say, "no". So, from my perspective, he was just wrong.

[MissBrattified]

Um, that is your trademark. Hover over it and you will see that it is labeled "rollseyes." Is that not meant to be condescending? Why do you use that smiley if NOT to be condescending. :nod

No, actually the coffee cup has been my long standing trademark since FCF, and Pressing-On dubbed it the "condescending coffee cup" a long time ago. I assumed you were making reference to that, and if you were making a new reference to condescension, I suppose that was my mistake.

No, you referred to it as a "mistake." As if it were accidental.

By his own admission, it wasn't. He was/is proud of his racist and mean-spirited remarks which you somehow feel compelled to defend and explain away.

I think you're mixing up the two videos now. I thought the first one was the one where he said he didn't care if it was being recorded? We don't have any context at all for how he feels about his N-word reference. What I actually said was that I HOPE it wasn't coming from a point of racism, but that we really don't know. (Which, if you understand the English language, means I left room for the possibility.)

You operate under the mistaken impression that I crave your respect and long for your opinion.

Seriously? :spit I'm well aware that you don't crave my respect or care about my opinion, and I really don't give two hoots about that. The thing is, I'm free to give my opinion anyway, and if you don't like it, that's okay with me. I'm also free to defend myself against any remarks anyone makes--including yours, even if you don't care about what I say. :)

Weirdly enough, I didn't state my opinion for YOUR personal benefit in the first place. The only reason we're interacting at all is because I took you off ignore a few weeks ago and you made the posts on THIS thread personal--probably in retaliation for my post on ILG's thread which was absolutely personal, but I can't say that for sure. That's okay, though, I've put on my big girl panties and I'm dealing with it. :dogpat

Nothing is uglier than abuse other than perhaps those who laugh with and defend the abuser. Of course, I would never suggest that you would do anything like that. :nobodycares

You shouldn't, because I don't--and neither has anyone else on this thread.

[MissBrattified]

Yes, that is true, however, if you asked him if it was a mistake, I suspect he would say, "no". So, from my perspective, he was just wrong.

In fairness, crakjak, you DON'T know that. That's why it's completely unproductive to address an offense in this way. It should be directed to Bro. Hoffman so he can address it--and apologize if he sees the need.

[MissBrattified]

Odd, I don't see you complain when your fellow admin gossip-monger, CC1, posts his Thad-like threads. Seems you only get upset when the old guard racists are exposed.

You mean like the one about the preacher from Memphis--a thread that you gladly participated in?

[Pressing-On]

No, actually the coffee cup has been my long standing trademark since FCF, and Pressing-On dubbed it the "condescending coffee cup" a long time ago.


It wasn't me. I just saw the comment and used it later. :heeheehee

[MissBrattified]

It wasn't me. I just saw the comment and used it later. :heeheehee

Oh, that's right...I think it was pelathais who said it first! :D

[Praxeas]

Yes, that is true, however, if you asked him if it was a mistake, I suspect he would say, "no". So, from my perspective, he was just wrong.
If you asked him if he was wrong he would probably say no too...that does not make what he said not wrong or not a mistake.

The man is wrong. He made a mistake. He is in error. I don't see why people have a problem with that word "mistake" lol

[Praxeas]

You mean like the one about the preacher from Memphis--a thread that you gladly participated in?

:nod

[Charnock]

You mean like the one about the preacher from Memphis--a thread that you gladly participated in?

Yes, I did, though I wouldn't use the word "gladly."

Did you complain about that thread?
Did you question CC1's motives?
Did you use your Condescending Coffee Cup on him?

[Charnock]

In fairness, crakjak, you DON'T know that. That's why it's completely unproductive to address an offense in this way. It should be directed to Bro. Hoffman so he can address it--and apologize if he sees the need.

Hey, Bratti, hows about you apply that same principle to every politician, preacher and regular joe who is dissed on this forum?

Obama is a Christian. Please direct all slander directly to him.

[MissBrattified]

Hey, Bratti, hows about you apply that same principle to every politician, preacher and regular joe who is dissed on this forum?

I guess you haven't read very many of my posts through the years. If you had, you would already know that I do apply the same principles to everyone else.

Obama is a Christian. Please direct all slander directly to him.

I happily invite you to find my posts on President Obama and Michelle Obama. You will find that when I do disagree, I strive to disagree respectfully, and I have called others out on being ugly and disrespectful to our President. For the record, I have sent a couple of emails directly to the White House--and they were patently respectful in tone. Whether they were actually read or not is beside the point; I am in the habit of directing my disagreements to the source and doing my level best to be respectful to others.

[Praxeas]

lol....

[Charnock]

Hey, Bratti, hows about you apply that same principle to every politician, preacher and regular joe who is dissed on this forum?

Obama is a Christian. Please direct all slander directly to him.

I guess you haven't read very many of my posts through the years. If you had, you would already know that I do apply the same principles to everyone else.



I happily invite you to find my posts on President Obama and Michelle Obama. You will find that when I do disagree, I strive to disagree respectfully, and I have called others out on being ugly and disrespectful to our President. For the record, I have sent a couple of emails directly to the White House--and they were patently respectful in tone. Whether they were actually read or not is beside the point; I am in the habit of directing my disagreements to the source and doing my level best to be respectful to others.

I've no doubt that you bug the White House frequently, but how do you respond to AFF threads that are critical of he and the Mrs.?

Do you go all Keyboard Commando on all of those threads? Tell everyone to direct their complaints to the White House?

:throwrock

[Charnock]

And, Bratti, condescension is never respectful.

[Pressing-On]

And, Bratti, condescension is never respectful.

If Bratti has ever been condescending, I doubt she has been more so than anyone else, posting here on this ideas/debate/discussion sharing forum.

[Charnock]

If Bratti has ever been condescending, I doubt she has been more so than anyone else, posting here on this ideas/debate/discussion sharing forum.

The sad thing, as evidenced by the responses to the original post, is that very few will actually listen to HH, and respond to his remarks. Instead, we're fed a steady diet of aspersions toward the thread creator.

That's what is so silly, and sad.

Bratti habitually defends this type of person, and that defense serves to promulgate and perpetuate the abuse.

[Abiding Now]

I feel sorry for the memory of Bro. Kilgore.

[Ferd]

who is Harold Hoffman and why am I supposed to care?

[Abiding Now]

who is Harold Hoffman and why am I supposed to care?

See post #1.

[Pressing-On]

The sad thing, as evidenced by the responses to the original post, is that very few will actually listen to HH, and respond to his remarks. Instead, we're fed a steady diet of aspersions toward the thread creator.

That's what is so silly, and sad.

Bratti habitually defends this type of person, and that defense serves to promulgate and perpetuate the abuse.

I don't believe that Bratti defended him. She referenced the points she could hear clearly and voiced her opinion of disagreement on those particular points.

