votes for second list

• Messages sorted by:[ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]

In a message dated 97-01-31 19:15:46 EST, you write:

> Brother, you are totally out of line bringing up something that was
apologized over 
> and made right.

This started a private communication between me and you...why did you feel
the need to bring this public?

> And who tried to interpret the whole book at once?  I, for one, have tried
to get it
> started by looking at chapter one in great detail.

Was just making an analogy. No harm intended to you or anyone else. Maybe we
could do a couple of scriptures at a a time or a topic at a time. I
understand that Revelation requires MUCH expansion, and maybe a WHOLE CHAPTER
is too much. If we were dealing with Romans or Matthew, then a chaper would
be ok.

> Since nobody else referred to overall views of Rev. I guess you must have
referred 
> to me.  So let me help you follow my reasoning as just explained.

I wasn't referring to anyone in particular. Was just voicing my views.
 
> As pointed out in public forum here, nobody accused anybody of not knowing
truth 
> because of any revelation one may feel they received.  That is dishonest
twisting.  
> As I have been stressing, keep the personal issues out of the discussion.

>From the going back and forth there was apparently some disagreement, and
from the tone, one would infer that one party felt the other was wrong.
That's the impression I got, and I'm sure I wasn't alone.
 
>> I may be totally off base on a lot of things. Everything coming through
the airways
>> is NOT a revelation from God...could be a result of too much beef stew...

> Watch your words....And you are saying this about ministers??  Any respect
here?

Again, I reiterate, I wasn't saying this to or about anyone in particular.

> Watch it, brother.  I magnify my office.

Maybe this is your whole problem. This was a private conversation between you
and me, and YOU felt the need to bring this public. As I told you in private
(when you called your self "rebuking me", I think you have a serious pride
problem, and I'm not saying this in a belittling way. My original post was
not directed at ANYONE. The context of the post was asking that there not be
a separate list.

For some reason, you felt the need to defend yourself rather than following
your own policy, and I quote from your recent post:

>>> It is a wonderful thing to "think the best" when reading someone's post
rather 
>>> than read words between the lines that are not there and feel the words
that are 
>>> there are insinuating negative things.  It is a good rule to "hope for
the best" and 
>>> think, "They must not mean that negative thought, but rather meant
nothing out 
>>> of the way."

> Your words will belittle the man of God in the eyes of younger saints. THAT
is 
> uncalled for.

I would NEVER intentionally belittle anyone either in public or private. I'm
sorry that you took my original post personally, but brother, it was NOT
directed at you or anyone else. The OTHER person didn't feel a need to attack
me concerning my original post. Maybe he saw it for what it was and didn't
read between the lines picking out something negative.

I also apologize to the entire list for this string becoming a public post.
My intention was never to belittle anyone or attack anyone, and I think if
you read my post, you will see that my main context was concerning a second
list for ministers.

I end with the following scripture:

"Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence
 to make your calling and election sure: for if ye
do these things, ye shall never fall: