A Word of Caution

[Esther]

During service tonight a thought came to me to share with you DA, and then the pastor used the same scripture not less than 15 minutes later in his sermon.

I believe it is 2 Sam 6:6 where it talks about Uzzah (sp) touching the ark to steady it and the Lord struck him dead.

David wanted the Ark brought back to Jerusalem but although his intentions were good, he was going about it the wrong way. God had specified how the Ark was to be carried, and it was on the shoulders of the Levite's Priest. No other tribe was allowed to carry it, only the Levites. They were not allowed to put it on a cart to be carried by an animal. Only one way allowed; on the shoulders of the Levite priest.

I realize DA there are issues you have with LS and IB that you strongly disagree with. I only want to caution you to make sure you go about it God's way.

[Ron]

Now theres a thought!
A good one too!

[Esther]

Now theres a thought!
A good one too!

I felt it too strong to ignore. I hope and pray it is taken with the right spirit. It is not to judge nor condemn anyone.

But God does have laws that He doesn't allow exceptions too.

It was to me as much as to anyone else.

We must be careful how we touch the things of God.

Sometimes it is a fine line. We know something isn't right, but what is the proper way to handle?

[Encryptus]

I think even Lee would have a problem with being placed on par with the holy ark of the covenant.

[Nahum]

This thread is out of line, in my opinion.

[RevDWW]

This thread is out of line in my opinion.

Come on, hurry up and give us your reason......although I think I might have an idea what it is.

[Nahum]

First of all, stated disagreement - whether written or oral - with a person's ideology is not inherently sinful, disrespectful or profane.

Second, LS is not God, does not in any way represent the manifest presence of God (as the ark did), and should not be elevated as an equal to such holy things. The man is not above question. Especially when the doctrine he espouses is patently false and dangerous.

Third, an open rebuke on a public forum directed toward a poster who is himself a minister is an example of the very problem Esther takes issue with in the first place.

[RevDWW]

First of all, stated disagreement - whether written or oral - with a person's ideology is not inherently sinful, disrespectful or profane.

Second, LS is not God, does not in any way represent the manifest presence of God (as the ark did), and should not be elevated as an equal to such holy things. The man is not above question. Especially when the doctrine he espouses is patently false and dangerous.

Third, an open rebuke on a public forum directed toward a poster who is himself a minister is an example of the very problem Esther takes issue with in the first place.

Well stated. I agree.

[StMark]

Esther that sure was nice of you. Don't worry about the mean spirited
replies. Some folks have a personal vendetta.

Esther was talking about touching God's anointed and
we all know that

[Nahum]

Is Daniel not anointed by God?

He is baptized in Jesus' name, filled with the Holy Ghost and ministering to the lost.

Why the double standard?

[RevDWW]

Esther that sure was nice of you. Don't worry about the mean spirited
replies. Some folks have a personal vendetta.

Esther was talking about touching God's anointed and
we all know that
You sir, are a pot stirrer extraordinare! :aaa

[StMark]

GOd Bless you Sister Esther I know you meant well
and I feel bad for the folks that tried to hurt you.
you Have a pure heart I can tell

[RevDWW]

GOd Bless you Sister Esther I know you meant well
and I feel bad for the folks that tried to hurt you.
you Have a pure heart I can tell

Who has tried to "hurt her"? I know you are not adverse to naming names.

[StMark]

Who has tried to "hurt her"? I know you are not adverse to naming names.



Her feelings were probably hurt

[Rhoni]

During service tonight a thought came to me to share with you DA, and then the pastor used the same scripture not less than 15 minutes later in his sermon.

I believe it is 1 Sam 6:6 where it talks about Uzzah (sp) touching the ark to steady it and the Lord struck him dead.

David wanted the Ark brought back to Jerusalem but although his intentions were good, he was going about it the wrong way. God had specified how the Ark was to be carried, and it was on the shoulders of the Levite's Priest. No other tribe was allowed to carry it, only the Levites. They were not allowed to put it on a cart to be carried by an animal. Only one way allowed; on the shoulders of the Levite priest.

I realize DA there are issues you have with LS and IB that you strongly disagree with. I only want to caution you to make sure you go about it God's way.

Sis. Esther,

You are indeed a woman of God. This is done in the spirit of love and good judgement.

For those who disagree: Esther is not making a connection with LS as being on the level with God. What she is saying is that there are right ways to go about confronting a brother or sister about something you disagree with.

This is a caution to make sure one is careful to do things God's way. It is my understanding that going to the person one on one would be the first step.

I love Esther and DA, both are my friends and there is nothing inappropriate here.

Blessings, Rhoni

[TRFrance]

Sis. Esther,

You are indeed a woman of God. This is done in the spirit of love and good judgement.

For those who disagree: Esther is not making a connection with LS as being on the level with God. What she is saying is that there are right ways to go about confronting a brother or sister about something you disagree with.

This is a caution to make sure one is careful to do things God's way. It is my understanding that going to the person one on one would be the first step.

I love Esther and DA, both are my friends and there is nothing inappropriate here.

Blessings, Rhoni
Well said, Rhoni. I appreciate Esther's post.

