Had others not mentioned the name and initials of the person BS was speaking about, we'd have no idea who he was talking about, and to me, that makes a big difference in his reason for starting this thread, and it's not about being hypocritical. It was others in the meeting who decided to 'oust' the man, not Bro. Strange.
Actually BS was the one who "outed" the man by calling him the "little prophet" that did his "little thing immediately before the offering was taken." It was only after BS said that, that the initials were posted. If BS hadn't mentioned that, I doubt the initials would have been posted.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HeavenlyOne
Bro. Strange already stated he would meet the man privately.
When did BS say that? Do you have the post where he says that? I read his little post about how he'd be glad to meet with him in his hotel room or some restaurant . . . but unless he mentioned it elsewhere, he DID NOT say he was planning on ever meeting with him. Being glad to meet with someone is a far cry from actually following through.
And has been mentioned before, he had the opportunity but didn't take it. I don't know why and I'm not going to speculate. I'm disappointed that he didn't speak with him though, for all his tough words and macho rhetoric.
I doubt Dan needs any defense, but I don't believe he was attacking BS. He was defending his friend who was being wrongly attacked by BS.
Speaking of the attack -we still have NO PROOF that any of what BS accused MB of is actually true. All we have is what BS claims, but nothing to back it up. Sorry, but in my experience that's not a good thing. I'm sick of ministers making baseless accusations against others.
Call it an attack or whatever, but I'd like to see some proof of BS claims . . . or an apology by him for making these baseless accusations. BS is claiming that MB is a student of the Cathedral of Wisdom; claims that MB uses words "verbatim" from this Cathedral of Wisdom's teachings.
I want some proof to back it up.
I imagine BS is a good man, and he probably is sincere in his reasoning. But that alone doesn't make it right.
I believe he said he'd meet him privately. When he was rubbing shoulders with him, it was hardly a private area. It probably wasn't a good time either.
The problem wasn't the fact that it wasn't a private area, or that the timing was bad.
The problem was that he'd have to face him while bringing the accusations.
I am a huge Lee Stoneking fan, but even I question his comments @ 2005 or 2006 Landmark when he said we had angels that looked like us and he saw an angel that looked like tw barnes. (name?) I never said ls was demonic. I just didn't understand what was going on. One doesn't separate the issue from the person when name calling...tv
Quote:
Originally Posted by HeavenlyOne
Perhaps I'm the only one in the dark, as I wouldn't know MB if he came up to me and kicked me in the stomach. The name I know, but I've never been privileged to meet the man personally.
I've posted about things I've seen in meetings and services before too, but it was my opinion on the matter. No attacking, although others might see it that way. There are doctrines being promoted that I don't agree with, but in speaking against those doctrines doesn't mean I'm attacking the person promoting them. You have to separate the two, and I don't see Dan doing that.
__________________
A religious spirit allows people to tolerate hatred and anger under the guise of passion and holiness. Bill Johnson
Legalism has no pity on people. Legalism makes my opinion your burden, makes opinion your boundary, makes my opinion your obligation-Lucado
Some get spiritual because they see the light. Others because they feel the heat.Ray Wylie Hubbard
Definition of legalism- Damned if you do. Damned if you don't. TV
Go back and read the very first post and tell me if you think BS was attacking an individual.
I read the first post a few times already, and no, I don't think he is attacking an individual. For one, that isn't allowed here. For another, I see him attacking actions and issues, not the people doing or partaking of them.
__________________
I've gone and done it now! I'm on Facebook!!!
Go back and read the very first post and tell me if you think BS was attacking an individual.
Calling someone a sinner because they have sin isn't attacking the person but rather their actions. This comment has nothing to do with the thread, but the principle does.
__________________
I've gone and done it now! I'm on Facebook!!!
I read the first post a few times already, and no, I don't think he is attacking an individual. For one, that isn't allowed here. For another, I see him attacking actions and issues, not the people doing or partaking of them.
I read the first post a few times already, and no, I don't think he is attacking an individual. For one, that isn't allowed here. For another, I see him attacking actions and issues, not the people doing or partaking of them.
I disagree.
You cannot separate the actions from those doing them!
He said it was golden calf worship...that makes the ones worshipping "golden calf worshipppers"....
Linear Mode
