Mooney Guns for "Secret" Meeting in Detroit?

Withdrawn · #1 07-08-2009, 12:17 PM

It's amazing to me how we put aside the commandments of Christ to love one another when it comes to politicizing our agendas and destroying those who view some things differently.

GrowingPains · #2 07-08-2009, 12:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jaamez

It's amazing to me how we put aside the commandments of Christ to love one another when it comes to politicizing our agendas and destroying those who view some things differently.

You know the rebuttal here, Jaamez. Paul, telling Judaizers to mutilate themselves wasn't exactly "brotherly love." When it comes to what one believes is false doctrine, the gloves are off.

HopePreacher · #3 07-08-2009, 12:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GrowingPains

You know the rebuttal here, Jaamez. Paul, telling Judaizers to mutilate themselves wasn't exactly "brotherly love." When it comes to what one believes is false doctrine, the gloves are off.

Yes, but Paul didn't offer to do the cutting. and remember, he was addressing the leagalists. today it seems the legalists are the ones with the knife.

GrowingPains · #4 07-08-2009, 12:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HopePreacher

Yes, but Paul didn't offer to do the cutting. and remember, he was addressing the leagalists. today it seems the legalists are the ones with the knife.

My point being, with matters of doctrine, inflammatory words and confrontation are expected.

Withdrawn · #5 07-08-2009, 12:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GrowingPains

My point being, with matters of doctrine, inflammatory words and confrontation are expected.

There was no confrontation. This was not an example of Mooney confronting those he disagreed with or accused of being false prophets. There was no opportunity for the accused to confront their accusers or respond to Mooney's railings. This is not a confrontation at all. It's political posturing, gossipping, fear-mongering and propaganda.

It's setting the stage for a kangaroo court trial and subsequent public lynching in order to make example of anyone who would do the same. I've seen it done MANY times over the years - notably over the 1992 affirmation statement.

GrowingPains · #6 07-08-2009, 12:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jaamez

There was no confrontation. This was not an example of Mooney confronting those he disagreed with or accused of being false prophets. There was no opportunity for the accused to confront their accusers or respond to Mooney's railings. This is not a confrontation at all. It's political posturing, gossipping, fear-mongering and propaganda.

It's setting the stage for a kangaroo court trial and subsequent public lynching in order to make example of anyone who would do the same. I've seen it done MANY times over the years - notably over the 1992 affirmation statement.

Paul didn't invite his antagonists (in his letters) to come defend themselves. He told the churches to kick them out. Nothing has moved this particular situation to that point, so instead, he was making it clear of his disapproval for so-called secret meetings -- and avoided name-branding or specifics to make that clear. If, he in fact said "false prophets", I think there needs to be more supportive evidence for saying such things in a public setting.

Was it the wisest thing to do? I don't know, the survey is out. But, he most definitely had every right to do it.

Withdrawn · #7 07-08-2009, 02:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GrowingPains

Paul didn't invite his antagonists (in his letters) to come defend themselves. He told the churches to kick them out. Nothing has moved this particular situation to that point, so instead, he was making it clear of his disapproval for so-called secret meetings -- and avoided name-branding or specifics to make that clear. If, he in fact said "false prophets", I think there needs to be more supportive evidence for saying such things in a public setting.

Was it the wisest thing to do? I don't know, the survey is out. But, he most definitely had every right to do it.

Understood, and agreed. However, it's been repeatedly noted throughout this thread (and by you, also) that he was right to "confront" what he sees as threats or false doctrine.

If I'm spouting off what I think about some guy named GrowingPains (without using GP's name) in front of a group of people who may or may not know you or what I'm talking about... you're not there... can you call that a confrontation? Or is it really more like priming the pump, stacking the jury of public opinion so that when it comes time for the kangaroo trial, the applause for my actions and my political position will be that much greater?

A one-sided rant against someone else who is not present or granted a voice is defamation, not a confrontation. Again... not my word, but yours and others posting in this thread.

Withdrawn · #8 07-08-2009, 12:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GrowingPains

You know the rebuttal here, Jaamez. Paul, telling Judaizers to mutilate themselves wasn't exactly "brotherly love." When it comes to what one believes is false doctrine, the gloves are off.

Right... but is it really false doctrine? Is this really about essentials or technicalities? What is even being debated? Does anybody even know for sure? Or is this all just hyperbole?

GrowingPains · #9 07-08-2009, 12:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jaamez

Right... but is it really false doctrine? Is this really about essentials or technicalities? What is even being debated? Does anybody even know for sure? Or is this all just hyperbole?

The irony is that this is the debate in its entirety. Some are insisting on matters as essentials, and others insist they are nonessentials. Not all of this is standards (much of it is), but some of it even pertains to soteriology, namely Acts 2:38 doctrine, which is most assuredly doctrinal.

No, I have no idea what was discussed at the meeting. They didn't invite me

Justin · #10 07-08-2009, 12:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GrowingPains

The irony is that this is the debate in its entirety. Some are insisting on matters as essentials, and others insist they are nonessentials. Not all of this is standards (much of it is), but some of it even pertains to soteriology, namely Acts 2:38 doctrine, which is most assuredly doctrinal.

No, I have no idea what was discussed at the meeting. They didn't invite me

Has anyone thought about contacting those who were rumored to be involved about obtaining information or meeting minutes...?