There is a right way and a wrong way to do things.
And I think too many times on AFF, it's done the wrong way, and with the wrong spirit.

All men are fallible, and if a preacher has missed the mark doctrinally, it is not necessarily wrong for someone to point that out. But some of the stuff I've seen on AFF borders on being personal crusades and/or vendettas. I think people who go on crusades against God's ministers need to check their spirit.

[Pressing-On]

I felt it too strong to ignore. I hope and pray it is taken with the right spirit. It is not to judge nor condemn anyone.

But God does have laws that He doesn't allow exceptions too.

It was to me as much as to anyone else.

We must be careful how we touch the things of God.

Sometimes it is a fine line. We know something isn't right, but what is the proper way to handle?

Well said, Rhoni. I appreciate Esther's post.

There is a right way and a wrong way to do things.
And I think too many times on AFF, it's done the wrong way, and with the wrong spirit.

All men are fallible, and if a preacher has missed the mark doctrinally, it is not necessarily wrong for someone to point that out. But some of the stuff I've seen on AFF borders on being personal crusades and/or vendettas. I think people who go on crusades against God's ministers need to check their spirit.

Amen! Good posts!!! :thumbsup

[StMark]

has anyone noticed something?? Sis Freeman has
promoted magic hair yet she hasn't come under attack
like LS. For some reason folks wont touch her but they
wll go out of their way to hate LS. now, understand, i don't
want Sis Freeman to come under attack like LS has and
I doubt she has preached an entire sermon on MH BUT she has
promoted it in her sermons nonetheless. Therefore, I've come
to the conclusion that there are people out to fault find anything
they can on LS

[Michael Phelps]

has anyone noticed something?? Sis Freeman has
promoted magic hair yet she hasn't come under attack
like LS. For some reason folks wont touch her but they
wll go out of their way to hate LS. now, understand, i don't
want Sis Freeman to come under attack like LS has and
I doubt she has preached an entire sermon on MH BUT she has
promoted it in her sermons nonetheless. Therefore, I've come
to the conclusion that there are people out to fault find anything
they can on LS

If I personally heard Nona Freeman make some of the ludicrous statements LS made in his sermon, I'd call her to task on it, as well. Just as I would hope someone would call ME to task if I ventured off into that same ditch.

[Pressing-On]

has anyone noticed something?? Sis Freeman has
promoted magic hair yet she hasn't come under attack
like LS. For some reason folks wont touch her but they
wll go out of their way to hate LS. now, understand, i don't
want Sis Freeman to come under attack like LS has and
I doubt she has preached an entire sermon on MH BUT she has
promoted it in her sermons nonetheless. Therefore, I've come
to the conclusion that there are people out to fault find anything
they can on LS
Mark,
I have a paper written by Nona Freeman and it doesn't come off as promoting the "magic hair" doctrine. I think that term was espoused on this Forum anyway for the drama or the flogging. lol

Bernard - Verse 10. The angels are involved with this subject, as they observe the obedience or disobedience of humans to God’s plan. The angels desire to look into our salvation (I Peter 1:12). Pride and rebellion caused the fall of Satan and many angels (I Timothy 3:6; Isaiah 14:12-15). Thus, a woman should have “power” on her head on her head as an example to the angels. The Greek word here is exousia, meaning “authority,” and in this context it indicates a mark or sign of authority. The angels look to see if women have the sign of consecration, submission, and power with God, or if they are rebellious like Satan. Women’s hair shows the angels whether or not the church is submissive to Christ, the head of the church.

Brother Bernard rests, primarily, on "authority" for exousia and LS rests on "power" alone. I believe Nona Freeman also rests on the "authority" and the "glory" which is our dignity and praise.

Incidentally, I'm not as prepared to go the "rebellion" and "fallen angel" route as Bernard has done. I would have more confidence in understanding that the angels do "desire" to look into our salvation as some marvelous things have been done and a measure of "authority" has been handed to the church, including the women. I'm sure that was a very interesting thing to view from above.

[BrotherEastman]

Somebody help me out here;I know we only use initials, but who is LS?

[ReformedDave]

Somebody help me out here;I know we only use initials, but who is LS?

Lee Stoneking

[BrotherEastman]

Lee Stoneking
Thanks.

[StillStanding]

Are you saying that God could strike us dead for questioning Lee Stoneking? :eek:

[Tyk]

Nah, just that there's a way to go about doing things.

I don't know if I agree with the way or example that it was presented with. - but the idea is to do things in a fashion that would please God(i think that was her point). Which is always good.

[Pressing-On]

Are you saying that God could strike us dead for questioning Lee Stoneking? :eek:
LOL! No, she isn't saying that, at all.

The discussion is deeper than LS. It is how we represent the body of Christ in our conversations about issues. At least that's what I believe she is saying and I agree.

I believe in studying the scriptures for what they are. You can't come out ahead bashing people's personalities, traits, or character. JMHO.

My take on it is - What if a confused person stumbled across some of these references in Google? I would have to say that some of the conversations are not representative of what the church is called to be.

II Timothy 2:24 "And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient,.."

Matthew 10:16 "...be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves."

[Ron]

Is Daniel not anointed by God?

