A Word of Caution

[Baron1710]

Originally Posted by Esther

PP I'm really amazed you couldn't understand the intent of my post.

First of all no where did I imply that any person is equal to the Ark. I am glad that most understood the principal the Lord gave me last night.

1. That the man saw the Ark about to fall.
2. His intentions were good in not wanting the Ark to fall.
3. He touched what God said NOT to touch!

This was not to single out DA but to make sure he read it because HE is the one that kept repeately coming to my mind during service last night.

I know DA gets on some folks nerves, but I believe he is young and intelligent and has a lot to offer. It was not to cast stones at him, but to try and help him, but not only him but ALL of US.

And just for consideration, if we want to discuss the issues then why do we name names? Or can we honestly say it is more than the ISSUES?

To be consistent with your message shouldn't you have sent this message to him privately?

[Esther]

Originally Posted by Baron1710

To be consistent with your message shouldn't you have sent this message to him privately?

If he had responded to me privately I would have responded privately.

But you are right it is very easy on a forum to not keep a right spirit.

And then that would have been you should have sent this to me PM.

See how easy we ALL do this?

[SDG]

The ironies ...

There's always a good peanut brittle discussion on GNC.

Esther, how could you respond to me privately if I responded to you privately?? ... when you haven't contacted me privately???

I appreciate the free publicity .... for what it's worth.

This has got be the 3rd public calling out VIA THREAD TITLE this last week ...

Scorecard for those keeping track:

Dedicated Mind (2)
Esther (1)

Generic titles work best, Esther. A bit of advice.

Appreciate the Word ... it's always for me ...

hope you gleaned something yourself.

BTW, JR Ensey, Steve and I ... are on the same page about IB's approach to prophecy ... and have said so publicly.

[Baron1710]

Originally Posted by Esther

If he had responded to me privately I would have responded privately.

But you are right it is very easy on a forum to not keep a right spirit.

And then that would have been you should have sent this to me PM.

See how easy we ALL do this?

No, actually I don't see.

LS made public statements, and I think the Biblical model is public stand against such destructive teachings, as Paul did with Peter.

Your statement on the other hand indicated that because LS was who he was it should be done privately. Because of the position you took it would seem, to be consistent, while calling out another minister, you should have done it privately.

Now if you have my view that a public statement should meet with a public rebuke, then it doesn't need to be private.

All that being said I don’t have a problem with you calling Daniel out if those are your views I just find it inconsistent with the point you were making.

[SDG]

Such public stands are brushed aside when it's TD Jakes, the Munseys, Todd Bently, or those DREADED trinitarians .... then all bets are off and so are the gloves. Esther,your concerned seems to be just about "our soldiers" ( a notion you've expressed in various thread).

We all have our favorites, Esther .... If IB and LS are yours ... you don't have to reject them. Nor has anyone asked you too.

However on a discussion forum of this sort .... we have spoken at length ... and pontificated to death on teachings we have issue w/

.... that such teachings are attached to real people ... this is where it gets dicey and emotional.

I still appreciate your pastoral like concern for me and others .... I know it's rooted in sincerity.

[Esther]

Originally Posted by Baron1710

No, actually I don't see.

LS made public statements, and I think the Biblical model is public stand against such destructive teachings, as Paul did with Peter.

Your statement on the other hand indicated that because LS was who he was it should be done privately. Because of the position you took it would seem, to be consistent, while calling out another minister, you should have done it privately.

Now if you have my view that a public statement should meet with a public rebuke, then it doesn't need to be private.

All that being said I don’t have a problem with you calling Daniel out if those are your views I just find it inconsistent with the point you were making.

Again you miss the point it is NOT about LS.

[Esther]

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

Such public stands are brushed aside when it's TD Jakes, the Munseys, Todd Bently, or those DREADED trinitarians .... then all bets are off and so are the gloves. Esther,your concerned seems to be just about "our soldiers".

We all have our favorites, Esther .... If IB and LS are yours ... you don't have to reject them. Nor has anyone asked you too.

However on a discussion forum of this sort .... we have spoken at length ... and pontificated to death on teachings we have issue w/

.... that such teachings are attached to real people ... this is where it gets dicey and emotional.

I still appreciate your pastoral like concern for me and others .... I know it's rooted in sincerity.

DA it is not about LS and IB, those I used because those are RECENT that I recall. The PRINCIPAL is what I was trying to share and not just for YOU but ALL of US, myself included.

IF I did not feel it so strongly last night I would not have said anything at all. But I felt I would have been wrong to not share what I felt I must.

I love both LS and IB, but I do not agree with all their teachings.

IF it is really the ISSUES we are talking about why do we name the offenders? Why don't we just discuss the issues?

Thanks DA for keeping a good spirit about this.

[Rico]

Esther, I got the point you are making. No worries, Sister.

[Esther]

Originally Posted by Rico

Esther, I got the point you are making. No worries, Sister.

Thanks Rico.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

Such public stands are brushed aside when it's TD Jakes, the Munseys, Todd Bently, or those DREADED trinitarians .... then all bets are off and so are the gloves. Esther,your concerned seems to be just about "our soldiers" ( a notion you've expressed in various thread).

We all have our favorites, Esther .... If IB and LS are yours ... you don't have to reject them. Nor has anyone asked you too.

However on a discussion forum of this sort .... we have spoken at length ... and pontificated to death on teachings we have issue w/

.... that such teachings are attached to real people ... this is where it gets dicey and emotional.

I still appreciate your pastoral like concern for me and others .... I know it's rooted in sincerity.

Daniel,
I don't really like getting into these type of discussion because they make me feel very upset, but I want to make a point, nonetheless.

You started a thread entitled, "D. Bernard shares his thoughts about HolyMagicHair".

Now why would you title your thread in that manner? Why couldn't you say, "D. Bernard addresses I Cor 11". That seems the more gentlemanly and respectful wording.

Some of your threads come across as caustic, angry and accusing. I don't think it's right of you to say that Brother Bernard believes in the "magic hair", because I know that he doesn't.

So, along with Esther's thoughts - I believe we should represent our line of questioning and conversation in a more scholarly fashion. It's just the proper Christian thing to do.

And for the record, I am also against Mark posting his National Enquirer Newsflashes. I believe it is childish and reeks of gossip, which is a sin.

I will also add that I am in the UPC by God's design and I am in His will. I haven't always agreed with everything, but I can say that if I came on a public forum spewing out what I don't agree with, I believe I would be fighting against God. There are better ways of going about things.

So, there, for all it's worth. I might as well throw in on this too!