What you should understand is that some of us not commenting don't want to get involved in a witch hunt with DA. It's his YouTube upload. There are lots of people I look up to and what to be like when I grow up. DA isn't one of those people. Bitterness is utterly depressing and ugly.

[crakjak]

In fairness, crakjak, you DON'T know that. That's why it's completely unproductive to address an offense in this way. It should be directed to Bro. Hoffman so he can address it--and apologize if he sees the need.

I didn't say that I "KNOW" it, said that I "suspect", which was an educated guess based on my experience and hearing his attitude and disrespect for a respected elder. And his judgment the of legacy LT and JK.

[Ferd]

See post #1.

post number one just shows the dude saying some stuff...

that doesnt tell me why I should care what he is saying.

[Ferd]

so let me get this right....


some dude some place in a church with 11 people said some stuff some folk dont like.

so instead of that getting back to the prinicples who were maligned, it was posted out on the world wide web so thousands can see it.

all in the name of defending Jimbo, we have allowed the world to see some stuff that is hurtful to Jimbo.

Nice job defenders of people who post hurtful stuff on the internet.


Down here in the south we call that idiocy.

[Max Cosme]

so let me get this right....


some dude some place in a church with 11 people said some stuff some folk dont like.

so instead of that getting back to the prinicples who were maligned, it was posted out on the world wide web so thousands can see it.

all in the name of defending Jimbo, we have allowed the world to see some stuff that is hurtful to Jimbo.

Nice job defenders of people who post hurtful stuff on the internet.


Down here in the south we call that idiocy.


More of the marginalizing of the messengers and those who bring to light spiritual abuse.

This was said at the Ohio district conference. I am glad Ferd recognizes that numbers are down. 11 made it to the flesh feasting.

I have no doubt Ferd has the skills to explain away sin with the same ease as Miss Brattified.

[Reader]

The personal insults make this place sound like we are in grade school.

[johnny44]

Oh, that's right...I think it was pelathais who said it first! :D How is Pelathais doing ?

[Azzan]

The sad thing, as evidenced by the responses to the original post, is that very few will actually listen to HH, and respond to his remarks. Instead, we're fed a steady diet of aspersions toward the thread creator.

That's what is so silly, and sad.

Bratti habitually defends this type of person, and that defense serves to promulgate and perpetuate the abuse.

Charnock, your post here is #73 in this thread. The OP is only mentioned on this thread in posts 5, 21, 22 and 24. I don't see how 4 posts out of 73 make a "steady" diet.

[Ferd]

More of the marginalizing of the messengers and those who bring to light spiritual abuse.

This was said at the Ohio district conference. I am glad Ferd recognizes that numbers are down. 11 made it to the flesh feasting.

I have no doubt Ferd has the skills to explain away sin with the same ease as Miss Brattified.

this is me sticking my tongue out at you. You dont impress.

I dont have a clue who the guy is. Nor is what he said something i find heart warming.

Nothing here needs defending in the least. Rule number 2 applies to this fellow for sure....


I just dont see how coming to Jimbo's defense includes spreading the fowl comments all over the internet.

[Praxeas]

I've no doubt that you bug the White House frequently, but how do you respond to AFF threads that are critical of he and the Mrs.?

Do you go all Keyboard Commando on all of those threads? Tell everyone to direct their complaints to the White House?

:throwrock
Do you?

[Praxeas]

The sad thing, .
The sad thing is you've taken the focus off of what this man said and turned it into a character assassination of MissB

[Praxeas]

who is Harold Hoffman and why am I supposed to care?
I never even heard of the man before this

[Abiding Now]

I never even heard of the man before this

Must be someone really important (to someone) if he's preaching Ohio camp meeting.

[Charnock]

The sad thing is you've taken the focus off of what this man said and turned it into a character assassination of MissB

Except no one is focusing on what this man said.

You've all discussed the motive behind the original post, my mean, bitter responses and the weather but precious little regarding HH's comments.

You are protecting the system. It's what you do.

[Praxeas]

Except no one is focusing on what this man said.

You've all discussed the motive behind the original post, my mean, bitter responses and the weather but precious little regarding HH's comments.

You are protecting the system. It's what you do.
We ALL focused on what the man said until you made it about MissB...

I also never spoke of motive. I clearly said what the man said, if he said it, was wrong.

I said If because I was not there and the video is hard to hear so I am assuming those who are saying this man said what they claim they said are being honest.

the fact that you keep telling me Im protecting a system I have been outspoken against proves your deranged bias.

[Reader]

It appears Harold Hoffman may be a UPCI ordained minister in Shelby Township, Michigan. It doesn't appear that he holds any offices and pastors in Sterling Heights. http://www.midistrict.com/site/leaderdisplay.asp?leader_id=180008038&sec_id=180012432 & http://www.firstchurchsterlingheights.com/staff/

[charity]

bump

[LifeGuide]

@PJLK: Imagine that you love those who say all manner of evil against you. #kingdomthoughts // Well said Pastor Jim...

[endtimer]

Must be someone really important (to someone) if he's preaching Ohio camp meeting.

HH is well known and respected in the state Michigan. He also has been known to be quite politically incorrect and red neckish ( my vocabulary falls short) by those close to him. He is aware of this and knows its a short coming. Not defending him, just passing on info as told to me by those close to him. Apparently he is taking his politically incorrect ways on the road.

[Esther]

If he is no longer a part of the organization why would you expect him to continue contributing?

Besides last time I visited there the numbers were way down.

[houston]

If he is no longer a part of the organization why would you expect him to continue contributing?

Besides last time I visited there the numbers were way down.

How long ago was that?

[CC1]

https://youtube.com/watch?v=7sHomVyBghE&feature=youtu.be


Classy! Nothing like hearing a preacher trash another preacher by name from the pulpit.

Regardless of what one thinks about Jimbo Kilgore this Harold Hoffman character is the one that should be ashamed in this case.

Just because you wrap a personal attack in crocodile tears and make it in the context of a sermon does not change what it is.

[CC1]

By the way who is this Harold Hoffman? I don't believe I have heard the name before.

[Reader]

CC1, I answered that in post 92

[CC1]

CC1, I answered that in post 92

Thanks, I missed that when reading through the thread.

[houstonupci]

As a member of Life Church (Tabernacle), there are a few things I would like to add to this thread.

1) Someone posted early in the thread about HH "revealing" a strained relationship between elder JK and current pastor JK. A few months prior to elder JK passing away, he got up in front of the entire church and stated for the record that he stood behind his son and Life Church. I have personally seen the interactions between elder JK and his three children, and I can say that there was nothing "strained" about their relationship.