He is baptized in Jesus' name, filled with the Holy Ghost and ministering to the lost.

Why the double standard?

What Double Standard PP???
Has anyone called him a heretic?
Has anyone said that he was teaching heresy?
While I have heard him espouse a lot of things strangely un apostolic at times here, I have called him to task on the thoughts & never once said he was a heretic.

Apples & Oranges.

[Rhoni]

Amen! Good posts!!! :thumbsup

Originally Posted by Rhoni http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com/forum/NewBlueDefault/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com/showthread.php?p=528475#post528475)
Sis. Esther,

You are indeed a woman of God. This is done in the spirit of love and good judgement.

For those who disagree: Esther is not making a connection with LS as being on the level with God. What she is saying is that there are right ways to go about confronting a brother or sister about something you disagree with.

This is a caution to make sure one is careful to do things God's way. It is my understanding that going to the person one on one would be the first step.

I love Esther and DA, both are my friends and there is nothing inappropriate here.

Blessings, Rhoni

PO This is a good post also:):tease

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Rhoni http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com/forum/NewBlueDefault/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com/showthread.php?p=528475#post528475)


PO This is a good post also:):tease

LOL! Indeed it is and I hope you forgive me for overlooking it.

I'm sitting here doing paperwork, reading the news, talking on the phone and catching up here. I should have also included your wise post as well! :friend

[Cindy]

If I personally heard Nona Freeman make some of the ludicrous statements LS made in his sermon, I'd call her to task on it, as well. Just as I would hope someone would call ME to task if I ventured off into that same ditch.

I was gonna say something, but you know how you are...........:tease

[Light]

What Double Standard PP???
Has anyone called him a heretic?
Has anyone said that he was teaching heresy?While I have heard him espouse a lot of things strangely un apostolic at times here, I have called him to task on the thoughts & never once said he was a heretic.

Apples & Oranges.

Is telling someone they are saved at repentance heresy?

[SDG]

Is telling someone they are saved at repentance heresy?

Only among Catholics, JW's, Mormons and some OP's.

:dance

[Rico]

Is telling someone they are saved at repentance heresy?


Uh oh! Hijack alert! Hijack alert! :D

[Esther]

Sis. Esther,

You are indeed a woman of God. This is done in the spirit of love and good judgement.

For those who disagree: Esther is not making a connection with LS as being on the level with God. What she is saying is that there are right ways to go about confronting a brother or sister about something you disagree with.
This is a caution to make sure one is careful to do things God's way. It is my understanding that going to the person one on one would be the first step.

I love Esther and DA, both are my friends and there is nothing inappropriate here.

Blessings, Rhoni

Thank you, glad someone understood my intentions.

We all have disagreements with men and women of God, but we ALL must be very careful in how we deal with our disagreements.

I believe IF we don't handle it right, it can affect the way God will use us in His ministry.

Thanks Mark!

[Ferd]

Is telling someone they are saved at repentance heresy?

well, I guess that depends on how that is attached.... It is within what one could call the Pale of Ortodoxy among Apostolics to say that one is saved at repentance and that all saved people should be baptized as a witness to the work of Christ, in His name and they should recieve the Holy Ghost.

I believe that is Dan's posistion. I dont agree with it, I cannot seperate Peters injunction like that. But this teaching has been part of the Apostolic movement from its inception. (Did I spell inception right?)

[DividedThigh]

doing fine ferd

[Esther]

LOL! No, she isn't saying that, at all.

The discussion is deeper than LS. It is how we represent the body of Christ in our conversations about issues. At least that's what I believe she is saying and I agree.

I believe in studying the scriptures for what they are. You can't come out ahead bashing people's personalities, traits, or character. JMHO.

My take on it is - What if a confused person stumbled across some of these references in Google? I would have to say that some of the conversations are not representative of what the church is called to be.

II Timothy 2:24 "And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient,.."

Matthew 10:16 "...be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves."

Exactly!

[DividedThigh]

i understood your intention esther and considered it soulfully compasionate toward the young among us, dt

[Esther]

First of all, stated disagreement - whether written or oral - with a person's ideology is not inherently sinful, disrespectful or profane.

Second, LS is not God, does not in any way represent the manifest presence of God (as the ark did), and should not be elevated as an equal to such holy things. The man is not above question. Especially when the doctrine he espouses is patently false and dangerous.

Third, an open rebuke on a public forum directed toward a poster who is himself a minister is an example of the very problem Esther takes issue with in the first place.

PP I'm really amazed you couldn't understand the intent of my post.

First of all no where did I imply that any person is equal to the Ark. I am glad that most understood the principal the Lord gave me last night.

1. That the man saw the Ark about to fall.
2. His intentions were good in not wanting the Ark to fall.
3. He touched what God said NOT to touch!

This was not to single out DA but to make sure he read it because HE is the one that kept repeately coming to my mind during service last night.

I know DA gets on some folks nerves, but I believe he is young and intelligent and has a lot to offer. It was not to cast stones at him, but to try and help him, but not only him but ALL of US.

And just for consideration, if we want to discuss the issues then why do we name names? Or can we honestly say it is more than the ISSUES?

[Esther]

i understood your intention esther and considered it soulfully compasionate toward the young among us, dt

Thank you DT. I appreciate that.

