Conference yukon::christian_v7

>I had thought hate the sin,
>love the sinner was something that is supposed to be followed?
    
    Is this something you personally think should be followed?
    
    To me, this sounds like something that came from, and belongs in,
    SOAPBOX.
    
    Mark L.

This sort of thinking is what leads to situations like Northern Ireland. 
"They're bad, so we'll wipe them out."  It doesn't square well with "If
someone smites you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also."

It really brings in the much larger question - are we as Christians ever to
fight?  Is pacifism the rule for us?  I think you'd get agreement from nearly
everyone that Christ would not have us bombing Greenpeace.  But take the
other extreme - someone is attacking you, or your spouse or children, with
the intent to seriously harm or kill them.  It is in your power to stop them,
but only by violence - do you do it?  What would Christ have us do there? 
Most people would use violence in such a situation - I know I would, although
I'm not 100% sure that's what Christ would want.  What about situations in
the middle somewhere?

Paul

    .0
    
    Sounds like you're very preoccupied with this man's walk.  I believe
    God's word says that when we become looking at the sin in someone elses
    life, we most likely missed the beam in our own eye.
    
    Nancy

Regarding .2  (not .0)

God's judgment.

God's judgment doesn't happen lightly, nor quickly, nor at a whim.
Consider Sodom.  Do you think Abraham caused God to pause and reconsider 
what He was about to do to Sodom and Gamorrah?  Au contraire.

Abraham's intercession was God's revelation of the lengths God was willing
to go to spare Sodom, and the revelation of righteous judgment that God was 
to dispatch against Sodom.  Abraham interceded, and at the time one might 
think that prayer intervened (on Lot's behalf at least).  But instead, 
Abraham's prayer revealed that God was righteous in His judgment, and 
that God had compassion for the people of Sodom, but the sin was so far gone 
that destruction was the *only* recourse left.  God said he would spare
that great city for ten righteous people - there were not ten in that 
whole city.  Jesus said, "Jerusalem, jerusalem!  How often I have wanted to 
gather you to me... but ye would not!"

Sometimes we see God's destructive power and fault God for not being
understanding or more compassionate, not extending that last chance to
repent, not going as far as we think an infinite God should.  Sometimes
we are fools to speak for God and as Job, we should clasp our hands 
over our mouths.

Addressing the bombing and other issues, we need to remember that judgment
belongs to God.  There are battles for us to fight, but it is not against
flesh and blood.  I suspect more that the person in .0 was given to
hyperbole in describing their distate for Green Peace and is not involved
in a plot of any sort.  As for what Christians should and should not do
and be, that definition is found only in Christ, (who incidently said
about himself that the Scriptures testify of Him).  Some Christians are
imperfect and being perfected; some only think calling themself Christian
makes it so.  

MM

    Glen,
    
    I can't help but be amazed by your guile.  
    
    Readership, in the context of a political debate I indeed used
    hyperbole to express my distaste for Greepeace (calling them a
    terrorist organization and supporting any government action taken
    against them, even bombing them (as had been done at some point)).
    
    Glen and at least one other unbelieving zealot felt this was
    "unChristian" of me.
    
    I am amazed sometimes at the pretense of those like Glen.  They reject
    the Bible, they reject tradition, they rail at God but we're supposed
    to listen and take heed to them in matters of faith and Christianity!
    
    Glen, for the record, I'm still amazed at the lengths you'll go to.
    
    jeff

Oh!  The story comes out!  Why am I not surprised?

Yes, I too suspected that there was more than met the eye in .0, and that it
was a set up of some sort.  Actually, "suspect" is too weak a term, I was
almost sure it was a setup.  But I get concerned sometimes that because of
Glen's history, if he ever does ask a question that he's actually seeking an
answer to, we won't listen.  So though I will no longer "yell at the italian
waiter" when he brings certain subjects up, I will continue to give him the
benefit of the doubt in other situations.  Taken out of context as it I knew
it was, I answered his question seriously.

Glen, God too will continue giving you second chances, and tenth chances, and
thousandth chances.  But He will not give you infinite chances.  One of those
chances that He gives you, unbeknownst to you at the time, will be your last
one.