2) As for Life Tabernacle and missions. To my knowledge, the church no longer gives to missions through the UPCI organization, but the church still supports missions in a big way. In fact, missionary Tony Miller from Lithuania is speaking THIS SUNDAY. Aside from giving to missionaries, the church recently built an orphanage in the Phillipines and currently houses almost 40 children. If that isn't missions, I don't know what is.

3) There have been a LOT of rumors floating around about Life Church over the past few years, and I would like to address them. JK still teaches baptism in Jesus Name, JK still teaches that unbelievers MUST be filled with the Spirit, JK still teaches that the evidence of receiving the Spirit is speaking with other tongues. If you were to visit our church, you would see a lot of different people that don't necessarily look like you would expect "holy" Christians would look. Why is that? BECAUSE THEY'RE ALL NEW. Throughout 2014, Life Church added at least 300 new members. While some former traditionalist members were running for the hills to stricter churches, we were reaching out into our community and creating a MASSIVE network of Bible studies. We currently have HUNDREDS of unchurched people attending Bible studies in homes across the greater Houston area. The church's message has changed from religion and tradition to one of relationship with Christ and reaching the lost.

I can personally testify that my relationship with God and my knowledge of scripture has grown SO much since I've been a member of Life Church. I spend the first 20+ years of my life in a traditional UPC church. I was constantly told what to believe and not to question what I was taught. Being pastored with an open hand of love as opposed to an iron fist of condemnation has drastically changed my life.

I truly cannot picture Christ saying anything near those words of hate that came out of HH's mouth. Elder JK was a man of grace and dignity. He was not one to grovel at someone's feet with "mucous" pouring out of his nose. I call "FALSE" on HH's statement.

Also, for the record, JK is a grown man over 50 years old. No one calls him Jimbo. Not even his closet friends. It's disrespectful.

[Aquila]

The "thuggish" and brute attitude of so many "men of God" in the UPCI is one reason why I left.

[mizpeh]

As a member of Life Church (Tabernacle), there are a few things I would like to add to this thread.

1) Someone posted early in the thread about HH "revealing" a strained relationship between elder JK and current pastor JK. A few months prior to elder JK passing away, he got up in front of the entire church and stated for the record that he stood behind his son and Life Church. I have personally seen the interactions between elder JK and his three children, and I can say that there was nothing "strained" about their relationship.

2) As for Life Tabernacle and missions. To my knowledge, the church no longer gives to missions through the UPCI organization, but the church still supports missions in a big way. In fact, missionary Tony Miller from Lithuania is speaking THIS SUNDAY. Aside from giving to missionaries, the church recently built an orphanage in the Phillipines and currently houses almost 40 children. If that isn't missions, I don't know what is.

3) There have been a LOT of rumors floating around about Life Church over the past few years, and I would like to address them. JK still teaches baptism in Jesus Name, JK still teaches that unbelievers MUST be filled with the Spirit, JK still teaches that the evidence of receiving the Spirit is speaking with other tongues. If you were to visit our church, you would see a lot of different people that don't necessarily look like you would expect "holy" Christians would look. Why is that? BECAUSE THEY'RE ALL NEW. Throughout 2014, Life Church added at least 300 new members. While some former traditionalist members were running for the hills to stricter churches, we were reaching out into our community and creating a MASSIVE network of Bible studies. We currently have HUNDREDS of unchurched people attending Bible studies in homes across the greater Houston area. The church's message has changed from religion and tradition to one of relationship with Christ and reaching the lost.

I can personally testify that my relationship with God and my knowledge of scripture has grown SO much since I've been a member of Life Church. I spend the first 20+ years of my life in a traditional UPC church. I was constantly told what to believe and not to question what I was taught. Being pastored with an open hand of love as opposed to an iron fist of condemnation has drastically changed my life.

I truly cannot picture Christ saying anything near those words of hate that came out of HH's mouth. Elder JK was a man of grace and dignity. He was not one to grovel at someone's feet with "mucous" pouring out of his nose. I call "FALSE" on HH's statement.

Also, for the record, JK is a grown man over 50 years old. No one calls him Jimbo. Not even his closet friends. It's disrespectful.

:thumbsup

[CC1]

As a member of Life Church (Tabernacle), there are a few things I would like to add to this thread.

1) Someone posted early in the thread about HH "revealing" a strained relationship between elder JK and current pastor JK. A few months prior to elder JK passing away, he got up in front of the entire church and stated for the record that he stood behind his son and Life Church. I have personally seen the interactions between elder JK and his three children, and I can say that there was nothing "strained" about their relationship.

2) As for Life Tabernacle and missions. To my knowledge, the church no longer gives to missions through the UPCI organization, but the church still supports missions in a big way. In fact, missionary Tony Miller from Lithuania is speaking THIS SUNDAY. Aside from giving to missionaries, the church recently built an orphanage in the Phillipines and currently houses almost 40 children. If that isn't missions, I don't know what is.

3) There have been a LOT of rumors floating around about Life Church over the past few years, and I would like to address them. JK still teaches baptism in Jesus Name, JK still teaches that unbelievers MUST be filled with the Spirit, JK still teaches that the evidence of receiving the Spirit is speaking with other tongues. If you were to visit our church, you would see a lot of different people that don't necessarily look like you would expect "holy" Christians would look. Why is that? BECAUSE THEY'RE ALL NEW. Throughout 2014, Life Church added at least 300 new members. While some former traditionalist members were running for the hills to stricter churches, we were reaching out into our community and creating a MASSIVE network of Bible studies. We currently have HUNDREDS of unchurched people attending Bible studies in homes across the greater Houston area. The church's message has changed from religion and tradition to one of relationship with Christ and reaching the lost.

I can personally testify that my relationship with God and my knowledge of scripture has grown SO much since I've been a member of Life Church. I spend the first 20+ years of my life in a traditional UPC church. I was constantly told what to believe and not to question what I was taught. Being pastored with an open hand of love as opposed to an iron fist of condemnation has drastically changed my life.

I truly cannot picture Christ saying anything near those words of hate that came out of HH's mouth. Elder JK was a man of grace and dignity. He was not one to grovel at someone's feet with "mucous" pouring out of his nose. I call "FALSE" on HH's statement.

Also, for the record, JK is a grown man over 50 years old. No one calls him Jimbo. Not even his closet friends. It's disrespectful.

I appreciate this post from a church member but have to question you on one thing. You seem to suggest that JK and the church are still holding on to the clothesline legalism of the UPC, that the reason the church looks different is just because there are so many new members. This suggests you think that JK will still preach and uphold the clothesline standards of the UPC and that over time these new saints will "line up"with the women giving up wearing makeup, cutting their hair, jewelry, pants, etc. Can you confirm this is what you were inferring? If so I think you are very, very wrong in that regard. Those "standards" are not biblical and cannot be justified and I don't think JK will do so.

