Tulsa Report Day 2

[Nahum]

Originally Posted by IAintMovin

LOL...... I understand what you are saying there PP...........but in all honesty, Steddy was only reporting what was told to him.....a man cannot be responsible for another man telling him one thing and then doing something else.........reminds me of people who have told me that something was over and dead .......then I find out that they have been talking it all over the place.......man you just never know what somebody is gonna do.........Guess that is what I get for trusting their hearsay........

My point is that it is probably not wise to trust someone (Tulsa organizers) who "changes" that much in such a short time.

[IAintMovin]

Originally Posted by Pastor Poster

My point is that it is probably not wise to trust someone (Tulsa organizers) who "changes" that much in such a short time.

I agree and my point was it is probably not wise to trust people who will tell you one thing and do another........

[Nahum]

Originally Posted by IAintMovin

I agree and my point was it is probably not wise to trust people who will tell you one thing and do another........

OMG, we AGREE!!!!!!!!!!!

[MissBrattified]

Originally Posted by Pastor Poster

Yes, but he defends those men and says that their intent must have "changed" over the past three months.

PP, you were belaboring this point a few days ago, and its still moot. It is highly possible that their intent did change, OR its possible they did not share their full intent at the beginning.

If your point is (as it seemed to be on your other thread) that trusting in these men, respecting them, and thinking they are honorable even when evidence may indicate otherwise somehow taints the character of the man who trusts them, then I am going to strongly disagree with you.

I have a hard time believing ill of people I love, even if there is clear evidence that ought to persuade me, and if it turns out that I am wrong, I will not accept it until the evidence is irrefutable. Even then I am not happy about it.

Any reluctance on the part of CS, Steadfast and others to think badly of any of these men, or worse, to indicate that publicly...that doesn't speak ill of their personal character; it speaks well of it.

[Nahum]

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

PP, you were belaboring this point a few days ago, and its still moot. It is highly possible that their intent did change, OR its possible they did not share their full intent at the beginning.

If your point is (as it seemed to be on your other thread) that trusting in these men, respecting them, and thinking they are honorable even when evidence may indicate otherwise somehow taints the character of the man who trusts them, then I am going to strongly disagree with you.

I have a hard time believing ill of people I love, even if there is clear evidence that ought to persuade me, and if it turns out that I am wrong, I will not accept it until the evidence is irrefutable. Even then I am not happy about it.

Any reluctance on the part of CS, Steadfast and others to think badly of any of these men, or worse, to indicate that publicly...that doesn't speak ill of their personal character; it speaks well of it.

Consistency Miss B.

Consistency.





That is all.

[IAintMovin]

Originally Posted by Pastor Poster

OMG, we AGREE!!!!!!!!!!!

..........really??.....hummmmmmmm...........

[Nahum]

Originally Posted by IAintMovin

..........really??.....hummmmmmmm...........

In related news, the sky is falling.

[IAintMovin]

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

PP, you were belaboring this point a few days ago, and its still moot. It is highly possible that their intent did change, OR its possible they did not share their full intent at the beginning.

If your point is (as it seemed to be on your other thread) that trusting in these men, respecting them, and thinking they are honorable even when evidence may indicate otherwise somehow taints the character of the man who trusts them, then I am going to strongly disagree with you.

I have a hard time believing ill of people I love, even if there is clear evidence that ought to persuade me, and if it turns out that I am wrong, I will not accept it until the evidence is irrefutable. Even then I am not happy about it.

Any reluctance on the part of CS, Steadfast and others to think badly of any of these men, or worse, to indicate that publicly...that doesn't speak ill of their personal character; it speaks well of it.

Great Post Mrs. B................

[freeatlast]

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

PP, you were belaboring this point a few days ago, and its still moot. It is highly possible that their intent did change, OR its possible they did not share their full intent at the beginning.

If your point is (as it seemed to be on your other thread) that trusting in these men, respecting them, and thinking they are honorable even when evidence may indicate otherwise somehow taints the character of the man who trusts them, then I am going to strongly disagree with you.

I have a hard time believing ill of people I love, even if there is clear evidence that ought to persuade me, and if it turns out that I am wrong, I will not accept it until the evidence is irrefutable. Even then I am not happy about it.

Any reluctance on the part of CS, Steadfast and others to think badly of any of these men, or worse, to indicate that publicly...that doesn't speak ill of their personal character; it speaks well of it.

Maam...you are hard to argue with...so I'll just say.....






















good post

[MissBrattified]

Originally Posted by Pastor Poster

Consistency Miss B.

Consistency.





That is all.

I understand what you're saying.

But then, I am a little bit inconsistent in this way too. I will accept negative statements about a stranger (or about someone I don't like) a lot quicker than about someone I care about or admire. Human nature, I think.

Matter of fact, I've been known to defend people I care about even when I knew they were wrong, simply because I didn't want to hear them talked about.