[Baron1710]

PP I'm really amazed you couldn't understand the intent of my post.

First of all no where did I imply that any person is equal to the Ark. I am glad that most understood the principal the Lord gave me last night.

1. That the man saw the Ark about to fall.
2. His intentions were good in not wanting the Ark to fall.
3. He touched what God said NOT to touch!

This was not to single out DA but to make sure he read it because HE is the one that kept repeately coming to my mind during service last night.

I know DA gets on some folks nerves, but I believe he is young and intelligent and has a lot to offer. It was not to cast stones at him, but to try and help him, but not only him but ALL of US.

And just for consideration, if we want to discuss the issues then why do we name names? Or can we honestly say it is more than the ISSUES?

To be consistent with your message shouldn't you have sent this message to him privately?

[Esther]

To be consistent with your message shouldn't you have sent this message to him privately?

If he had responded to me privately I would have responded privately.

But you are right it is very easy on a forum to not keep a right spirit. :)

And then that would have been you should have sent this to me PM.

See how easy we ALL do this?

[SDG]

The ironies ...

There's always a good peanut brittle discussion on GNC.

Esther, how could you respond to me privately if I responded to you privately?? ... when you haven't contacted me privately???

I appreciate the free publicity .... for what it's worth.

This has got be the 3rd public calling out VIA THREAD TITLE this last week ...

Scorecard for those keeping track:

Dedicated Mind (2)
Esther (1)

Generic titles work best, Esther. A bit of advice.

Appreciate the Word ... it's always for me ...

hope you gleaned something yourself.

BTW, JR Ensey, Steve and I ... are on the same page about IB's approach to prophecy ... and have said so publicly.

[Baron1710]

If he had responded to me privately I would have responded privately.

But you are right it is very easy on a forum to not keep a right spirit. :)

And then that would have been you should have sent this to me PM.

See how easy we ALL do this?

No, actually I don't see.

LS made public statements, and I think the Biblical model is public stand against such destructive teachings, as Paul did with Peter.

Your statement on the other hand indicated that because LS was who he was it should be done privately. Because of the position you took it would seem, to be consistent, while calling out another minister, you should have done it privately.

Now if you have my view that a public statement should meet with a public rebuke, then it doesn't need to be private.

All that being said I don’t have a problem with you calling Daniel out if those are your views I just find it inconsistent with the point you were making.

[SDG]

Such public stands are brushed aside when it's TD Jakes, the Munseys, Todd Bently, or those DREADED trinitarians .... then all bets are off and so are the gloves. Esther,your concerned seems to be just about "our soldiers" ( a notion you've expressed in various thread).

We all have our favorites, Esther .... If IB and LS are yours ... you don't have to reject them. Nor has anyone asked you too.

However on a discussion forum of this sort .... we have spoken at length ... and pontificated to death on teachings we have issue w/

.... that such teachings are attached to real people ... this is where it gets dicey and emotional.

I still appreciate your pastoral like concern for me and others .... I know it's rooted in sincerity.

[Esther]

No, actually I don't see.

LS made public statements, and I think the Biblical model is public stand against such destructive teachings, as Paul did with Peter.

Your statement on the other hand indicated that because LS was who he was it should be done privately. Because of the position you took it would seem, to be consistent, while calling out another minister, you should have done it privately.

Now if you have my view that a public statement should meet with a public rebuke, then it doesn't need to be private.

All that being said I don’t have a problem with you calling Daniel out if those are your views I just find it inconsistent with the point you were making.

Again you miss the point it is NOT about LS.

[Esther]

Such public stands are brushed aside when it's TD Jakes, the Munseys, Todd Bently, or those DREADED trinitarians .... then all bets are off and so are the gloves. Esther,your concerned seems to be just about "our soldiers".

We all have our favorites, Esther .... If IB and LS are yours ... you don't have to reject them. Nor has anyone asked you too.

However on a discussion forum of this sort .... we have spoken at length ... and pontificated to death on teachings we have issue w/

.... that such teachings are attached to real people ... this is where it gets dicey and emotional.

I still appreciate your pastoral like concern for me and others .... I know it's rooted in sincerity.


DA it is not about LS and IB, those I used because those are RECENT that I recall. The PRINCIPAL is what I was trying to share and not just for YOU but ALL of US, myself included.

IF I did not feel it so strongly last night I would not have said anything at all. But I felt I would have been wrong to not share what I felt I must.

I love both LS and IB, but I do not agree with all their teachings.

IF it is really the ISSUES we are talking about why do we name the offenders? Why don't we just discuss the issues?

Thanks DA for keeping a good spirit about this. :)

[Rico]

Esther, I got the point you are making. No worries, Sister. :)

[Esther]

Esther, I got the point you are making. No worries, Sister. :)

Thanks Rico.

[Pressing-On]

Such public stands are brushed aside when it's TD Jakes, the Munseys, Todd Bently, or those DREADED trinitarians .... then all bets are off and so are the gloves. Esther,your concerned seems to be just about "our soldiers" ( a notion you've expressed in various thread).

We all have our favorites, Esther .... If IB and LS are yours ... you don't have to reject them. Nor has anyone asked you too.