[Steve Epley]

I appreciate this post from a church member but have to question you on one thing. You seem to suggest that JK and the church are still holding on to the clothesline legalism of the UPC, that the reason the church looks different is just because there are so many new members. This suggests you think that JK will still preach and uphold the clothesline standards of the UPC and that over time these new saints will "line up"with the women giving up wearing makeup, cutting their hair, jewelry, pants, etc. Can you confirm this is what you were inferring? If so I think you are very, very wrong in that regard. Those "standards" are not biblical and cannot be justified and I don't think JK will do so.

The standards are Biblical:happydance but they are not holding them up. :yourock like young Kilgore but he ain't preaching what his Dad did.:highfive

[houstonupci]

I appreciate this post from a church member but have to question you on one thing. You seem to suggest that JK and the church are still holding on to the clothesline legalism of the UPC, that the reason the church looks different is just because there are so many new members. This suggests you think that JK will still preach and uphold the clothesline standards of the UPC and that over time these new saints will "line up"with the women giving up wearing makeup, cutting their hair, jewelry, pants, etc. Can you confirm this is what you were inferring? If so I think you are very, very wrong in that regard. Those "standards" are not biblical and cannot be justified and I don't think JK will do so.

JK teaches biblical principles like modesty but not man-made UPCI-specific standards such as only skirts, uncut hair, no makeup, etc.

I shudder just typing those words. Those issues just seem so petty and pale in comparison when you consider the sheer number of lost souls out there just waiting to hear that there's a God that loves them and that they can have abundant life through Jesus Christ!

[houstonupci]

The standards are Biblical:happydance but they are not holding them up. :yourock like young Kilgore but he ain't preaching what his Dad did.:highfive

I'll just repeat what I said prior, which is that JK teaches Biblical principles of modesty and holy living.

I don't know how well you knew elder JK, but I have heard him preach MANY times, and I can say without hesitation that JK preaches the EXACT SAME message as elder JK did. I would also like to know how many messages you've heard the younger JK teach in the past 5-10 years. My guess would be that it's not enough to make any sort of hypothesis about his doctrine or beliefs.

Like I said in my initial post, elder JK stood in front of our church congregation a few months before he passed and said "I stand behind this church" and "I stand behind my son." In my opinion, that completely ends this discussion.

[Steve Epley]

I'll just repeat what I said prior, which is that JK teaches Biblical principles of modesty and holy living.

I don't know how well you knew elder JK, but I have heard him preach MANY times, and I can say without hesitation that JK preaches the EXACT SAME message as elder JK did. I would also like to know how many messages you've heard the younger JK teach in the past 5-10 years. My guess would be that it's not enough to make any sort of hypothesis about his doctrine or beliefs.

Like I said in my initial post, elder JK stood in front of our church congregation a few months before he passed and said "I stand behind this church" and "I stand behind my son." In my opinion, that completely ends this discussion.

Elder Kilgore preached against women cutting their hair, makeup, etc. you know he did. Do they are NOT preaching the same.

[Steve Epley]

JK teaches biblical principles like modesty but not man-made UPCI-specific standards such as only skirts, uncut hair, no makeup, etc.

I shudder just typing those words. Those issues just seem so petty and pale in comparison when you consider the sheer number of lost souls out there just waiting to hear that there's a God that loves them and that they can have abundant life through Jesus Christ!

Elder Kilgore preached all these UPCI standards as you called them and argued FOR the affirmation statement which includes all of these. Younger Kilgore says Jn. 3:5 is not water baptism. The exact opposite his Dad taught.

[houstonupci]

Elder Kilgore preached all these UPCI standards as you called them and argued FOR the affirmation statement which includes all of these. Younger Kilgore says Jn. 3:5 is not water baptism. The exact opposite his Dad taught.

You've just proven that you're speaking based on rumors and not on first-hand knowledge. If he doesn't believe in water baptism, then how would you explain this photo? It was taken SIX weeks ago. It's rare for us to have a Sunday go by without multiple people being baptized.

http://i58.tinypic.com/iwklg9.jpg

[aegsm76]

Houupci - I have friends and family who go to Life Tab.
This is not a new path or a new revelation.
Many have tried it before and have failed.
I have two brothers who attended churches that went down the same road.
One still holds onto the old path, even though he stayed with his church.
However, none of his children do.
The other does not attend church, anymore, and none of his children believe the "core" doctrine, either.
There is something curiously linked with the old "standards" that ties it to the doctrine.
I sincerely wish you good luck with your path.
But I believe it will be the downfall of many.

[Steve Epley]

You've just proven that you're speaking based on rumors and not on first-hand knowledge. If he doesn't believe in water baptism, then how would you explain this photo? It was taken SIX weeks ago. It's rare for us to have a Sunday go by without multiple people being baptized.

http://i58.tinypic.com/iwklg9.jpg

You are either misquoting me or can't read. I never said he did not believe in baptism I said he does not believe Jn.3:5 is water baptism! He told me tat personally on a preachers' forum today.

[CC1]

JK teaches biblical principles like modesty but not man-made UPCI-specific standards such as only skirts, uncut hair, no makeup, etc.

I shudder just typing those words. Those issues just seem so petty and pale in comparison when you consider the sheer number of lost souls out there just waiting to hear that there's a God that loves them and that they can have abundant life through Jesus Christ!

Exactly what I thought. So why did you in your original post say;

"If you were to visit our church, you would see a lot of different people that don't necessarily look like you would expect "holy" Christians would look. Why is that? BECAUSE THEY'RE ALL NEW"

The truth is they look the way they look because JK is no longer a clothesline preacher and teaches biblical principles. I would be proud of that and not making excuses for how folks look as it appears you are doing in your original post.

[houstonupci]

You are either misquoting me or can't read. I never said he did not believe in baptism I said he does not believe Jn.3:5 is water baptism! He told me tat personally on a preachers' forum today.

I've never had a discussion with him on that particular scripture, but I have had the conversation with him about the necessity of water baptism.

Do you have a link for that forum? I would enjoy reading that exchange.

[houstonupci]

Exactly what I thought. So why did you in your original post say;

"If you were to visit our church, you would see a lot of different people that don't necessarily look like you would expect "holy" Christians would look. Why is that? BECAUSE THEY'RE ALL NEW"

The truth is they look the way they look because JK is no longer a clothesline preacher and teaches biblical principles. I would be proud of that and not making excuses for how folks look as it appears you are doing in your original post.

I'm sorry that my statement came off the wrong way. Maybe I worded it the wrong way.

I don't mean women in pants or cut hair. I just don't think along those lines any more. I'm talking about the type of people I NEVER saw in my traditional UPC church growing up. Folks covered in tattoos, piercings, reeking of alcohol, and even a same-sex couple holding hands.

[Steve Epley]

I've never had a discussion with him on that particular scripture, but I have had the conversation with him about the necessity of water baptism.

