Hair Cutting Party....

[RevDWW]

Originally Posted by Steadfast

I suspect that is what T1 was asking about. If so, the situation was so that the man called his wife up on the platform, whacked her hair off and had the Church 'rejoice' over his stupidity.

If you're wanting names... forget it. The situation is such that I have to live associated with them. Frankly, I'm not interested in having war among those I'll be around the rest of my life.

You want more? Forget it. If it means you won't believe me... live with it.

I think you have clarified you situation. This did happen "that the man called his wife up on the platform, whacked her hair off and had the Church 'rejoice'" and you are related to these folks and would not want to cause a ruckus over it my naming them.

Sounds reasonable to me.

[Steve Epley]

Originally Posted by Steadfast

I suspect that is what T1 was asking about. If so, the situation was so that the man called his wife up on the platform, whacked her hair off and had the Church 'rejoice' over his stupidity.

If you're wanting names... forget it. The situation is such that I have to live associated with them. Frankly, I'm not interested in having war among those I'll be around the rest of my life.

You want more? Forget it. If it means you won't believe me... live with it.

My sentiments exactly.

[ChTatum]

Originally Posted by Steadfast

I suspect that is what T1 was asking about. If so, the situation was so that the man called his wife up on the platform, whacked her hair off and had the Church 'rejoice' over his stupidity.

If you're wanting names... forget it. The situation is such that I have to live associated with them. Frankly, I'm not interested in having war among those I'll be around the rest of my life.

You want more? Forget it. If it means you won't believe me... live with it.

Yo, bubba.
If he were concerned about ramifications, he would not have done it in service.

Are you concerned he won't ask you back?


What is your concern?

He apparently wasn't, so why are you?

You posted it, now back it up.

Originally Posted by RevDWW

I think you have clarified you situation. This did happen "that the man called his wife up on the platform, whacked her hair off and had the Church 'rejoice'" and you are related to these folks and would not want to cause a ruckus over it my naming them.

Sounds reasonable to me.

DING! DING! DING! DING! DING! DING! DING! DING! DING! DING! DING! DING!

We have a winner, folks! Someone has done gone and used sound reasoning!

Thanks RevDWW, for the post.

[RevDWW]

Originally Posted by Steadfast

DING! DING! DING! DING! DING! DING! DING! DING! DING! DING! DING! DING!

We have a winner, folks! Someone has done gone and used sound reasoning!

Thanks RevDWW, for the post.

Using sound reason and logic does not have to be of the Devil...........

[Coonskinner]

Originally Posted by ChTatum

Yo, bubba.
If he were concerned about ramifications, he would not have done it in service.

Are you concerned he won't ask you back?


What is your concern?

He apparently wasn't, so why are you?

You posted it, now back it up.

Elder,

Why the push to name names?

Surely you aren't suggesting that Steadfast is being dishonest?

[ChTatum]

Sound reason and logic states that the pastor did this in a public service, so he does not care about the ramifications.

[Coonskinner]

Originally Posted by ChTatum

Sound reason and logic states that the pastor did this in a public service, so he does not care about the ramifications.

I won't argue that, but why the pressure for Steadfast to name him?

Are you suggesting that he isn't being truthful because of his reluctance to name the man?

[ChTatum]

Originally Posted by Coonskinner

Elder,

Why the push to name names?

Surely you aren't suggesting that Steadfast is being dishonest?

I don't know steadfast, elder. Cannot determine his level of honesty.
Two forum members with opposing threads, neither of which I know.

My concern, elder, is this:
Since the pastor who is alleged to have done this did it in public, what is the concern of steadfast with telling who it is?

It's not like "this is just between you and me", now is it?

Things done, especially in public, must hold up to scrutiny. Perhaps the cruel light needs to shine on the pastor instead of steadfast. Yet, steadfast refuses to clear the whole matter up.

From what I have read, steadfast is vehemently opposed to the alleged actions of the pastor. Is there not a Biblical mandate to expose the heretic?
And not to fellowship with such?

Confusing, to say the least.

And we all know who is NOT the author of confusion.

Originally Posted by ChTatum

Yo, bubba.
If he were concerned about ramifications, he would not have done it in service.

Are you concerned he won't ask you back?


What is your concern?

He apparently wasn't, so why are you?

You posted it, now back it up.

Yo Bubba,

If you had a clue about the situation you wouldn't lose any sleep over the bolded part. I won't prostitute truth for anything and that is what I would have to do if I went back there.

Strange ending there... 'You posted it, not back it up.'

INSTRUCTIONS FOR BUBBA: If you want more than that read the last line of my post you quoted and get plenty of rest.