However on a discussion forum of this sort .... we have spoken at length ... and pontificated to death on teachings we have issue w/

.... that such teachings are attached to real people ... this is where it gets dicey and emotional.

I still appreciate your pastoral like concern for me and others .... I know it's rooted in sincerity.
Daniel,
I don't really like getting into these type of discussion because they make me feel very upset, but I want to make a point, nonetheless.

You started a thread entitled, "D. Bernard shares his thoughts about HolyMagicHair".

Now why would you title your thread in that manner? Why couldn't you say, "D. Bernard addresses I Cor 11". That seems the more gentlemanly and respectful wording.

Some of your threads come across as caustic, angry and accusing. I don't think it's right of you to say that Brother Bernard believes in the "magic hair", because I know that he doesn't.

So, along with Esther's thoughts - I believe we should represent our line of questioning and conversation in a more scholarly fashion. It's just the proper Christian thing to do.

And for the record, I am also against Mark posting his National Enquirer Newsflashes. I believe it is childish and reeks of gossip, which is a sin.

I will also add that I am in the UPC by God's design and I am in His will. I haven't always agreed with everything, but I can say that if I came on a public forum spewing out what I don't agree with, I believe I would be fighting against God. There are better ways of going about things.

So, there, for all it's worth. I might as well throw in on this too! :D

[SDG]

Daniel,
I don't really like getting into these type of discussion because they make me feel very upset, but I want to make a point, nonetheless.

You started a thread entitled, "D. Bernard shares his thoughts about HolyMagicHair".

Now why would you title your thread in that manner? Why couldn't you say, "D. Bernard addresses I Cor 11". That seems the more gentlemanly and respectful wording.

Some of your threads come across as caustic, angry and accusing. I don't think it's right of you to say that Brother Bernard believes in the "magic hair", because I know that he doesn't.

So, along with Esther's thoughts - I believe we should represent our line of questioning and conversation in a more scholarly fashion. It's just the proper Christian thing to do.

And for the record, I am also against Mark posting his National Enquirer Newsflashes. I believe it is childish and reeks of gossip, which is a sin.

I will also add that I am in the UPC by God's design and I am in His will. I haven't always agreed with everything, but I can say that if I came on a public forum spewing out what I don't agree with, I believe I would be fighting against God. There are better ways of going about things.

So, there, for all it's worth. I might as well throw in on this too! :D

Wow TALK ABOUT A STRETCH P.O.

Tell me where I stated DB believes in Holy Hair ... that's PATENTLY FALSE and I am disappointed that someone of your intellect would come to this faulty conclusion

Saying someone shares their thoughts on something DOES NOT EQUATE TO A PRO OR CON POSITION ... Yikes!!!

I'm not sure if our inability to decode isn't what's leading to these type of palm reading posts.

DB's thoughts were scholarly ... as are the posts of many here ... including some of mine ...

Dismissing things you don't deem scholarly on a forum that shares a wide range of opinions based on various levels of intellect ... tell me that you might be on the wrong forum.

Maybe GNC or GodChat might provide the intellectual stimulation that you're craving?

[Pressing-On]

Wow TALK ABOUT A STRETCH P.O.

Tell me where I stated DB believes in Holy Hair ... that's PATENTLY FALSE

I'm not sure if our inability to decode isn't what's leading to these type of palm reading posts.

DB's thoughts were scholarly ... as are the posts of many here ... including some of mine ...

Dismissing things you don't deem scholarly on a forum that shares a wide range of opinions based various levels of intellect ... tell me that you might be on the wrong forum.

Maybe GNC or GodChat might provide the intellectual stimulation that you're craving?



Daniel,
Your thread title reads - "D. Bernard shares his thoughts about HolyMagicHair". - accusatory in my book, Daniel.

There is no way on God's green earth you won't read that for what it is. It is an agenda on your part to ferret out and have this issue handled - your way, Daniel.

What about Stoneking's thread? "Stoneking:Churches going Charismatic Exploit Women"

You don't think that's a snarky way to start a thread, Daniel?

Puleeze, I'm not stripping furniture today. My mind is clear. :D

[SDG]

Daniel,
Your thread title reads - "D. Bernard shares his thoughts about HolyMagicHair". - accusatory in my book, Daniel.

There is no way on God's green earth you won't read that for what it is. It is an agenda on your part to ferret out and have this issue handled - your way, Daniel.

What about Stoneking's thread? "Stoneking:Churches going Charismatic Exploit Women"

You don't think that's a snarky way to start a thread, Daniel?

Puleeze, I'm not stripping furniture today. My mind is clear. :D

Yikes ....

Saying someone shares their thoughts on something DOES NOT EQUATE TO A PRO OR CON POSITION ...

A person sharing their thoughts on bongs doesn't mean they light up.

Way too much reading in between the lines ... and that's where many valuable discussions break down ... even if they were
"scholarly".

As for Stoneking saying charismatic churches exploit women ... that's what he said. See video.

Are you interested in critical and objective discussion ... or in being an scholarly apologist?

Don't stop working on my account.


P.S. Critical as in critical thinking.