Do you have a link for that forum? I would enjoy reading that exchange.

Can't it is a preacher's forum. I suggest you ask him personally. You have my permission to tell I quoted him.

[Steve Epley]

I'm sorry that my statement came off the wrong way. Maybe I worded it the wrong way.

I don't mean women in pants or cut hair. I just don't think along those lines any more. I'm talking about the type of people I NEVER saw in my traditional UPC church growing up. Folks covered in tattoos, piercings, reeking of alcohol, and even a same-sex couple holding hands.

And this is suppose to be good? Homos holding hands in church? Count me out.

[seguidordejesus]

And this is suppose to be good? Homos holding hands in church? Count me out.

Sorry, this just made me LOL for some reason.

:yourock

[CC1]

And this is suppose to be good? Homos holding hands in church? Count me out.

At least they were just holding hands!:happydance

[houstonupci]

And this is suppose to be good? Homos holding hands in church? Count me out.

Yes, it's supposed to be good. In fact, it's AWESOME! Where would you like them to be if not in church.

One of them was weeping because of the presence of God she felt in the place.

[shazeep]

i say "amen." it's funny how we are conditioned to "hate your neighbor" here; hand-holding among friends is quite common in much of the rest of the world. There are even some places where refraining from this would be considered an offense (Africa...forget which country)

[shazeep]

At least they were just holding hands!:happydance:lol ya...i do understand the pov. Much secular effort has gone in to creating it. How many guys here are comfortable with hugging other guys, for instance? I'm not. But then, i got, like, 2 hugs as a kid.

[Steve Epley]

I make no apology we are NOT a homo friendly church. They are welcome if they behave I won't tolerate any foolishness out of them. They are not going to disrespect God's house. We have a special place for them it is called the altar where they can be delivered.

[allstate1]

I make no apology we are NOT a homo friendly church. They are welcome if they behave I won't tolerate any foolishness out of them. They are not going to disrespect God's house. We have a special place for them it is called the altar where they can be delivered.

How many services do you "allow " them to attend before getting delivered?

[houstonupci]

I make no apology we are NOT a homo friendly church. They are welcome if they behave I won't tolerate any foolishness out of them. They are not going to disrespect God's house. We have a special place for them it is called the altar where they can be delivered.

Homosexuality is a sin just like lying, gossiping, fornicating, etc. You might as well change your statement to say:

I make no apology we are NOT a sinner friendly church.

And if that's the case, then your church is not a church. It's a pep rally for believers only. Just like it says in Mark...healthy people don't need a doctor.

[Steve Epley]

How many services do you "allow " them to attend before getting delivered?

They can come as often as they want as long as they behave. I will not attack them but I will not coddle them either.

[Steve Epley]

Homosexuality is a sin just like lying, gossiping, fornicating, etc. You might as well change your statement to say:

I make no apology we are NOT a sinner friendly church.

And if that's the case, then your church is not a church. It's a pep rally for believers only. Just like it says in Mark...healthy people don't need a doctor.

Nope the sin is not the same ask Sodom? We have sinners and backsliders nearly every service. They get treated with courtesy and love. However I am not going to be pressured into normalizing perversion.

[houstonupci]

Nope the sin is not the same ask Sodom? We have sinners and backsliders nearly every service. They get treated with courtesy and love. However I am not going to be pressured into normalizing perversion.

Are you for real or is this account meant to be a parody of everything that is wrong with legalist pentecostals?

When Christ came and died on the cross, he took on every sin that every person had ever committed and would ever commit.

But even without grace in the picture, your argument doesn't hold water. The Bible never says that Sodom was destroyed solely because of homosexuality. Ezekiel 16:49-50 says "Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her sisters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy."

That means in addition to homosexuality, you should also "not tolerate" people that are arrogant, overfed, and unconcerned. The overfed part excludes 95% percent of the UPCI members by itself.

[Steve Epley]

Are you for real or is this account meant to be a parody of everything that is wrong with legalist pentecostals?

When Christ came and died on the cross, he took on every sin that every person had ever committed and would ever commit.

But even without grace in the picture, your argument doesn't hold water. The Bible never says that Sodom was destroyed solely because of homosexuality. Ezekiel 16:49-50 says "Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her sisters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy."

That means in addition to homosexuality, you should also "not tolerate" people that are arrogant, overfed, and unconcerned. The overfed part excludes 95% percent of the UPCI members by itself.

Have you read Gen. 18-18? I am not ashamed of being part of what you call legalistic Pentecostal as opposed to NOTHING is illegal whatever y'all are calling your self. But do NOT claim the late Elder Kilgore to be part of your departure from his Dad the late C.P. Kilgore's legacy he came out of what y'all are going into. We think some things are against God's law thus it would good to be legal.

[good samaritan]

Romans 1:26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections:for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

Seems to me homosexuality is a judgement of God or a result of people who have rejected God. I don't believe any sin is unpardonable except blasphemy against the Holy Ghost and there is a some conjecture on what that really is. Homosexuality is one of the vilest, even Paul places emphasis on this horrible sin against natural order of things. I pray for everyone to be saved including homosexuals, but many seem to embrace this sin in the face of God. The prince of this nation seems to have a gay agenda to push homosexuality down the throats of God fearing men and women. If homosexuals come to church seeking God than I welcome them, but it seems that many seem to have an agenda. Many are not looking for the one true God, but are trying to recreate a god that is is accepting of their behavior. Look at the catholic church who by the little studies I done have perverted the word of God to serve themselves. This is what I see that most homosexuals seem to be doing.

[houstonupci]

Have you read Gen. 18-18? I am not ashamed of being part of what you call legalistic Pentecostal as opposed to NOTHING is illegal whatever y'all are calling your self. But do NOT claim the late Elder Kilgore to be part of your departure from his Dad the late C.P. Kilgore's legacy he came out of what y'all are going into. We think some things are against God's law thus it would good to be legal.

I take no issue with people that choose to uphold the UPC holiness standards. The problem I have is when non believers are made to feel like they have to conform to the set of rules created by the organization or order for the to be saved. In providing the rules for them, you override the guidance of the Holy Spirit in their life.

Instead of allowing them to be convicted by Christ and the Word, the feel condemnation, judgement, and pressure to conform immediately.

[shazeep]

amen
Are you for real or is this account meant to be a parody of everything that is wrong with legalist pentecostals?

When Christ came and died on the cross, he took on every sin that every person had ever committed and would ever commit.

But even without grace in the picture, your argument doesn't hold water. The Bible never says that Sodom was destroyed solely because of homosexuality. Ezekiel 16:49-50 says "Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her sisters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy."

