Community Chapel, Seattle Wa

Originally Posted by Stonewall

There was misinformation about this church on the thread about the abuse suffered by Sister Beezer.

It was stated that CC was not oneness and was orignally an AoG church.

Both of these assertions are false. CC was from the beginning an independent Oneness Pentecostal church.

Much thanks to you & Walk & Talk for coming on and showing that my statement about CC being Oneness Pentecostal was indeed true. Hopefully you will not be assigned some wrongful ulterior motive for stating they were as happened to me by one here.

To Prax, I believe some of the skeptical comments concerning Beezer's story were not questions trying to look into the veracity or lack thereof, but instead just shared they weren't believing the story. I *think* that may be what Stonewall was trying to point out. Instead of first trying to see if there was truth to it, it was pretty much dismissed in a post or two, though if I correctly recall, some views changed. For instance one posted: "In the words of the late and esteemed J Yohe, I remain doubtful Thomas, I have real skepticism if this story is true, sorry don't mean to ruin the pity party. I either think someone is twisting a leg, or spinning a tall tale." That was the entire post. No inquiries, just a dismissal of the story. (Sorry, keith, but yours was the first example I found.)

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Stonewall

Bad application of a good Scripture.




You asked one (1) question. You disagree with my answer. So be it.

I didn't denounce skepticism, or suggest it should never be exercised publicly. My salient point was that NO HARM would come from first seeking private corroboration.

If the accusations are false, the accuser should (ideally) be subjected to the same consequences as the accused would be if they were true.

If the accusations have merit, the victim may have been needlessly traumatized just because someone insists on shooting first and asking questions later.

No Scripture proscribes the kind of caution I have advocated.

You didn't give a reason why, you just gave more assertions.

No harm would come from seeking public corroboration either. Skepticism is not the same thing as blaming the victim or attacking the person. You seem to have suggested they are. The scripture I gave indeed backs up my point. Paul was not offended that they sought to prove his words. Skepticism is not personal attacks and if someone takes honest inquirer as an insult then they will still take it as an insult in PM too.

[Steve Epley]

Well hate to burst your bubble but I am not yet convinced. I remember we had this discussion and someone placed their beliefs on the whatever forum we was discussing this on and it wasn't Oneness and we had both so-called members claiming both it was and it was not. Someone can come on a forum and claim anything. I would like to see some documentation then I will say uncle NOT until.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Sarge

Much thanks to you & Walk & Talk for coming on and showing that my statement about CC being Oneness Pentecostal was indeed true. Hopefully you will not be assigned some wrongful ulterior motive for stating they were as happened to me by one here.

To Prax, I believe some of the skeptical comments concerning Beezer's story were not questions trying to look into the veracity or lack thereof, but instead just shared they weren't believing the story. I *think* that may be what Stonewall was trying to point out. Instead of first trying to see if there was truth to it, it was pretty much dismissed in a post or two, though if I correctly recall, some views changed. For instance one posted: "In the words of the late and esteemed J Yohe, I remain doubtful Thomas, I have real skepticism if this story is true, sorry don't mean to ruin the pity party. I either think someone is twisting a leg, or spinning a tall tale." That was the entire post. No inquiries, just a dismissal of the story. (Sorry, keith, but yours was the first example I found.)

I still don't see a problem with someone giving their public opinion to a public topic on a public thread. People should know better that if they did not want public scrutiny they should NOT go public at all. Anyone can say their opinion that they don't believe all the stated facts. If the person knows what they say is true then what difference does it make if someone does not believe them? My goodness...I wish I could make everyone believe every word I say. It's just not going to happen.

But personal insults are another issue. At what point do we stop saying things public and go PM anymore for fear of offending someone? You know there are some here that are offended at spiritualabuse site? My opinion? Too bad for them. Just ignore it if then don't like it, but do we hide that site because of someone elses sensibilities?

Any one comment here might offend someone and if just one person, do we now hide those comments in private? I think that's unreasonable.

The person posting their report knew this was public...they apparently have posted on other forums and so should know what to expect.

