We Who? Re: An Apostolic Declaration for the Third Millenium 1

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

On Fri, 26 Mar 1999 16:51:34 -0500 "Tyler Nally" <tnally@iquest.net>
writes:

>>From what I gather by another moderator, evidently Bro Starcher said
>these earlier in the week.

I received this post this morning, actually.

>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?

Bro. Nally, this is what I did for many months. I said "Wait a minute,
wait a minute, wait a minute!!" I'm tired of it. Now he makes another
accusation. (Actually a number of them as he has repeatedly referred to
"Bro. Reed, Bro. Clifton and Sis. Lynne" this past two weeks that I have
not been posting on the topic.) And I am tired of the accusations. So I
stuck up for myself.  

>The higher-road travelled would have been just completely ignore the
>statement...

This has been my latest response.

 at the same time, it needed some kind of *righteous*
>response to balance it out. 

This has been my general response.

>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". 

Or maybe that he doesn't have brotherly love toward me? It is his
statement. I said ***IF*** I were to copy his statements, it would look
like this. Also, I wrote them because you asked me to lengthen my post or
do away with his writing to make it balanced.

> 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.

Yes. You are correct, but when you try the soft approach and it doesn't
work, you then must get a little harsh. Not by choice but by necessity.

>  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. 

I think it became divisive when Bro. Starcher began saying things about
conservatives that are not true. (A case in point is today when he said
we do not want to see others evangelized, etc.) We repeatedly said "No
that's not true" only to be repeatedly told it was.

I simply said that if I said something like that (in his latest post) it
would not be taken lightly. If he can say it, I should be able to. If he
can't, I shouldn't be able to. You are the moderator, so the decision is
yours, but it should be equal and fair for both sides.

 Can't someone give a statement about a
>broad class of people without someone taking some kind of offense?

Sure, as long as a rebuttal can be made. People shouldn't have to take
stone throwing with no defense. If there are accusations going and the
moderators do not want that environment, it needs to be stopped at the
core, which is where the first accusations are made.

However, I would like to point out that a specific statement was made
about me personally.

 >Why anybody would focus on the stuff
>that's been thrown out and make it a long drawn out conversation is
>besides me.

The ONLY reason for the focus is the doctrinal difference and the focus
that ***Bro. Starcher*** places on it. He brought it up. He says many
things about conservatives, and me specifically, that are plainly untrue.
However, if someone is teaching that Acts 2:38 is not necessarily the New
Birth, those of us who believe Acts 2:38 is the New Birth feel the
responsibility and conviction to oppose it. It's as simple as that.

>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.

True, but I did not hit below the belt. I said "Hey, ref! This guy hit me
below the belt. If I did it, would this be acceptable?"

>I read the post on it's own merit not knowing that what was posted
>previously was posted.

I pasted enough of his previous post so it could be understood. I wrote
his things, then turned it around saying, "If I were to copy these
comments and apply another name like this"...Then wrote Steve Starcher's
name on it and used all his own words. I don't understand how you
could've missed it.

Lord Bless,
Lynne Yohnk
___________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html
or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]