[StMark]

Such public stands are brushed aside when it's TD Jakes, the Munseys, Todd Bently, or those DREADED trinitarians .... then all bets are off and so are the gloves. Esther,your concerned seems to be just about "our soldiers" ( a notion you've expressed in various thread).

We all have our favorites, Esther .... If IB and LS are yours ... you don't have to reject them. Nor has anyone asked you too.

However on a discussion forum of this sort .... we have spoken at length ... and pontificated to death on teachings we have issue w/

.... that such teachings are attached to real people ... this is where it gets dicey and emotional.

I still appreciate your pastoral like concern for me and others .... I know it's rooted in sincerity.



Since all ministries are on par with Apostolics
Have you taken to task any of the above mentioned
and others such as Benny Hinn? he believes some pretty odd
stuff even to the trinitarians. I've been reading some of the
Charismatic forums and there is HUGE controversy over Todd bently.
have you taken him to task the way you have LS???
I read one report that Todd believes that William Branham's
ANGEL visits him and/or empowers him. There should be an
outcry!!!

[Pressing-On]

Yikes ....

Saying someone shares their thoughts on something DOES NOT EQUATE TO A PRO OR CON POSITION ...

A person sharing their thoughts on bongs doesn't mean they light up.

Way to much reading in between the lines ... and that's where many valuable discussions break down ... even if they were
"scholarly".

As for Stoneking saying charismatic churches exploit women ... that's what he said. See video.

Are you interested in critical and objective discussion ... or in being an scholarly apologist?

Don't stop working on my account.


Okay, I apologize for misreading the Stoneking thread. You just had me on edge with the other threads. :killinme"

I'm interested in "objective" discussion. I am not interested in "critical" discussion.

[StMark]

Daniel,
I don't really like getting into these type of discussion because they make me feel very upset, but I want to make a point, nonetheless.

You started a thread entitled, "D. Bernard shares his thoughts about HolyMagicHair".

Now why would you title your thread in that manner? Why couldn't you say, "D. Bernard addresses I Cor 11". That seems the more gentlemanly and respectful wording.

Some of your threads come across as caustic, angry and accusing. I don't think it's right of you to say that Brother Bernard believes in the "magic hair", because I know that he doesn't.

So, along with Esther's thoughts - I believe we should represent our line of questioning and conversation in a more scholarly fashion. It's just the proper Christian thing to do.

And for the record, I am also against Mark posting his National Enquirer Newsflashes. I believe it is childish and reeks of gossip, which is a sin.

I will also add that I am in the UPC by God's design and I am in His will. I haven't always agreed with everything, but I can say that if I came on a public forum spewing out what I don't agree with, I believe I would be fighting against God. There are better ways of going about things.

So, there, for all it's worth. I might as well throw in on this too! :D



NOW!!! What did i tell you !!!!



.

[Pressing-On]

NOW!!! What did i tell you !!!!



.

Explain yourself.

[StMark]

Explain yourself.


I felt that the comments where hurting Esther or
as she put it "upsetting " her. I think she was so sincere
that when people began to attack her I knew it wound

[Pressing-On]

I felt that the comments were hurting Esther or
as she put it "upsetting " her. I think she was so sincere
that when people began to attack her I knew it wound
Oh, did she say she was upset? I didn't read that.

[Ferd]

One has to wonder if DanA would be doing this if others closer to the question were stepping up....


just some thoughts from the cheep seats.

[Esther]

Oh, did she say she was upset? I didn't read that.

No she didn't. :)

But this is a great example of why nobody should want to be a prophet, most of the time they don't have good news to bring. ;)

**Now how long before someone tries to say I said I'm a prophet? :)

[Esther]

One has to wonder if DanA would be doing this if others closer to the question were stepping up....


just some thoughts from the cheep seats.

You mean like LS or IB?

[rgcraig]

I felt that the comments where hurting Esther or
as she put it "upsetting " her. I think she was so sincere
that when people began to attack her I knew it wound

PO is the one that said that - - not Esther!

[Pressing-On]

No she didn't. :)

But this is a great example of why nobody should want to be a prophet, most of the time they don't have good news to bring. ;)

**Now how long before someone tries to say I said I'm a prophet? :)
I wanted him to notice himself - that it was my post. All it meant was my post was so good he thought it was yours!!! :killinme

[Pressing-On]

PO is the one that said that - - not Esther!
Read previous post. lol

[Ferd]

You mean like LS or IB?

isnt that the topic of conversation?

on the IB issue, all I know is that our church has worked with him in the past and seen quite a few people come to the Lord and become very involved members of our church. That does not mean I agree with IB.

[Esther]

isnt that the topic of conversation?

on the IB issue, all I know is that our church has worked with him in the past and seen quite a few people come to the Lord and become very involved members of our church. That does not mean I agree with IB.

Exactly Ferd!

He does much good. That doesn't mean I agree 100% with all he teaches, but the over all results are good, IMO. :)

[rgcraig]

Read previous post. lol

Lol! :friend

[Esther]

isnt that the topic of conversation?

on the IB issue, all I know is that our church has worked with him in the past and seen quite a few people come to the Lord and become very involved members of our church. That does not mean I agree with IB.

