And for everything else… there is also that other guy that I would identify as “The OPPOSER,” aka “The DENOUNCER of Fools”…
Yeah, I noticed that. It’s almost like someone actually playing with the audience, taking them to an emotional edge, then throwing something “relaxing” in the mix (“some actual wit!”) in order to decrease the tension. Could this be identified as a kind of bullying, or unwelcome playing with people’s emotions?
Not even “fools” deserve this kind of inconvenience…
Well…there is a psychological condition or two that it reminds me of…but, of course, you are far more expert on that than I.
Yes, the “DENOUNCER”…rofl
"and are now enjoying doing the mocking somewhere else."
I prefer to see it as a “enforced vacation”- they can commiserate and where all of their ideas and judgements can be accepted amongst their “peer” group.
Rebellion doesn’t equal correctness.
My main point in the comment I posted, was that Ellen’s description of why they were disfellowshipped, is not why the church actually disfellowshipped them. They were disfellowshipped for being part of William Miller’s date setting, which is, without question, an unbiblical thing to do. They were bringing that into the Methodist Church. In reading Ellen’s account, she says they were kicked out for preaching Jesus second coming…no, that isn’t why. To read her account, they were poor victims of the bad Methodists. The Methodist church had every biblical reason to disfellowship them. I’m sure they were counseled regarding this aberrant belief that they were promoting. Beside Ellen’s name it says “breach of discipline”.
I don’t have any issue with rebelling per se, but if what that person is doing is heretical and goes against very plain biblical teaching, then it’s foolishness.
Would your church be okay with a family who was preaching a date for Jesus to come, and wouldn’t adhere to your church asking them to stop preaching an unbiblical message? Wouldn’t it be incumbent upon the church to, at some point, tell them this won’t be allowed?
Rebelling and nonconforming, in and of itself, doesn’t make the person correct in what they are doing.
This is to register my absolute opposition to the proposal of buying our way into Africa’s good graces. I generally like Matthew’s articles, and there are some great insights in this one. But I do not like this idea of money for influence.
First, sending influence money to Africa is the opposite of a solution coming out of Africa. It would be a solution (money) coming out of North America.
Second, the idea doesn’t pass the ethical smell test with me. Engaging in a money-for-influence swap could be the result of questionable motives by both parties.
Third, I worry about a pattern of general European/American country and donor financial support for Africa over many, many decades. The flow of philanthropic money to accomplish things Africa can’t seem to accomplish on its own risks creating a dependency relationship which is not healthy. It is time, particularly in the Church setting, for Africa to stand on its own. They will figure it out.
Fourth, North America may now be one of the world’s great mission fields. We need to invest in mission here. Africa is so tempting because a few dollars goes a long way. So we send dollars. But mission dollars don’t go so far here. So we need lots of them for mission here. We are lagging in our mission in our own territory.
Let the Africans figure out Africa. We will figure out North America. That is our NAD responsiblity. Africa is not our responsibility.
First, check the “feed” on this comment for some clarification. I just feel sorry (not the right word) for those still left wondering over their Salvation. All I was trying to say, maybe a little harshly, we all need to get our s… together, because God has got his together, without measure and flowing over!!! For something that is so patently clear in Scripture, why sit around with doubt in your mind when you could be “out dancing!!” Let go, let God!! Some one help me please, can I make my point any clearer. I wish to see Lyn doing nothing more than basking in God’s glory.
I am very angry at both the statement I commented on and your condensanting bs statement and to try and call it best statement or whatever you called it when you know it’s meaning is to add salt to injury, you wanna suspend me? Be my guest. But I will not be insulted by you or anyone. Never
How can I suspend you? I do not run this site. I am just sharing with you a few aspects related to the interaction on a site like this. You do whatever you want, it’s your choice.
We enjoy you participation and the last thing we would wish is for you to be suspended. We need someone to give us another perspective of life across the pond. As I tell my patients, the best way to deal with anger is to keep quiet and allow the anger to dissipate. It will pass.
Truth sir. but reprimand should be both ways. else it will be bias
Like I stated my sister, I know for a fact that Rastara was cleared of any wrong doing. I live in S.A and was keenly following the issue.
I was really asking you about Jeremy’s posts…however, in regards to Ratsara- with the internet we can all be informed by credible sources. If he was innocent as you seem to think…why is he gone (or reassigned)?
On Jeremy, I don’t have a problem with his sources, I have a problem with his suggestion that s.a has a wife beating culture and should not be allowed to comment on w.o . On Rastara, he resigned because certain people within the “educated” organisation, which coincidentally a few days ago wrote a letter from southern Africa much in the same breath as the nad statement, these same folk condemned him without judgement and wrote a letter accusing him of dishonesty amongst other things.
Thanks for your clarification on Jeremy’s sources.
I will have to disagree with you on Ratsara. Of course, it would be most likely those at his supposed level of education who would have the wherewithal to question his credentials. Do you believe that he falsified his education or not?
He didn’t falsify his qualifications, that was never the issue. the issue was that he didn’t write the thesis for his doctrate, someone claimed they had written it for him, university of south Africa, the concerned institute did their own investigation and found no truth in the claim, hence he was cleared of any wrong doing. I cannot say he is guilty when the responsible institution say he is not
Understand your position.
The issue was his educational qualification (Doctorate) he claimed. I assume that the committee accepted the “ghost writing” of his thesis- as was reported. This would have been an ethics-breaker for his church position.
Do you believe he was “targeted” unfairly to begin with?
I have no reason to reprimand you. I’m sure you know what is right from wrong. I’m suggesting ways to “cool your steam off.”
Hahahaha sister Green, I don’t know. I can’t say. I prefer discussing ideas etc not hearsay. It’s dangerous