An Apology

[Charnock]

The idea that racism is somehow acceptable simply because someone is ultracon is revolting.

[ILG]

Originally Posted by Charnock

Yes, absolutely right.

And we all know these incidents are not isolated. They are in the DNA of this segment of the "Christian" family tree.

They are not isolated. I think that they are in the DNA of the human family tree. But the difference is how the ultra-cons constantly say that their way of life is better and holier and so the incidents SHOULD be more isolated and when they are not, and the ultra-cons portray the same behaviors and mistakes as everyone else, the question begs to be asked "How is this more holy or Christian or better than other Christian or religious groups as they continuously profess?"

[seekerman]

Originally Posted by Charnock

And we all know these incidents are not isolated. They are in the DNA of this segment of the "Christian" family tree.

The ultracon segment is the North Korea of oneness pentecostalism. Very very controlling, abusive, every attempt to made to isolate the members and rule by fear.

That's why some will literally sacrifice their children for the 'nation'.

[bishoph]

Originally Posted by ILG

This is certainly true. Whereas we recognize that preachers are human and can make mistakes, the regular ultra-con way to react is more like denial. While you are supposed to act as if it is an isolated incident, which would naturally cause shock, you are also not supposed to act shocked because they are "only human", and the only correct response is the rug sweep.

I have to respectfully disagree! I know there are situations like these you/others describe that do indeed happen, however the issue that I have is when you or anyone paint with a broad brush and say this is the "norm." I have come to realize that nearly ALL of us base reality on OUR reality and the things we have seen/not seen which eventually becomes our truth. It is truth, as we have experienced it and seen it. I cannot doubt your bad/good experiences because you experienced them. Each person's pain is great to them and others cannot truly judge the "realness" of the pain based on our opinion of the injury.

That said.....some of you have apparently had the misfortune to meet/be hurt by a group that is small in comparison with the size of the group as a whole. I know literally hundreds of good solid (what AFF would consider ultra-con) good men who do not cheat, lie, commit adultery, wife swap, or abuse children. So....while I do not deny that these things happen....my experience is the "good" side of the "ultra-cons."

I have also seen just as many moderate and liberal men who have cheated, lied, committed adultery, wife swapped, or abused children and I'll add another to the list....mishandled money. In fact, if I were to make a statement based on MY experiences alone, I could say that is the "norm" when people "go lib" for example. But I do not judge a group by actions of a few, rather I try to realize there are bad folks in every group because there are people involved and people can be wicked. Likewise there are good folks who would NEVER engage in said actions.

As for "ultra-con's" denial of their own doing wrong? Not on your life! (Again does it happen....of course....is it the "norm".....NO) MY experience has been.....I have seen them remove men (swiftly) and practically destroy them, (instead of trying to restore) for engaging in immorality of any kind. I know some will say "it depends on who it is" or "whose kid they are" etc....but that IMO is true regardless of the group.....mod/lib/ultra-con

[MarcBee]

Originally Posted by seekerman

d
That's why some will literally sacrifice their children for the 'nation'.

See, Kerman, it would be great if you would care enough to document the prevalence of the atrocities you are claiming. Then others may jump on the bandwagon after viewing the evidence you research and provide. No one is refuting the problem doesn't exist somewhere, but since you are driving toward increased activism from others, then better education would be a necessary first step, and many (not all) religious people would join in your campaign. As it stands, the perception is that it's not prevalent enough, and (thankfully) civil law intervenes in many cases. We tend to hear about the cases where it does not. But you can change that, that is, if you do some research to show evidence, such as (just for starters)
"How many Oneness ministers teach the no medicine doctrine?"
"How many generally Christian ministers teach the no medicine doctrine?"
"How many people try to go along with what it taught?"

If this is really all about saving children, then your concern should be how prevalent it is both within and without a certain sect. Or is your goal to just rub someone's nose in their lack of activism? I am calling you to a kind of activism that may actually accomplish something. Proving that someone is a hypocrite due to who they associate with is among the easier, lazier things to do in the religious world.

It will be easier to save people from bad behavior than it will be to save people from bad faith.

[seekerman]

Originally Posted by MarcBee

See, Kerman, it would be great if you would care enough to document the prevalence of the atrocities you are claiming. Then others may jump on the bandwagon after viewing the evidence you research and provide. No one is refuting the problem doesn't exist somewhere, but since you are driving toward increased activism from others, then better education would be a necessary first step, and many (not all) religious people would join in your campaign. As it stands, the perception is that it's not prevalent enough, and (thankfully) civil law intervenes in many cases. We tend to hear about the cases where it does not. But you can change that, that is, if you do some research to show evidence, such as (just for starters)
"How many Oneness ministers teach the no medicine doctrine?"
"How many generally Christian ministers teach the no medicine doctrine?"
"How many people try to go along with what it taught?"

If this is really all about saving children, then your concern should be how prevalent it is both within and without a certain sect. Or is your goal to just rub someone's nose in their lack of activism? I am calling you to a kind of activism that many actually accomplish something. Proving that someone is a hypocrite due to who they associate with is among the easier, lazier things to do in the religious world.

