quote:

ORIGINAL: solarflare

Very good post, Jayvance.

quote:

ORIGINAL: jayvance

quote:

In light of what is really at stake WRT eternity these arguments are so meaningless and accomplish nothing but division.

If the comments about what Silva and Abanes have written are meaningless and accomplish nothing, why should we give any more weight to the original statements from Silva and Abanes themselves? By that standard, the things Silva orginally wrote that got Abanes up in arms were meaningless, and Abanes should have just let it go, or else responded in writing with his own meaningless comments and then let it go--which, by the way, is what I've suggested in my earlier posts that Richard would have been better off doing, in my opinion. Honestly, most of what any of us write in online forums such as these aren't nearly as important or meaningful as we'd like to think.

quote:

The RABs seem to think they have rights. The right to say anything they want w/o accountability... to character-assassinate and say reprehensible things. The reality is..... none of us has any rights.

Here again, using that logic, if the "RABs" as you call them don't have the right to say what they say, what right do YOU have to RESPOND to what they say? You see what I mean? By the yardstick you're using, not even your righteous indignation is justification for responding in anger to what the RABs are saying. If they don't have the right to speak their minds, no one else has the right to RESPOND to them, and I don't think any of us wants to go down that road, do we?

quote:

Who will be accountable for this?

The whole accountability thing is a non-issue, IMHO. We're ALL accountable to God, and make no mistake, He keeps VERY good accounts. He is perfectly capable of disciplining those who need disciplining:

"Receive one who is weak in the faith, but not to disputes over doubtful things. For one believes he may eat all things, but he who is weak eats only vegetables. Let not him who eats despise him who does not eat, and let not him who does not eat judge him who eats; for God has received him. Who are you to judge another’s servant? To his own master he stands or falls. Indeed, he will be made to stand, for God is able to make him stand. One person esteems one day above another; another esteems every day alike. Let each be fully convinced in his own mind. He who observes the day, observes it to the Lord; and he who does not observe the day, to the Lord he does not observe it. He who eats, eats to the Lord, for he gives God thanks; and he who does not eat, to the Lord he does not eat, and gives God thanks. For none of us lives to himself, and no one dies to himself. For if we live, we live to the Lord; and if we die, we die to the Lord. Therefore, whether we live or die, we are the Lord’s. For to this end Christ died and rose and lived again, that He might be Lord of both the dead and the living. But why do you judge your brother? Or why do you show contempt for your brother? For we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ. For it is written: 'As I live, says the LORD, every knee shall bow to Me, and every tongue shall confess to God.' So then each of us shall give account of himself to God. Therefore let us not judge one another anymore, but rather resolve this, not to put a stumbling block or a cause to fall in our brother’s way." (Romans 14:1-13, NKJV)

We might look at this passage and say, "Well, the issues at stake in our day are much more important than eating certain foods or not eating certain foods, etc." But the truth is that for those folks in Rome, the issue of eating or not eating foods or observing or not observing certain days were JUST AS CRITICAL in their minds as all these things we argue about now are in our minds. Yet Paul basically told them to quit worrying about what other people were doing and mind their own business!

Don't get me wrong, I'm certainly not saying that folks shouldn't have the right to speak their piece and offer their opinions. I'm glad we have that freedom. But Biblically what we DON'T have the right to do is get angry and tear into one another online or anywhere else. We should be able to discuss issues without attacking one another personally, and if we ARE attacked personally, Biblically we don't have the right to respond in kind.

quote:

Apart from paul not having the internet, he must have been wrong to say this then...

17 And their word will eat as doth a canker: of whom is Hymenaeus and Philetus; 18 Who concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is past already; and overthrow the faith of some.

quote:

ORIGINAL: GroupW

Jayvance-
Nice writing. I see you're somewhat new - I look forward to reading some more of your thoughts on these forums. You've got a nicely balanced approach to things from what I can see so far.

BT

quote:

ORIGINAL: jayvance

quote:

Apart from paul not having the internet, he must have been wrong to say this then...

17 And their word will eat as doth a canker: of whom is Hymenaeus and Philetus; 18 Who concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is past already; and overthrow the faith of some.

Paul is writing to Timothy personally (not the Ephesian church at large) regarding the church that Paul had founded, which is why he had the authority to address the subject in the first place. Paul mentions their names and identifies their error, but that's it. He doesn't demand that Timothy or anyone else take some action against them. On the contrary, notice that in the same chapter where he identifies these men who were in error, he instructs Timothy:

Not very nice, this Paul.....

Since he is writing to Tim only, i guess we can take it out of the scriptures then,,,afterall its not for us.



But avoid foolish and ignorant disputes, knowing that they generate strife. And a servant of the Lord must not quarrel but be gentle to all, able to teach, patient, in humility correcting those who are in opposition, if God perhaps will grant them repentance, so that they may know the truth, and that they may come to their senses and escape the snare of the devil, having been taken captive by him to do his will.

I simply ask if Paul's description of a "servant of the Lord" accurately represent many of the "discernment" or "accountability" ministries that have proliferated on the Internet, not to mention all the resulting "discussions" that accompany their pronouncements. Furthermore, I for one have no desire to take on the mantle of authority Paul wore, as if I were somehow qualified to judge or "hold accountable" other's people's work. Paul could address issues in the churches he founded, but in my opinion his blanket of authority by no means extends to everyone who has an Internet connection. It's one thing to express an opinion, but frankly this idea that God has called certain people to a "discernment" ministry to pass judgment on anyone and everyone in the Christian community just strikes me as arrogant. But that's just my opinion, and I certainly don't intend to call down the wrath of God on those who don't agree with me!

quote:

Not very nice, this Paul.....

quote:

Since he is writing to Tim only, i guess we can take it out of the scriptures then,,,afterall its not for us.

quote:

Since my church is not founded by Paul, i guess i can start snipping all his epistles outta me bible.....

quote:

Look whos judging now......

quote:

but frankly this idea that God has called certain people to a "discernment" ministry to pass judgment on anyone and everyone in the Christian community just strikes me as arrogant.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Doghouse

quote:

but frankly this idea that God has called certain people to a "discernment" ministry to pass judgment on anyone and everyone in the Christian community just strikes me as arrogant.

A big Amen to this statement. You see this brand of arrogance all the time in Christendom, in m humble opinion.

I just stumbled across this thread and began reading the first couple of posts. It always slays me to see how ignorant Americans are of their own constitution and laws of the land.

Free speech doesn't mean you can say anything in the world you want. You may not incite violence and riots with speech, as an example. And...you are not allowed to slander and libel.

An accusation of either one of these is pretty serious, and the prudent thing to do is to ask for a retraction or a suspension of the publication until the accusation can be investigated, or - in absence of that - take down the site.

By the way - you see "libel" on this site all the time. Its difficult to level a charge because everyone here hides behind anonymous "usernames". "Slander" is the same communication coming from a pulpit or other public forum; speech, in other words. Anytime a falsehood is perpetuated for the purpose of establishing a negative image, especially after correction from a knowledgeable authority or source, or being informed of the falsehood by someone in-the-know - that, technically, is "libel", if it is written.

When you see the statement "the views expressed by the participants here in no way are intended to reflect the views of the owners of this site..." - this statement is the first line of defense for the owners of the site to fight any libel charges for their site content. Its usually found in a TOS statement.