Mooney Guns for "Secret" Meeting in Detroit?

Withdrawn · #1 07-08-2009, 12:29 PM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 · #2 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Withdrawn · #3 07-08-2009, 02:23 PM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.

GrowingPains · #4 07-08-2009, 02:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jaamez

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.

Jaamez, I know what you mean. The problem is that he wasn't seeking to indict, PM just isn't stupid. He knows there is a huge undercurrent of young ministers in the UPCI plotting their way. He's making a public statement, that in my opinion after hearing the sermon, was not specifically directed exclusively to the Detroit meeting, but rather to all who are being tempted by what he considers false doctrine. You better believe he is stacking the jury, and since this isn't a court of law, I'm not sure he's wrong to do it.

I don't agree with him. I'll say that again. Clarifying, I don't agree with what he considers false doctrine, but I think his comments are kosher.

Withdrawn · #5 07-08-2009, 02:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GrowingPains

Jaamez, I know what you mean. The problem is that he wasn't seeking to indict, PM just isn't stupid. He knows there is a huge undercurrent of young ministers in the UPCI plotting their way. He's making a public statement, that in my opinion after hearing the sermon, was not specifically directed exclusively to the Detroit meeting, but rather to all who are being tempted by what he considers false doctrine. You better believe he is stacking the jury, and since this isn't a court of law, I'm not sure he's wrong to do it.

I don't agree with him. I'll say that again. Clarifying, I don't agree with what he considers false doctrine, but I think his comments are kosher.

I think we'll agree to disagree, and I won't contend for my position toward the end of disunity.

By the way... I respect your position and your standing in the brotherhood of the redeemed. My reference to ranting about "some guy named GrowingPains" was completely benign - for illustration only. I appreciate you and the dialogue that we have enjoyed recently. Iron sharpens iron!

GrowingPains · #6 07-08-2009, 02:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jaamez

I think we'll agree to disagree, and I won't contend for my position toward the end of disunity.

By the way... I respect your position and your standing in the brotherhood of the redeemed. My reference to ranting about "some guy named GrowingPains" was completely benign - for illustration only. I appreciate you and the dialogue that we have enjoyed recently. Iron sharpens iron!

Agreed.