That means in addition to homosexuality, you should also "not tolerate" people that are arrogant, overfed, and unconcerned. The overfed part excludes 95% percent of the UPCI members by itself.ooh, zing! Didn't i read somewhere NT that everything is legal, now? But i grasp your position, Steve. You were just born about...2500 years too late, perhaps. Grace is hard--for everyone, i think. I confess that i would not be comfortable with two men holding hands, anywhere. Two women holding hands, ok. This tells me that i have been socially conditioned. Programmed, if you will. I am impressed that you would even allow homosexuals in your church, if that is true.

[good samaritan]

Churches of every denomination have standards, they may differ, but yet they have them. These standards are each individual church's definition of scripture. It is called doctrine. A church would be wrong in not teaching doctrine. The key to it is teaching truth. We should not let new believers wing it and just do what ever they feel in the spirit. They need discernment that must be developed over time. I will teach holiness standards as some would call it because I love people. Most importantly in addition to teaching it I will try to model it in my life. Any believer who does not want to conform to the church has a problem at the start. If you think back to your conversion, remember the hunger you felt. The problem is that we live in a world who wants Jesus to be their Savior, but do not want Him to be there Lord. He must first become your Lord. If a person comes into the church with a hungry heart and an open mind then they will make it. I hope all continue to keep doctrine, but also hope they are prayerfully studying the Word of God to develop it. Everyone has the responsibility for their self to decide what is right. Church leaders have that same responsibility to their self and those who follow. It is true that we should not condemn people, but we should condemn sin and even be able to define many things that are sin to people. If we are teaching things that we can't support through scripture than we should rethink things whether or not we are right.

[aegsm76]

Homosexuality is a sin just like lying, gossiping, fornicating, etc. You might as well change your statement to say:

I make no apology we are NOT a sinner friendly church.

And if that's the case, then your church is not a church. It's a pep rally for believers only. Just like it says in Mark...healthy people don't need a doctor.

No other sin is asking for acceptance, special treatment and special recognition.
It seems to be somewhat different.
It was also treated somewhat different in the Bible.

[shazeep]

two very cogent posts, imo
A76, i might point out that it was the relentless oppression of homosexuals, their lack of access to basic human rights, that has caused this asking for "special recognition," which smells like a satanic setup to me...

[houstonupci]

No other sin is asking for acceptance, special treatment and special recognition. It seems to be somewhat different. It was also treated somewhat different in the Bible.

I'm not talking about a homosexual that wants to join a church, become the music direction, yet still live a homosexual lifestyle. My mention of it was referring to a female same-sex couple that I was seeing in our church for the first time. My initial point was to say that I am so glad to be a part of a church where people like that feel welcome to come.

[Esaias]

I'm not talking about a homosexual that wants to join a church, become the music direction, yet still live a homosexual lifestyle. My mention of it was referring to a female same-sex couple that I was seeing in our church for the first time. My initial point was to say that I am so glad to be a part of a church where people like that feel welcome to come.

Did they repent? Does the spirit they feel make them comfortable and want to stay in their sin?

[houstonupci]

Did they repent? Does the spirit they feel make them comfortable and want to stay in their sin?

I have no idea. I haven't yet developed the ability to see the contents of another person's heart and soul.

I do know that one of the women was weeping in the presence of God.

[CC1]

The church has to learn to walk that fine line of being loving and kind while yet clearly teaching the biblical position about homosexuality. I believe the church has not done a good job of that overall. It's the old thing about loving the people without loving the sin. The same as we do for drug addicts, alcoholics, fornicaters, etc.

[Esaias]

I have no idea. I haven't yet developed the ability to see the contents of another person's heart and soul.

I do know that one of the women was weeping in the presence of God.

If your eyes can identify a "same-sex couple" they can identify if they have repented of it.

Saul had all sorts of "experiences" with those pentecostal "prophets" in his day and still died lost due to no significant change occurring in his heart.

[shazeep]

i think A76 et al make a very good point, that being that those sinners by and large recognize their sin, not glorify it.

[houstonupci]

If your eyes can identify a "same-sex couple" they can identify if they have repented of it.

Saul had all sorts of "experiences" with those pentecostal "prophets" in his day and still died lost due to no significant change occurring in his heart.

Again...my eyes can't see issues of the heart. As someone that's turned away from the idea of legalism, I'm no longer solely focused on how things appear.

I'm curious as to what your response would be if I could tell you "no, she did not repent." Would that make a difference in her being welcomed back to a second service?

[Sister Alvear]

When people truely repent they leave the "OLE" lifestyle....whatever that was...and embrace a new lifestyle that DOES have rules....Jesus was a rule giver....

However whoever appears at our church I always try to welcome them and pray with them...The gospel changes people.

Know ye not that the unrighteous
shall not inherit the kingdom of God?
Be not deceived;
neither fornicators,
nor idolaters,
nor adulterers,
nor effeminate ["malakos"],
nor abusers of themselves with mankind ["arsenokoitays"],
nor thieves,
nor covetous,
nor drunkards,
nor revilers,
nor extortioners,
shall inherit the kingdom of God.
And such were some of you.
-1 Corinthians 6:9-11

Knowing this:
that the law is not made for a righteous man,
but for the lawless and disobedient,
for the ungodly and for sinners,
for unholy and profane,
for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers,
for manslayers,
for whoremongers,
for them that defile themselves with mankind ["arsenokoitays"],
for menstealers,
for liars,
for perjured persons,
and if there be any other thing that be contrary to sound doctrine
according to the glorious Gospel of the blessed God.
- 1 Timothy 1:9-11

[Sean]

When people truely repent they leave the "OLE" lifestyle....whatever that was...and embrace a new lifestyle that DOES have rules....Jesus was a rule giver....

However whoever appears at our church I always try to welcome them and pray with them...The gospel changes people.

Know ye not that the unrighteous
shall not inherit the kingdom of God?
Be not deceived;
neither fornicators,
nor idolaters,
nor adulterers,
nor effeminate ["malakos"],
nor abusers of themselves with mankind ["arsenokoitays"],
nor thieves,
nor covetous,
nor drunkards,
nor revilers,
nor extortioners,
shall inherit the kingdom of God.
And such were some of you.
-1 Corinthians 6:9-11

Knowing this:
that the law is not made for a righteous man,
but for the lawless and disobedient,
for the ungodly and for sinners,
for unholy and profane,
for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers,
for manslayers,
for whoremongers,
for them that defile themselves with mankind ["arsenokoitays"],
for menstealers,
for liars,
for perjured persons,
and if there be any other thing that be contrary to sound doctrine
according to the glorious Gospel of the blessed God.
- 1 Timothy 1:9-11



Very articulate post....undeniable, they way you presented it!

[shazeep]

yup

[Steve Epley]

When people truely repent they leave the "OLE" lifestyle....whatever that was...and embrace a new lifestyle that DOES have rules....Jesus was a rule giver....

However whoever appears at our church I always try to welcome them and pray with them...The gospel changes people.