Paul

! <<< Note 380.7 by EVMS::PAULKM::WEISS "Trade freedom for His security-GAIN both" >>>

! answer to, we won't listen.  So though I will no longer "yell at the italian
! waiter" when he brings certain subjects up, I will continue to give him the
    	Ahhh! I am shocked! ;^)  Are you slighting the Italian waiters of
    the world?! ;^) (wink wink nod nod) How dare you! I suppose you even
    raise your voice at others who do not speak english ONLY!  ;^)
    
     tsk tsk tsk tsk ;^) tsk tsk tsk,
    
      PDM_pure_breed_Italian_and_proud_of_being_a_waiter_;^P prprrffftt
    

	Jeff, very good! I love the way you present yourself in this file, and
the way you present yourself over in SB. In one file you try to come off as
loving, and in the other you seem to be more like yourself. Funny how that
works.

	BTW, if you read the basenote you should see it was a genuine question
I had. If it was the so called "set up" as some have claimed, then I would have
not only mentioned Jeff's name, but would also have told you where I read it,
and the exact note. I didn't think WHO it was was the important thing here. I
did think what I read IS. But one thing that does puzzle me is how come when
you find out it is a member in this file that you all of a sudden think "set
up", what have you, but beforehand you see it differently? Hmmm... 

	It ain't a set up, and I didn't go to any length to do it. You people
really amaze me somethimes with yer tanacity....


Glen

    Mind taking this off-line (see Matt. 18)?

Matthew 18 applies to brothers, not neighbors.  Care to comment, Steve?

 MODERATOR REQUEST:



 Please take it to mail or SOAPBOX



 

    Mark,
    
    See message off-line in mail...

Mark asked me here and off-line why I quoted Matt. 18 for Glen's benefit 
since Matt. 18 is a process by which brothers resolve disputes.  His 
question ultimately revolves around whether one considers Glen a brother.

I have written a rather lenghty note to Glen off-line and told him I had to 
clarify something here as well.  

I was originally going to write a very long response here publically
before quoting Matt. 18, but opted not to.  The response was going to
discuss how Glen's claim to be a believer and his public probing
(accusation) were as inconsistent as he was making Jeff out to be.  The
response was going to discuss how Glen's continued rejection of the Truth
of the Word combined with his continued failure to agree with the Word
about a particular sin is also inconsistent with his claim to be a believer.

However - I entered none of that, and just opted to put in the Matt. 18 
quote to provoke some thinking.

I know many believers who genuinely struggle with given flesh-patterns 
(read: sin).  Perhaps all believers have this struggle in varying degrees 
from time to time (though we should not sin).  These believers *agonize* over 
their failure to take evil thoughts captive and accept His "escape route" 
(Icor 10:13).  These believers are truly sorry for yielding their members to 
the power of sin (Rom. 6).  These believers readily confess these actions 
as sinful, desire to RUN in the opposite direction of sin, agree with His 
view of the matter, and receive His forgiveness and cleansing from all 
unrighteousness (1John 1:9).

From my understanding of Scripture, it is *impossible* for a *true* believer, 
who has the Messiah living in him, to continually and willfully;

	- choose sin without remorse
	- deny the authority of the Word (that Word, by the way, which 
	  became flesh and dwelt among us - how can one follow Him and
	  deny the very Word He embodies?)
	- ignore the counsel of other believers who also have the Messiah 
	  living in them, and,
	- by so doing, become hostile to the true Good News and offer a 
	  "gospel" of man's bondage as opposed to G-d's freedom

Whether one in such a state is "reprobate" is not mine to know.  But it is 
mine to know that I'm not to have fellowship with one who claims to be a 
believer with his words but denies that claim with his life.  And to 
clarify, I'm not talking about disfellowshipping someone for sinning from 
time to time or for disagreeing over "disputable matters".  

True repentence is the goal of pointing out a sin to a brother or sister, and 
a true believer will receive that rebuke graciously and desire to follow 
Scipture.  Repeated refusal to deal with the reality of sin is not the 
response of a true believer.  The Bible (which is G-d's very Word and is to 
be trusted whether we feel good about it or not) is clear on that matter.