It will be easier to save people from bad behavior than it will be to save people from bad faith.

I'm not driving toward increased activism, I'm driving toward more discussion of the practice, wherever and whenever it exists. At the beginning of this discussion several weeks ago, there was denial that the practice existed in certain segments of oneness pentecostalism. It was met by vicious personal attacks, by calls for identifying those people by name and location, as you have done. That wasn't the issue though, that was/is just evading admiting if the practice occurred in the first place. Now it seems that it does, however infrequently. Once, twice, a hundred times...the number isn't the issue. The issue is if one should fellowship and condone those who practice such theology.

I'm not naming names, even though some here have done that very thing. What I am doing, and will continue to do, is question those who continue to support, by their fellowship, those who practice the theology which results in the suffering, and sometimes death, of innocent children. That's my contribution, be it sufficient or insufficient.

[ILG]

Originally Posted by bishoph

I have to respectfully disagree! I know there are situations like these you/others describe that do indeed happen, however the issue that I have is when you or anyone paint with a broad brush and say this is the "norm." I have come to realize that nearly ALL of us base reality on OUR reality and the things we have seen/not seen which eventually becomes our truth. It is truth, as we have experienced it and seen it. I cannot doubt your bad/good experiences because you experienced them. Each person's pain is great to them and others cannot truly judge the "realness" of the pain based on our opinion of the injury.

That said.....some of you have apparently had the misfortune to meet/be hurt by a group that is small in comparison with the size of the group as a whole. I know literally hundreds of good solid (what AFF would consider ultra-con) good men who do not cheat, lie, commit adultery, wife swap, or abuse children. So....while I do not deny that these things happen....my experience is the "good" side of the "ultra-cons."

I have also seen just as many moderate and liberal men who have cheated, lied, committed adultery, wife swapped, or abused children and I'll add another to the list....mishandled money. In fact, if I were to make a statement based on MY experiences alone, I could say that is the "norm" when people "go lib" for example. But I do not judge a group by actions of a few, rather I try to realize there are bad folks in every group because there are people involved and people can be wicked. Likewise there are good folks who would NEVER engage in said actions.

As for "ultra-con's" denial of their own doing wrong? Not on your life! (Again does it happen....of course....is it the "norm".....NO) MY experience has been.....I have seen them remove men (swiftly) and practically destroy them, (instead of trying to restore) for engaging in immorality of any kind. I know some will say "it depends on who it is" or "whose kid they are" etc....but that IMO is true regardless of the group.....mod/lib/ultra-con

I also know many good ultra con people who are godly, good people. I think you may misunderstand what the posters from "the other side" are trying to say. I think the one thing I will say is the "norm" is the tendency to brush aside questions about issues and brush aside the need for some to deal with the cognitive dissonance that is created when those in the ultra-con churches do sin. If the questioners were openly embraced and the questions openly addressed rather than the questioner made to feel bad about asking some hard questions, perhaps the questioners would not come to such conclusions. Love goes a long way. Love covers a multitude of sins. But, too often, love is not shown to the confused questioner and they are shamed for even asking. That is where this comes from as the questioner then must ask, on top of the already raging questions in their heads, why the issues are pushed up under the rug rather than addressed.

[MarcBee]

Originally Posted by seekerman

It was met by vicious personal attacks, by calls for identifying those people by name and location, as you have done.
.

So am I one of your "vicious attackers" or am I one calling for identifying people? If the first, would love to hear the quote, please.

If the second, no, not so far anyhow. I was suggesting basic research and documentation for what you are claiming, not necessarily names. But wait. In our own civil law system, intended to protect the safety of children, do not the names of charged defendants become public record? How else can a crime be tried?

If I personally knew of 5 pastors who taught the no-medicine doctrine, I would be man enough to list them all in any relevant discussion, such as "Doctrine, What They Believe." If doing so made the ministers mad--so what--we are talking about potential child abuse, correct? If you really had the hard evidence on your side, that should bring with it some confidence, instead of a long tap dance. So, please share again WHY you wish to withhold your personal knowledge of people and places? (Sorry, I haven't read whole thread. So someone will post a Dead Horse icon, I suppose.)

[MarcBee]

.....First!.....

[Abiding Now]

Originally Posted by MarcBee

So am I one of your "vicious attackers" or am I one calling for identifying people? If the first, would love to hear the quote, please.

If the second, no, not so far anyhow. I was suggesting basic research and documentation for what you are claiming, not necessarily names. But wait. In our own civil law system, intended to protect the safety of children, do not the names of charged defendants become public record? How else can a crime be tried?

If I personally knew of 5 pastors who taught the no-medicine doctrine, I would be man enough to list them all in any relevant discussion, such as "Doctrine, What They Believe." If doing so made the ministers mad--so what--we are talking about potential child abuse, correct? If you really had the hard evidence on your side, that should bring with it some confidence, instead of a long tap dance. So, please share again WHY you wish to withhold your personal knowledge of people and places? (Sorry, I haven't read whole thread. So someone will post a Dead Horse icon, I suppose.)