Know ye not that the unrighteous
shall not inherit the kingdom of God?
Be not deceived;
neither fornicators,
nor idolaters,
nor adulterers,
nor effeminate ["malakos"],
nor abusers of themselves with mankind ["arsenokoitays"],
nor thieves,
nor covetous,
nor drunkards,
nor revilers,
nor extortioners,
shall inherit the kingdom of God.
And such were some of you.
-1 Corinthians 6:9-11

Knowing this:
that the law is not made for a righteous man,
but for the lawless and disobedient,
for the ungodly and for sinners,
for unholy and profane,
for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers,
for manslayers,
for whoremongers,
for them that defile themselves with mankind ["arsenokoitays"],
for menstealers,
for liars,
for perjured persons,
and if there be any other thing that be contrary to sound doctrine
according to the glorious Gospel of the blessed God.
- 1 Timothy 1:9-11

Jesus' blood makes the vilest sinner clean.

[good samaritan]

You can tell a tree by the fruit it bears. I can't make immediate judgments about someone's heart, but by paying attention to their life over a period of time I can discern whether or not they are trying to live for God. There is always a change. Some may be smaller at first, but it is progressive. Others all at once, but there is a change. I know some who come in and still stumble with bad habits, but I firmly believe that if they want God they will have victory. Also when someone makes up their mind they are going to quit something they will and they will do it cold turkey. I have met lots of smokers and some have tried gum, patches, e-cigarettes to wean their selves off. Very small success rate and those who do quit that way really did it themselves it was just mind over matter. When someone determines they are going to do something I believe they can. Including quiting the sin of homosexuality. No weaning necessary.

[houstonupci]

You can tell a tree by the fruit it bears. I can't make immediate judgments about someone's heart, but by paying attention to their life over a period of time I can discern whether or not they are trying to live for God. There is always a change. Some may be smaller at first, but it is progressive. Others all at once, but there is a change. I know some who come in and still stumble with bad habits, but I firmly believe that if they want God they will have victory. Also when someone makes up their mind they are going to quit something they will and they will do it cold turkey. I have met lots of smokers and some have tried gum, patches, e-cigarettes to wean their selves off. Very small success rate and those who do quit that way really did it themselves it was just mind over matter. When someone determines they are going to do something I believe they can. Including quiting the sin of homosexuality. No weaning necessary.

Homosexuality can only be overcome with God's Spirit. There is no "quitting" homosexuality.

[Pressing-On]

When people truely repent they leave the "OLE" lifestyle....whatever that was...and embrace a new lifestyle that DOES have rules....Jesus was a rule giver....

However whoever appears at our church I always try to welcome them and pray with them...The gospel changes people.

Know ye not that the unrighteous
shall not inherit the kingdom of God?
Be not deceived;
neither fornicators,
nor idolaters,
nor adulterers,
nor effeminate ["malakos"],
nor abusers of themselves with mankind ["arsenokoitays"],
nor thieves,
nor covetous,
nor drunkards,
nor revilers,
nor extortioners,
shall inherit the kingdom of God.
And such were some of you.
-1 Corinthians 6:9-11

Knowing this:
that the law is not made for a righteous man,
but for the lawless and disobedient,
for the ungodly and for sinners,
for unholy and profane,
for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers,
for manslayers,
for whoremongers,
for them that defile themselves with mankind ["arsenokoitays"],
for menstealers,
for liars,
for perjured persons,
and if there be any other thing that be contrary to sound doctrine
according to the glorious Gospel of the blessed God.
- 1 Timothy 1:9-11

Excellent! :thumbsup
Jesus' blood makes the vilest sinner clean.
Amen! :thumbsup:thumbsup

[good samaritan]

Homosexuality can only be overcome with God's Spirit. There is no "quitting" homosexuality.

Having sex can be quit. People may have to be delivered of some of lustful desires but the act of fornication is a choice. God will never possess your body and do the work for you. Where there is no sex there is no need for a person to explain their sexuality. No matter what a person's desires if they are not actively engaging in the sin they don't have to claim to be anything. So you can quit being homosexual.

[Sean]

Amen, they can quit sex altogether, by the power of the Holy Ghost if they want to, along with any kind of sinful habit.

All they must do is pray and make a covenant with God not to be sexual any more(if they cant control themselves).

Salvation is more important than following carnal urges.

[shazeep]

i spent some formative years in the Montrose area of Houston, and had several homosexual friends. My observation is that it is a young persons (hormonal) activity, and that many seemed to straighten up as they got older/matured. It is also--or can be, anyway--a rebellion thing.

[houstonupci]

I make a motion to move this topic/discussion to a new thread. I initially got on here as a defense to the comments HH made against my pastor. The thread has taken a complete turn since then.

[good samaritan]

No offense meant towards your pastor. I don't even know him so I wouldn't say anything directly about him. As for sin be permissive in the body of Christ that just doesn't set well with me. I am sure your are not excusing the sin, but are trying to express a view to be tolerant to people while developing. I hope that is what you mean. I agree with being merciful, but at the same time we must have doctrinal positions taken on things. Not to be offensive, but to maintain our relationship with God.

[Abiding Now]

You've just proven that you're speaking based on rumors and not on first-hand knowledge. If he doesn't believe in water baptism, then how would you explain this photo? It was taken SIX weeks ago. It's rare for us to have a Sunday go by without multiple people being baptized.

http://i58.tinypic.com/iwklg9.jpg

Is that a goatee?

[houstonupci]

No offense meant towards your pastor. I don't even know him so I wouldn't say anything directly about him. As for sin be permissive in the body of Christ that just doesn't set well with me. I am sure your are not excusing the sin, but are trying to express a view to be tolerant to people while developing. I hope that is what you mean. I agree with being merciful, but at the same time we must have doctrinal positions taken on things. Not to be offensive, but to maintain our relationship with God.

This is why I suggested just moving the whole discussion to a new thread. My initial comment has been taken out of context and changed completely.

I was not talking about tolerance, but that's exactly where people go when the topic of homosexuality comes up.

[good samaritan]

BTW, I didn't bring up homosexuality I only joined the discussion.

[CC1]

I make a motion to move this topic/discussion to a new thread. I initially got on here as a defense to the comments HH made against my pastor. The thread has taken a complete turn since then.

Ain't a gonna happen. If you have looked around AFF at all you will see that 98.6% of all threads get off track at some point. If we closed every thread that got off track almost all of the threads would be closed.

If you had been thinking you had to know that pointing out a lesbian couple were holding hands in church was going to set off a firestorm. Particularly given the conversation in the thread which is about JK moving the church in a liberal direction and out of the UPC. Perhaps if you had made a caveat in that post that this does not mean your church condones homosexuality and in fact opposes it as the bible instructs. That you are just not being ugly to people involved in this particular sin and are showing them love to lead them to Christ. Might have helped but come to think of it I really doubt it!