Actually, it was the PRINCIPAL, not limited to IB or LS. :)

[Esther]

I wanted him to notice himself - that it was my post. All it meant was my post was so good he thought it was yours!!! :killinme

lol Girl you have some great posts!:friend

[Ferd]

Actually, it was the PRINCIPAL, not limited to IB or LS. :)

then let me rephrase...

things that get the attention this thread topic is about, might not get so much attention if those that can, would deal with error....


hows that?

[Esther]

then let me rephrase...

things that get the attention this thread topic is about, might not get so much attention if those that can, would deal with error....


hows that?

Very good Ferd, very good.

BTW...let me know when you run for office, you should do great!:friend

[Pressing-On]

then let me rephrase...

things that get the attention this thread topic is about, might not get so much attention if those that can, would deal with error....


hows that?

That still doesn't take care of "how" we are dealing with it on this Forum. Is this how God would have us do that? What do you think He would want us to do?

[Rico]

Daniel,
Your thread title reads - "D. Bernard shares his thoughts about HolyMagicHair". - accusatory in my book, Daniel.

There is no way on God's green earth you won't read that for what it is. It is an agenda on your part to ferret out and have this issue handled - your way, Daniel.

What about Stoneking's thread? "Stoneking:Churches going Charismatic Exploit Women"

You don't think that's a snarky way to start a thread, Daniel?

Puleeze, I'm not stripping furniture today. My mind is clear. :D




Go Sister PO, Sister PO, Sister PO Sister!
Go Sister PO, Sister PO, Sister PO Sister!

[Ferd]

That still doesn't take care of "how" we are dealing with it on this Forum. Is this how God would have us do that? What do you think He would want us to do?

maybe.

I suppose DanA, and a band of merry brothers could draft a set of grievences and tack them to the Hazzelwood door.

[DividedThigh]

maybe.

I suppose DanA, and a band of merry brothers could draft a set of grievences and tack them to the Hazzelwood door.

they should remember what they did to martin luther before they do it, course after he was put out by the catlics, he started his own church and a peasants revolution, i am sure they wanted to kill him, but couldnt, lol,dt

[Ron]

maybe.

I suppose DanA, and a band of merry brothers could draft a set of grievences and tack them to the Hazzelwood door.

:ursofunny

[Ferd]

they should remember what they did to martin luther before they do it, he got the hot foot for his crimes, lol


I wonder what kind of world we would live in today had he not done what he did?

Some things need a response like "hey my dear brother, I love and respect you. Can you clairfy something"


and somethings need a response like "now wait a cotten picken minute!!!"

[Pressing-On]

maybe.

I suppose DanA, and a band of merry brothers could draft a set of grievences and tack them to the Hazzelwood door.

Ferd,
I look at this Forum and our issues the same way I do situations in the church we have to handle and go through. I would feel convicted about starting a thread about any person.

God doesn't mind us studying the Word. He does mind us gossiping and pulling lives apart. He does mind strife and contention.

[Ferd]

Ferd,
I look at this Forum and our issues the same way I do situations in the church we have to handle and go through. I would feel convicted about starting a thread about any person.

God doesn't mind us studying the Word. He does mind us gossiping and pulling lives apart. He does mind strife and contention.

PO, I wouldnt have started a thread about a particular person. I have joined the discussion about the magic hair false doctrine.

i have however, not said a lot of harsh things I have thought to say.

but like I said, sometimes being kind and polite and sweet gets nothing done.

[Esther]

maybe.

I suppose DanA, and a band of merry brothers could draft a set of grievences and tack them to the Hazzelwood door.

Actually, I was thinking about that last night. What is the protocol if you have a strong disagreement?

1. Seems the first step should be to contact the person(s) you have a disagreement with. (seems that is Bible)

2. If that doesn't work, take someone with you and discuss it again.

3. If that doesn't work, take it to the Headquarters.

??? Any thoughts?

[Pressing-On]

PO, I wouldnt have started a thread about a particular person. I have joined the discussion about the magic hair false doctrine.

i have however, not said a lot of harsh things I have thought to say.

but like I said, sometimes being kind and polite and sweet gets nothing done.

I suppose you are right since the word says, "Rebuke before all". But, as we know, there is more to that verse.

I think because I am UPC and because I have never believed in the "holy magic hair" and because He keeps leading me, speaking to me and guiding me through many dangers toils and snares, I would want to be careful how I addressed the things I don't agree with.

[Ferd]

I suppose you are right since the word says, "Rebuke before all". But, as we know, there is more to that verse.

I think because I am UPC and because I have never believed in the "holy magic hair" and because He keeps leading me, speaking to me and guiding me through many dangers toils and snares, I would want to be careful how I addressed the things I don't agree with.

that is a good discription of me!

[Pressing-On]

Actually, I was thinking about that last night. What is the protocol if you have a strong disagreement?

1. Seems the first step should be to contact the person(s) you have a disagreement with. (seems that is Bible)

2. If that doesn't work, take someone with you and discuss it again.

3. If that doesn't work, take it to the Headquarters.

??? Any thoughts?

Wouldn't you have to be in association with the person for it to matter? I'm thinking you would.

