A Night of Supernatural Events

[SDG]

Doubt is not the absence of faith. Nor is expressing it an accusation.

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

Doubt is not the absence of faith. Nor is expressing it an accusation.

Again, I agree with your statement but it does not apply to Randy Wayne!

You can defend him all you wish but he is in an indefensible position!

Have you even read his posts?

[SDG]

Originally Posted by philjones

Again, I agree with your statement but it does not apply to Randy Wayne!

You can defend him all you wish but he is in an indefensible position!

Have you even read his posts?

Yes I have and I leave w/ the impression that he is doubtful ... emphasizing other possible scenarios ... he uses the word "could" various times.

I think there is an inability to compartmentalize, here. I understand that to many Steadfast is of kindred spirit and perspective to many of you .... yet is the same measure used when "non-Apostolic" prophets are castigated and held to the fire ....???? I do not know Steadfast as many of you do... and I believe ...

but I cannot make blanket assertions about RW because he has doubts ....

I am sure there were people in those services ... Apostolics albeit ... filled w/ doubt ... this does not make Steadfast a liar or those who doubted ... as unbelievers that should be marked

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

Yes I have and I leave w/ the impression that he is doubtful ... emphasizing other possible scenarios ... he use the word "could" various times.

I think there is an inability to compartmentalize, here. I understand that to many Steadfast is of kindred spirit and perspective to many of you .... yet is the same measure used when "non-Apostolic" prophets are castigated and held to the fire ....???? I do not know Steadfast as many of you do... and I believe ... but I cannot make blanket assertions about RW because he has doubts ....

I am sure there were people in those services ... Apostolics albeit ... filled w/ doubt ... this does not make Steadfast a liar or those who doubted ... unbelievers that should be marked

Dan,

Let me be clear. I have no problem with folks doubting. I am human and I have doubted at times and will doubt again in the future. I will not, however, talk about the rotten smell coming from Denmark or Silsbee as is the case here. Nor will I accuse the stranger, in this case Bro. George Guy, to an area of having researched a long ago tragedy so that if family members involved in the tragedy just happened to drop in on a revival service I could put on a show like a snake oil salesman just to get the people emotionally excited and pumped and primed!

That, my friend, is not expression of doubt. That is slander and accusation of fraud and lying!

I give RW no place on this matter. He doesn't deserve it. He needs a good ole fashioned whuppin' to correct his bad manners!

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

Yes I have and I leave w/ the impression that he is doubtful ... emphasizing other possible scenarios ... he uses the word "could" various times.

I think there is an inability to compartmentalize, here. I understand that to many Steadfast is of kindred spirit and perspective to many of you .... yet is the same measure used when "non-Apostolic" prophets are castigated and held to the fire ....???? I do not know Steadfast as many of you do... and I believe ...

but I cannot make blanket assertions about RW because he has doubts ....

I am sure there were people in those services ... Apostolics albeit ... filled w/ doubt ... this does not make Steadfast a liar or those who doubted ... as unbelievers that should be marked

Dan...

You missed his point.

Steadfast's varacity was not questioned or suggested to be the equivalent of a snake oil salesman. It was the visiting Evangelist that RW proposed such a contemptible label.

[SDG]

Originally Posted by Brother Strange

Dan...

You missed his point.

Steadfast's varacity was not questioned or suggested to be the equivalent of a snake oil salesman. It was the visiting Evangelist that RW proposed such a contemptible label.

No point missed ... just the person ... premises remain the same eve with the shadows of doubt casted.

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

No point missed ... just the person ... premises remain the same eve with the shadows of doubt casted.

Those were not shadows of doubt Dan. The Evangelists integrity was called into question!

RW is welcome to his doubt but is not going to go unchallenged for painting the man a liar.

[revrandy]

Originally Posted by RandyWayne

Yes, I am saying I STRONGLY doubt the words of the preacher and his words of knowledge.

Now the story about the $1000 gifts and the resulting "rewards" it totally believable..... but I have major problems with the initial post.

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

No point missed ... just the person ... premises remain the same eve with the shadows of doubt casted.

Seems pretty clear here what Dan was saying..