It sounds like an exciting time at your church in Houston and I pray that under JK's leadership Life church will make the impact in the 21st century that Life Tabernacle did in the mid and latter part of the 20th century.

[Abiding Now]

I hear Ken Gurley's church is having "revival".

[houstonupci]

I hear Ken Gurley's church is having "revival".

Define "revival."

[Steve Epley]

I hear Ken Gurley's church is having "revival".

Bless them good folks.

[CC1]

I hear Ken Gurley's church is having "revival".

Who is Ken Gurley man?

[Abiding Now]

Define "revival."

Growth!


:)

[Abiding Now]

Who is Ken Gurley man?

He's the ds of the South Texas district and pastors First Church (formally FPC) in Pearland, TX. (south Houston).

http://firstchurch.com/new/leadership-team/bio/ken-tessie-gurley/

[houstonupci]

Growth! :)

I'm sure they've added some new believers to their assembly, but I know a lot of their new people have been transfers from Life Tabernacle.

[Steve Epley]

I'm sure they've added some new believers to their assembly, but I know a lot of their new people have been transfers from Life Tabernacle.

Great. :thumbsup

[Abiding Now]

I'm sure they've added some new believers to their assembly, but I know a lot of their new people have been transfers from Life Tabernacle.

I see.

[aegsm76]

The Katy, Texas church is also having revival.

[Abiding Now]

The Katy, Texas church is also having revival.

I wonder how many Pentecostals are on the circuit in greater Houston area. Here today and next time you see them "the Lord has led them somewhere else". :happydance

[Steve Epley]

I wonder how many Pentecostals are on the circuit in greater Houston area. Here today and next time you see them "the Lord has led them somewhere else". :happydance

Many of them leaving we're very faithful and devoted people they just would stay with the church going another direction.

[Abiding Now]

Many of them leaving we're very faithful and devoted people they just would stay with the church going another direction.

Well, that's just sad for a person to invest their time, energy and money and then watch it all slip away.

[shazeep]

i know it seems that way, but God's ways are not our ways. It is very questionable whether Christ wants a believer to attempt to know Him through a single pastor over a long period. This is most likely a door to higher learning for many of these people. God seems to be always forcing us out of our comfort zones.

[CC1]

Many of them leaving we're very faithful and devoted people they just would stay with the church going another direction.

No doubt. I am sure those who didn't want change would not feel comfortable at Life Church now and needed to find a new church home.

Of course I believe that will be best for all in the long run as that will free Life Church from having dissent and friction from those who do not agree. I believe God will replace those who leave with a multiple many times that number. So both the ones leaving, Life Church, the other churches, and the Great Commission all win!

[aegsm76]

No doubt. I am sure those who didn't want change would not feel comfortable at Life Church now and needed to find a new church home.

Of course I believe that will be best for all in the long run as that will free Life Church from having dissent and friction from those who do not agree. I believe God will replace those who leave with a multiple many times that number. So both the ones leaving, Life Church, the other churches, and the Great Commission all win!

CC1 - to a certain extent, I agree with you. However, as I have said many times, I have rarely, very rarely, observed a UPC church go through this process and hold on to the basic doctrine. They may hold on to it for a while, but it seems to slip away at some point.
Seems like you witnessed this first-hand.

[CC1]

CC1 - to a certain extent, I agree with you. However, as I have said many times, I have rarely, very rarely, observed a UPC church go through this process and hold on to the basic doctrine. They may hold on to it for a while, but it seems to slip away at some point.
Seems like you witnessed this first-hand.

Yes, once you leave and start examining everything you have been taught your whole life you discover interesting life changing things like the fact that trinitarians do NOT believe in three Gods! Once that bogeyman is gone other believers are no longer demonized and de-christianized.

Then of course the whole three step vs one step for salvation comes into play. If that is done correctly then water baptism and the baptism of the Holy Spirit is still emphasized just not as something that determines your salvation but as something every christian should want.

[Abiding Now]

ATTENTION!

WARNING!

Slippery Slope Alert!!!!

[shazeep]

:lol

[navygoat1998]

Yes, once you leave and start examining everything you have been taught your whole life you discover interesting life changing things like the fact that trinitarians do NOT believe in three Gods! Once that bogeyman is gone other believers are no longer demonized and de-christianized.

Then of course the whole three step vs one step for salvation comes into play. If that is done correctly then water baptism and the baptism of the Holy Spirit is still emphasized just not as something that determines your salvation but as something every christian should want.

:yourock

[navygoat1998]

ATTENTION!

WARNING!

Slippery Slope Alert!!!!

:reaction

[shazeep]

:lol where do you even find those? is there a list somewhere? Oh, found them; my edit window was too big.

[aegsm76]

Yes, once you leave and start examining everything you have been taught your whole life you discover interesting life changing things like the fact that trinitarians do NOT believe in three Gods! Once that bogeyman is gone other believers are no longer demonized and de-christianized.

Then of course the whole three step vs one step for salvation comes into play. If that is done correctly then water baptism and the baptism of the Holy Spirit is still emphasized just not as something that determines your salvation but as something every christian should want.

I think we will have to agree to disagree.
I did leave (in my know-it-all youth) and came back, AFTER I examined everything.

[CC1]

I think we will have to agree to disagree.
I did leave (in my know-it-all youth) and came back, AFTER I examined everything.

Did you leave or backslide? So far over the years on AFF when people talked about leaving old time Pentecost and becoming liberal then coming back to old time Pentecost when I questioned them further it turned out they had just backslid. The admitted when they left old time Pentecost they were no longer praying, reading their bible, nor attending a Spirit filled church regularly, etc.

I am not saying that is your case but will be interested for you to clarify your statement.

[aegsm76]

Good question, CC1.
Don't know that I can answer it, according to your definition.
I was attending other churches and still reading and praying.

[crakjak]

Having sex can be quit. People may have to be delivered of some of lustful desires but the act of fornication is a choice. God will never possess your body and do the work for you. Where there is no sex there is no need for a person to explain their sexuality. No matter what a person's desires if they are not actively engaging in the sin they don't have to claim to be anything. So you can quit being homosexual.

Whose gonna check their bedroom? Reminds me of preachers wives checking girl luggage for illegal pajamas.

Just preach the gospel, counsel those that come for it, if there is no overt behavior in the church, leave them alone, and let the Lord do his work.

But he can't do his work if you abort the seed of truth and faith in a person's heart before it can take root.

If the Lord doesn't do the work all your efforts are vain, they'll just leave and remain in their sin, convinced that like you, God hates them.

[shazeep]

hmm, i have yet to witness any even covert hatred in GS' posts, wadr. Did you find that reflection hateful? It seemed pretty inclusive to me.