[Ferd]

Actually, I was thinking about that last night. What is the protocol if you have a strong disagreement?

1. Seems the first step should be to contact the person(s) you have a disagreement with. (seems that is Bible)

2. If that doesn't work, take someone with you and discuss it again.

3. If that doesn't work, take it to the Headquarters.

??? Any thoughts?

Esther, this has gone on for more years than I care to even think about. It seems to me that any and all of that have failed.

[Pressing-On]

that is a good discription of me!

Right and the times you wonder if Romans 8:28 EVEN, EVER applies to you!

:killinme

[Ron]

Why did the earth open up and swallow Korah?

God having another bad day?

[Esther]

Wouldn't you have to be in association with the person for it to matter? I'm thinking you would.

I think it would depend how strongly you disagree with them.

I know if it were me I would rather you contact me and see if you are understanding what I'm saying before going balastic on me to the whole world.

Who knows with a little courtesy discussion you might even change their minds. :)

[Esther]

Esther, this has gone on for more years than I care to even think about. It seems to me that any and all of that have failed.

Why do you think it has failed?

Too political?

Too many personal agendas?

Not enough true love for one another?

[Pressing-On]

I think it would depend how strongly you disagree with them.

I know if it were me I would rather you contact me and see if you are understanding what I'm saying before going balastic on me to the whole world.

Who knows with a little courtesy discussion you might even change their minds. :)
Sure. I agree.

So, are you worried about the books you have written? You could be the next thread, ya know? :killinme

[Ron]

I think it would depend how strongly you disagree with them.

I know if it were me I would rather you contact me and see if you are understanding what I'm saying before going balastic on me to the whole world.

Who knows with a little courtesy discussion you might even change their minds. :)

That sounds kinda Christian to me!

[Ferd]

Why did the earth open up and swallow Korah?

God having another bad day?

because Korah was spreading lies against the man of God.


he was fostering distrust for the path that GOD had outlined.

He was sedicious against God and the man God appointed to lead the people.

I have not seen that as it relates to this thread.

[Ferd]

Right and the times you wonder if Romans 8:28 EVEN, EVER applies to you!

:killinme

LOL! aint that the truth.

[Pressing-On]

That sounds kinda Christian to me!

Who would have thunk? lol

[Pressing-On]

LOL! aint that the truth.

Right!

[Ron]

because Korah was spreading lies against the man of God.


he was fostering distrust for the path that GOD had outlined.

He was sedicious against God and the man God appointed to lead the people.

I have not seen that as it relates to this thread.

And Korah thought that Democracy pertains to the priesthood.

Buzzz, wrong answer. God will choose and anoint who he will.

[Ferd]

And Korah thought that Democracy pertains to the priesthood.

Buzzz, wrong answer. God will choose and anoint who he will.

I wonder if peter felt that way when Paul took him to task... publically... in letters to the various churches..


democracy? I dont think that is what we are looking for. just sound doctrine.

[Ron]

I wonder if peter felt that way when Paul took him to task... publically... in letters to the various churches..


democracy? I dont think that is what we are looking for. just sound doctrine.

They are both Apostles.

[GraceAmazing]

Did something happen around here and I missed it? Seriously...I'm lost. No biggie though. I just keep living in my own little world! LOL!

[Esther]

I renamed this thread to NOT single out DA.

Thanks for understanding.

[Ron]

I renamed this thread to NOT single out DA.

Thanks for understanding.

Esther, why did you do that???:uhoh

What am I supposed to do with all of these tomatoes? :hmmm

[Esther]

Esther, why did you do that???:uhoh

What am I supposed to do with all of these tomatoes? :hmmm

lol Eat them if they are not rotten!:ursofunny

[Pressing-On]

I wonder if peter felt that way when Paul took him to task... publically... in letters to the various churches..


democracy? I dont think that is what we are looking for. just sound doctrine.

Well, this is worthy of discussion and on topic with the thread. I think we should discuss this more.

[Pressing-On]

I renamed this thread to NOT single out DA.

Thanks for understanding.

Great, Esther. This is a very good topic for us to discuss. I hope we carry it further.

[Esther]

Great, Esther. This is a very good topic for us to discuss. I hope we carry it further.

Thanks, I agree.

Ron made a good, point, as did Ferd. :)

[Ron]

Thanks, I agree.

Ron made a good, point, as did Ferd. :)

About the tomatoes??:hmmm

[Esther]

About the tomatoes??:hmmm

ummmmmmmm no!:snapout

[Ron]

ummmmmmmm no!:snapout

Say, did anyone ever tell you guys that them Texas women are violent!:whistle

[Esther]

Say, did anyone ever tell you guys that them Texas women are violent!:whistle

Is that the same thing as Hardy? :ursofunny

[Pressing-On]

I wonder if peter felt that way when Paul took him to task... publically... in letters to the various churches..


democracy? I dont think that is what we are looking for. just sound doctrine.

Well, this is worthy of discussion and on topic with the thread. I think we should discuss this more.

*bump*

I have to leave for a while today, but I hope we can discuss Ferd's point on a larger scale!

[Esther]

*bump*

I have to leave for a while today, but I hope we can discuss Ferd's point on a larger scale!

What say ye Ferd?