Steve

	Steve, nice notes, both in here and the one you sent me. There is one
thing that I am going to say in this notesfile. REGARDLESS of whether you view
me as a brother or not is and should not justify what Jeff wrote. It would seem
from the responses that because I wrote it, I am now the "bad guy". What would
really be funny if it wasn't so sad is without a name, people wrote true
responses. Like I said the name was left off because it isn't the person, but
the action that was being questioned. But I do wonder if the same results would
have happened to someone who was considered a brother wrote the same note word 
for word. My gut feel tells me that the response would be different. So you can
see that the sad part is both notes would say the same thing, but because one
is written by someone who you feel is not a brother, different responses are
the outcome. 

	But let's look at it from your point of view. You don't consider me a
brother because of my beliefs. But then you go on to say that because I am not
considered a brother, that I should not point out actions that are wrong.
Especially when in this case I asked question about the actions that took place
to get responses as to whether this is a good approach to take or not. I got
the impression, and please correct me if I am wrong, that anyone who is not
considered a brother should not inform those who believe they are brothers if
their actions are viewed or questioned as sins. IF this is the case, then you
have amazed me more than any other time in this file. Please, if you would,
clear this up for me.


Thanks,

Glen

    .15
    
    Glen,
    
    Quite frankly I believe my response to your note is still valid to
    those questioning your salvation.  Whilst we all can look to the word
    as Steve has done, and see *evidence* as the Bible has proclaimed and
    try to discern the spirit behind an individual, it is not ours to JUDGE
    that person's belief.  It is only ours to discern for personal
    involvement with that individual.
    
    I may even have my doubts Glen as to your true spiritual countenance,
    but I have absolutely no RIGHT to JUDGE your heart... that is God's
    place.  I can only discern how to be wise in answering your words.
    
    May God's Light be in your life,
    Nancy

      From reading .0, I could not in honesty claim to know what
      motivated the reply.  Thus, I would err on the side of caution
      and take it at face value.  (Rather than 'read into it' some
      certain motivation of the heart - which motivation only God 
      really can know.)
    
                                                 Tony

	Thanks Tony. :-)


Glen

    Glen,
    
    I think you took the note in question a bit too literally and
    seriously.  Lighten up a bit, dude.  8^)
    
    As to your relationship with God...only you and God know the complete
    truth behind it.  By your notes entered in here and in SOAPBOX, it
    looks like you have a bone to pick with Christianity- and particularly
    the Bible, as it does not agree with some of your beliefs.  
    
    Please consider that the truth of the Bible is revealed to those who
    truly and continually seek the truth.  We don't all come
    to God in the same fashion...I took a wild 'n willy path to find Jesus,
    but I can see looking back at my past, why it took so long for me to
    understand.  My lifestyle didn't agree with the Bible, nor did my
    thougts.  I searched for any reason to believe the Bible was not truly
    God's word, as I thought it would be impossible for me to follow this
    "stuffy" doctrine which went against so many things society had
    ingrained in me.
    
    Truth won out in the end, as I was convicted of things I never thought
    I'd be able to accept.  And you know what?  It's not nearly as hard as
    I thought it would be.  God gave me the strength not only to continue
    seeking Him, but in accepting Him and following Him.
    
    I'm by no means an example Christian for others to follow, but am an
    example of God's faithfulness and patience. 
    
    I truly pray that God convicts you of truths that are holding you back
    spiritually.  I'm saying this as a person who is still learning and is
    still finding out how many things hold him back in his spiritual life. 
    
    Peace in Him,
    
    -steve 

Glen, I would have responded in exactly the same way regardless of who wrote
the note, and I think you know that.  I answered the question you asked, as
best I could.  Your authorship did make me wonder about the context more than
I might have if someone else posted the note, but I responded as if the
context were sufficient.  I still don't have complete context, but I have
come to understand that the context you gave was incomplete.  If you notice,
in my response after Jeff posted his note, I didn't say anything about
changing my mind about your question.  I'd need to talk to Jeff directly to 
more fully understand his position, but I may very well disagree with him.

Given that I was the ONLY person to give a response to your question, and
given what you know about me from more than a year's worth of interaction,
for you say that "without a name, people wrote true responses"(.15), implying
that I'd respond differently if I knew who it was, is not justified.

You say:

>how come when
>you find out it is a member in this file that you all of a sudden think "set
>up", what have you, but beforehand you see it differently? Hmmm... 

Again, if you note my response, I thought it was a set-up when I first read
it, not when I found out who you were talking about.  In fact, I started to
write a response to your note, then thought "he's just setting us up,
somehow," and deleted the note I was writing.  I later decided that I'd
answer your question even if you WERE setting us up, as if you weren't, and
wrote my response.