BTW true skepticism is open minded...they doubt but are open to proof.

maybe how some folks put it was tacky, but I do not agree a persons opinion because it is skeptical or doubtful of someone elses claim should be private. Remember that when people here post they are not just posting to one person but for everyone to read. If the issue is hurt feelings, as the author here suggested it seemed...then why suggest they tell that person in private too? It might still hurt their feelings

Originally Posted by Steve Epley

Well hate to burst your bubble but I am not yet convinced. I remember we had this discussion and someone placed their beliefs on the whatever forum we was discussing this on and it wasn't Oneness and we had both so-called members claiming both it was and it was not. Someone can come on a forum and claim anything. I would like to see some documentation then I will say uncle NOT until.

I rather doubt anyone will suffer loss if you don't believe that our former church was Oneness. I do think that going there for 10+ years, and accumulating over two years of study at their bible college...it might be possible I would know about our Christology.

You won't find a former member claiming CC wasn't Oneness. Perhaps you are thinking of a certain former member who is no longer Oneness himself. He and I participated in the discussion to which I think you refer.

ccgathering.net The forum is closing soon, but you can listen to audio of what was taught at the church.

[Walk and Talk]

Originally Posted by Steve Epley

Well hate to burst your bubble but I am not yet convinced. I remember we had this discussion and someone placed their beliefs on the whatever forum we was discussing this on and it wasn't Oneness and we had both so-called members claiming both it was and it was not. Someone can come on a forum and claim anything. I would like to see some documentation then I will say uncle NOT until.

Since the church collapsed 20 years ago, I don't know how to obtain documentation for you. You might try: http://keithswebpages.com/unfoldingdocs.htm

HOWEVER, there is an effort to place all the Bible College classes online. Obviously, these classes tell all because you would hear for yourself what we were all taught. Many of the classes, but not yet all, are available at http://biblecollege.ccgathering.net/ . If you look under "Doctrinal Theology" and then click on the listings for "Unfolding Revelation of God."
That is the class that taught the Oneness of God. The class was in several parts: Introduction, UROG 2, and UROG 3 (UROG = Unfolding Revelation of God), and others. You will see from the list on the left that a couple of the UROG courses have yet to be made available.

You can also find classes at: http://keithswebpages.com/unfolding/index.htm

These classes are presented by two different Bible College teachers at differing times. SO, if you don't like listening to one of the teachers, you can go and listen to the other teacher.

BTW - all the posted classes are available for anyone wanting to learn the various subjects.

I hope this helps.

Originally Posted by Steve Epley

I would like to see some documentation then I will say uncle NOT until.

http://www.ccgathering.net/ccotl/urogfree/UROG01.mp3

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Steve Epley

Well hate to burst your bubble but I am not yet convinced. I remember we had this discussion and someone placed their beliefs on the whatever forum we was discussing this on and it wasn't Oneness and we had both so-called members claiming both it was and it was not. Someone can come on a forum and claim anything. I would like to see some documentation then I will say uncle NOT until.

I'm not closely familiar with the church but their Bible "inserts" and other lit read just like OP literature.

http://www.ccgathering.net/publicati...ibleInsert.PDF

Originally Posted by Praxeas

I still don't see a problem with someone giving their public opinion to a public topic on a public thread. People should know better that if they did not want public scrutiny they should NOT go public at all.

Absolutely. I fully agree with you. I wouldn't recommend anyone yet hurting to share something like that on an open board where anyone can post. It's not a real safe place to do so.

If the person knows what they say is true then what difference does it make if someone does not believe them?

None, really. The point of the initial post I believe was to not unnecessarily hurt someone yet hurting. However, as you stated, when something like this is posted in a public forum, one has to realize they probably will receive posts such as this. If a person isn't yet ready for it, it's best to not share in this manner.

But personal insults are another issue. At what point do we stop saying things public and go PM anymore for fear of offending someone? You know there are some here that are offended at spiritualabuse site? My opinion? Too bad for them. Just ignore it if then don't like it, but do we hide that site because of someone elses sensibilities?

You make a good point. There is a difference between offending someone without intending to do so and deliberately doing such.

Any one comment here might offend someone and if just one person, do we now hide those comments in private? I think that's unreasonable.

I agree. I agree with you more than you seem to realize. Hopefully that does not offend you. (couldn't resist)

[Thad]

Hi sarge
remember me??
good to have you back on the forum.

have you kept in touch w/sis Beezer?? we haven't seen her around in nearly 3 weeks