We Who? Re: An Apostolic Declaration for the Third Millenium 1
"Tyler Nally" (tnally@iquest.net)
Fri, 26 Mar 1999 16:51:34 -0500
Sis Yohnk scribeth...
>On Fri, 26 Mar 1999 13:59:53 -0500 "Tyler Nally" <tnally@iquest.net>
>writes:
>
>>I think the first paragraph where you stated ... "Your primary
>>concern
>>is not".... "Your primary concern is not".... "Your primary concern
>>is
>>not" .... shows that you're trying to tear down the man rather than
>>building him up. Now, whether the motive is to *flush out the skunk*
>>or *to correct a brother*, determines whether it's done in a loving
>>manner. Right now, I don't know what the motives are.
>
>"Shows that you're trying to tear him
>down"....................................................................
>.........................................................................
>.........................................................................
>.........................................................................
>.............................................. Whose words were these in
>the beginning?............................
>From what I gather by another moderator, evidently Bro Starcher said
these earlier in the week. Right now, I couldn't tell you the day that
it appeared as I've only just today tried to digest what's been posted
on H-F throughout the week. I was out all day Wednesday in Atlanta,
and was hurried prior to that for Monday-Tuesday and have been hurried
on Thursday, and just now things are letting up at work just enough to
let me read the different postings.
I read the post on it's own merit not knowing that what was posted
previously was posted. To me, it doesn't make a difference whether
it was said earlier in the week as a remark like that shouldn't have
made it to the list in the first place. I'm trying to deal with this
occurance of this remark you posted.
How was Bro Starchers post handled (when he said what you turned back
towards him)? Were examples given to show that his premise was skewed?
Did ya'll say ... "Now waitaminute!" "I do strive to evangelize those
that they'd be baptized in Jesus name, etc., etc., etc., etc." -or-
did the remark go unchallenged and allowed to be accepted as truth?
The higher-road travelled would have been just completely ignore the
statement... at the same time, it needed some kind of *righteous*
response to balance it out. I personally can't tell you what occured
right now.
I prolly shouldn't have said "Shows that your trying to tear him down"
rather than, "Leads me to believe that you don't have brotherly love
towards Steve Starcher". I don't think the comments were engineered
to tear him down. But I don't think they were engineered to help him
either. Negative fluff mostly.
>.........................................................................
>.........................................................................
>..........................................................
>Who was I simply quoting and turning the tables on?.................
>.........................................................................
>.........................................................................
>..........................................................
>You said you couldn't tell motive and yet you said that it seemed a tear
>down?...............................................................
>HHHmmmmmm????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
>???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
I'm wanting to correct the situation. When I correct my kids, I have
to give them a spanking to get their attention before they are even
open to correction. If I have to do as you say "turn the tables"
and come out harsh on someone else on the list, I've not much of a
choice to rub them the wrong way before I offer correction advice,
tips, or other suggestions as to why there's a preceive problem of
some sort.
I don't know why the conversations have to continue to degrade instead
of elevate. I don't know why it's a I-we-them-him-they kind of thing
where there's such a division. That baffles me. I don't know why
the words of Bro Starcher are taken so personally to the point where
it incites others to action. Can't someone give a statment about a
broad class of people without someone taking some kind of offense? I'd
think that people would read the words, glean it for what's good, and
toss the rest in the trash can. Why anybody would focus on the stuff
that's been thrown out and make it a long drawn out conversation is
besides me.
It just seems to me, that if someone is engaging in a practice that
is (in boxing terms) below-the-belt, the proper response to stay in
the fight with credability would to punch the proper zones of the body
instead of also dealing a blow below-the-belt. At least it'd look more
noble in the eyes of a judge calling the shots.
Bro Tyler
--
Bro Tyler Nally
Owner Higher-Fire Oneness Apostolic E-mailing list
<tnally@iquest.net> <tgnally@prairienet.org> <tn@higherfire.org>
To e-mail all list owner/moderators, send e-mail to ...
higher-fire-request@prairienet.org
To e-mail the higher-fire list with a message, send e-mail to ...
higher-fire@prairienet.org
The Higher-Fire listprocessor's e-addresses for changes and queries ...
listproc@prairienet.org
a) ... To Subscribe SUB HIGHER-FIRE Your Name
b) ... To UnSubscribe UNSUB HIGHER-FIRE
c) ... To Postpone Mail SET HIGHER-FIRE MAIL POSTPONE
d) ... To Resume Mail SET HIGHER-FIRE MAIL ACK
e) ... To Change to H-F Digests SET HIGHER-FIRE MAIL DIGEST
f) ... To Check H-F Settings SET HIGHER-FIRE
g) ... To Review H-F Subscription REVIEW HIGHER-FIRE
H-F Homepage : http://www.prairienet.org/upci/h-f.html
H-F WWW Archives : http://www.higherfire.org
H-F Nettiquette : http://www.higherfire.org/netiq.html
H-F F.A.Q. : http://www.higherfire.org/FAQ.html
H-F KJV Bible : http://www.higherfire.org/kjv
H-F QuickTour : http://www.prairienet.org/~tgnally/HigherFireTour.html
H-F Questionaire : http://www.prairienet.org/upci/questions.html
"...prefer to hear educated blessings preach than ignorant blessing!"
- Bro Robert Jay Brown III