Why did I think "set up?"  Simple.  You hardly ever write anything in this
conference except things which can in some way either diminish the authority
of the Bible or show us how judgemental we are.  You KNOW that I seek to hear
your voice when and if you ever ask real questions or make other
contributions, but you hardly ever do.  So when I read your question, one of
my thoughts was "This is probably someone we know, quoted out of context,"
that you were hoping to get our judgement of him so that you could then
unmask who it was and point out how judgemental we are.  And surprise! that's
exactly what you did.  I've seen this sort of thing from you before, such as
when you posted a very judgemental note in the "Don't give an appearance of
evil" string just to get a rise out of us.

I don't buy the "I just wanted to know about the question, not the person"
statement.  It may be true, but a moment's thought would have told you that
this wasn't the best way to go about it.  You know Jeff would see the note
here, you know Jeff would know you were talking about him, you know he would
add context if there was context to add.  So why not ask the question
directly, and ask him to provide more context as to why he said that, or if
he even meant what you thought he said?

Paul

    Exactly, Paul.  Well said, except that you were not the only one who
    responded.  I also responded in .4, though originally to .2 (see last
    paragraph regarding the "bombing" comment; it's on the record).
    
    I did not know about whom Glen was asking but postulated that the
    comment about bombing was likely "hyperbole."  This shows granting
    benefit of the doubt until and unless more information is known.  And
    we got more information, didn't we?
    
    With Glen's history, he either has an extreme lack of tact and skill at
    getting opinions on something about which he is genuinely curious (and
    if this be the case he has done an abysmal job at attempting to 
    ameliorate that lack), or he has a continued interest in "things which
    can in some way either diminish the authority of the Bible or show us
    how judgemental we are." (.20 Paul Weiss)
    
    If you claim the former, Glen, then please get a clue; if the latter,
    get a new host.
    
    Mark
    

I know you responded, Mark.  But since you explicitly said:

>Regarding .2  (not .0)

I assumed you were responding to me, not to Glen.

Paul

re: Note 380.15                        

Hi Glen,

>	Steve, nice notes, both in here and the one you sent me. 

Thanks.  I'm glad for this, but I hope they serve more of a purpose than just 
being "nice notes".  They're *harsh* notes, Glen - with things that must be 
hard for you to listen to...but I do hope you'll listen.  "If *today* you 
hear His voice, don't harden your heart."

>REGARDLESS of whether you view me as a brother or not [...] should not 
>justify what Jeff wrote. 

I'm not discussing with you what Jeff wrote.  I'm discussing the way you
attemtped to handle it.  (I think I have since seen what Jeff wrote in 
SOAPBOX).  If I'm upset with something Jeff wrote, it is up to me to contact 
Jeff privately and find out what he meant by what he wrote. That is how 
brothers handle disputes.  It's the principle in Matt. 18 (though in context, 
it's specifically related to a brother sinning against another brother). 

>but because one
>is written by someone who you feel is not a brother, different responses are
>the outcome. 

Your judgement is without knowledge.  There are at least 4 (perhaps more?)
brothers/sisters that have written notes in this conference that I have
taken exception to and forwarded those notes and my concern to them
privately - any one of which will tell you I've written similar things to
them.  Some of those notes bothered me for the same exact reason yours did.
I have been contacted off-line when notes I've entered have bothered someone.  
Not only is this Biblical, it's the rule of this conference (see 2.*). 

You are not always the victim of unfair treatment, Glen (though there does 
seem to be a sort of "conditioning" that's taken place in this file based on 
historical patterns of interchange with you, I'll grant you that much).

>	But let's look at it from your point of view. You don't consider me a
>brother because of my beliefs. 

You don't understand my point of view.  What you claim as your beliefs 
makes me want to consider you my brother in the L-rd.  What you continually 
affirm with your deinal of the Word, rejection of G-d's authority in your 
life, refusal to accept the counsel of Spirit-filled believers, etc., 
suggests to me (based on the Bible) that I must think otherwise.  I won't 
provide quotes for you because you won't accept them as valid.

>But then you go on to say that because I am not
>considered a brother, that I should not point out actions that are wrong.

See my earlier response.  I entered Matt. 18 to provoke you to think about 
the fact that you were questioning how one could claim to be a believer but 
then write something in a file that wasn't very "Christian".  That's pot & 
kettle and if you read Matt. 18, you'd have understood why I said it.

>I got
>the impression, and please correct me if I am wrong, that anyone who is not
>considered a brother should not inform those who believe they are brothers if
>their actions are viewed or questioned as sins. 

Like I said, I didn't enter the long note I was going to enter.  I hope my 
previous reply clears it up for you.

>IF this is the case, then you
>have amazed me more than any other time in this file. Please, if you would,
>clear this up for me.

I don't know if this helps you or not.  The point is simply this: you 
questioned the faith of someone based on something he wrote.  Yet you 
(claiming to be a believer) did something as questionable as the action you 
were questioning in the first place, again - pot/kettle.  Seeing how this 
wouldn't be the first time you were nominated for a "Pot and Kettle Award" 
(ref. SOAPBOX ;-), my note shouldn't have amazed you - but if it's still not 
clear, please feel free to write me.

Steve

	If I HAD used Jeff's name in this file, would people thought I was out
to attack him? By NOT using his name in this file, doesn't it make it clear
that it was the action that I had a problem with and NOT the person? 

	Now while in THIS notesfile Jeff had something to say, why didn't he
add any type of disclaimer in SB? Anyone who reads it who hasn't read what Jeff
wrote in here isn't going to understand jack. 

	As far as me commenting on anything good in here, I have done that. It
doesn't work. If I agree with something I just do that, agree. I get the same
results either way, so why take a double wammy?

	Mark, you are one to talk about how one presents themselves in notes.



Glen

> If I HAD used Jeff's name in this file, would people thought I was out
> to attack him? 

That depends entirely on how you wrote the note.  (Well, not quite ENTIRELY.
You do have your history here to contend with :-).  If you didn't write it as
an attack, then there would be no reason to take it as such.  Suppose you had
written a note here, addressed yourself directly to Jeff and said something
to the effect of: "Jeff, from what I could tell from what you wrote in note
nnn.nn in SOAPBOX, it seemed that you were advocating bombing Greenpeace. 
I've extracted the whole note and posted it as reply .1 to this note, so I
hope I have the full context of what you said.  I don't understand it, and I
can't reconcile it with Christ's command to love our enemies and turn the
other cheek.  Could you elaborate on exactly what it is you meant so that we
can discuss it here in a Christian forum?"  Whatever people may have thought,
I don't think it would have been percieved as an attack on Jeff.

>By NOT using his name in this file, doesn't it make it clear
>that it was the action that I had a problem with and NOT the person? 

No, it really doesn't make it clear.  I can see where you would think so, and
it would if we didn't know the person at all and the person would not read
the note in this file.  But the fact that Jeff would be here and you knew
that really does change the way it is percieved.  It lends an air of Nathan
telling David the story about "a certain man" who took his neighbor's sheep
so that he could whammy David with David's own judgement.  I'll accept your
word that you did not mean it that way, but can you see how it would appear
that way?

Paul

	Paul, I understand where you are coming from on this. But one thing to
try and understand, if I were to mention anyone's name, tell people where they
could read their note (as I don't think I can copy their note without their
permission) then it looks like I am going after him. I tried to use the
approach that I thought would give the meaning of what I was saying with the
least amount of hassle. I guess that can't be done.

	Oh, I meant to write this in the last note, but in CP I comment on
people's notes and noting style a lot more than in here. It's just easier over
there....


Glen

Note 380.24  DEMING::SILVA

>	Mark, you are one to talk about how one presents themselves in notes.

Isaiah 5:20  Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put
darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and
sweet for bitter!

In other words, that you think so, encourages me.  And the "you" here 
is specific.  In a court of judgment, if we weighed our words against 
the Truth, I don't have a fear.  But saying the same thing doesn't
make it so.  We can both point at the different things and call it "good"
but one of us is in for woe.  Catch a clue before it it too late.

MM

	Mark, you don't have a fear because you don't have a clue....

Here's a clue:

This is probably not the place to be speculating on who does, or does not,
have one of these.

Paul

 
 
  I am write locking this topic.  It has been requested that personal attacks
 be left out of the discussion, however it would appear that we cannot refrain
 from them.  



 Jim Co Mod