A Relevant Holiness Message

[notofworks]

Originally Posted by triumphant1

The issue is not one of judging.

A PUBLIC condemnation took place by RM.

A PUBLIC inconsistency took place one week ltaer in RM's church.

A PUBLIC examination of that inconsistency took place in two discussion forums where things are discussed.

The fact of the matter to me is that RM participates here. He has had plenty of opportunity to join in the discussion seeing this discussion is PUBLIC.

Well said, I completely agree. The silence is deafening, is it not? For me, more is said with the silence than many words could say. Since there really is no valid defense, evidently he's chosen to be silent and figure that the more DA & Associates "bash" him, the more sympathetic he is. That's my guess, anyway. And since there is no plausible defense, maybe it's his best strategy.

He said it wasn't him jumping up and down and I believe him, even though the height, hair, and general frame are identical. If it IS him, people from his church would recognize the clothes, jumping style, see his denial, know it actually IS him, and then he would really be in trouble and I don't think he's dumb enough to do that. BUT....by posting the sermon on his church website, he's endorsing it. Period. If someone spoke at our church and in the sermon said things that were sharply against the core values of our church or my personal core values that I was attempting to establish as core values of our church, there's NO WAY in this world the sermon would get posted.

It's all very strange and the silence is very strange but maybe it's his best move. But this is the kind of thing that happens when you grab a microphone and loudly condemn what another pastor is doing. Reaping sucks sometimes.

[notofworks]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

T1,
Rob preached at "his" church. GP preached at "Rob's" church. AI made it "public" by putting a cropped message on YouTube.

Hogwash. AI brought it up on its pages. It already was public. How does that not make sense??

[DAII]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

His personal church website and preaching videos are not the same as posting in a more "random" public place like YouTube. You have to decide that you want to attend his church or decide if you want to listen to his preaching on the Web. That is all that is about.

YouTube is a totally different arena and story, Daniel. And you know it. I can't, well I probably can, believe you would be so callous.

And your cropping the two messages and dragging it over to YouTube is just way over the top. So don't tell me that you love Rob, because you don't. Friends talk about things - face to face - man to man or woman to woman, if that be the case. They don't drag their carcass out in the road for everyone to run over.

I'm just disappointed in how this is being handled, that's all. I couldn't imagine doing that to someone I said I "loved". I would probably go by and visit or give them a call. I sure in the world wouldn't call them out like a gunfighter in a western town. You are acting like you slammed the saloon doors back and wanted to commence shooting. I just do not like it at all.

Very disappointing. If I don't like how a preacher preaches, I don't go to his revivals. And I sure wouldn't sit around cropping his messages and discussing him on-line. Good grief! Insanity!

And yet your bias continues to shine through rather than addressing the very behaviors you condemn me for as exhibited by these two videos ... when a fellow preacher carcass was dragged out in the road from his pulpit to the WORLD WIDE WEB only to allow this liberty to a preacher the following week because they hold his definition of holiness ...

and trust me this goes on daily on preacher forums, DAILY ... while some of us have been called out on Facebook as well ...

Of which such masonic members have now expressed it is better to destroy one's family in a moral failure than to cause one's church to "fall into false doctrine".

It's duplicitous ... rather than address a systemic failure ... and an EPIDEMIC

... I'll be your buzzard ...

Your agenda will not deter mine to address real issues. You can question my Christian credentials or my man card .... and I'll keep plugging away.

[notofworks]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

His personal church website and preaching videos are not the same as posting in a more "random" public place like YouTube. You have to decide that you want to attend his church or decide if you want to listen to his preaching on the Web. That is all that is about.

YouTube is a totally different arena and story, Daniel. And you know it. I can't, well I probably can, believe you would be so callous.

And your cropping the two messages and dragging it over to YouTube is just way over the top. So don't tell me that you love Rob, because you don't. Friends talk about things - face to face - man to man or woman to woman, if that be the case. They don't drag their carcass out in the road for everyone to run over.

I'm just disappointed in how this is being handled, that's all. I couldn't imagine doing that to someone I said I "loved". I would probably go by and visit or give them a call. I sure in the world wouldn't call them out like a gunfighter in a western town. You are acting like you slammed the saloon doors back and wanted to commence shooting. I just do not like it at all.

Very disappointing. If I don't like how a preacher preaches, I don't go to his revivals. And I sure wouldn't sit around cropping his messages and discussing him on-line. Good grief! Insanity!

PO, come on, that's ridiculous. There's insanity here but look in the mirror if you wanna see where it's coming from. Are you saying that RM's church website is ONLY for those that attend his church? Surely not! He puts those sermons up for the PUBLIC to see. If it's only for his church's consumption, he could make the messages password-protected and available to only those who attend or are members.

[DAII]

Originally Posted by notofworks

PO, come on, that's ridiculous. There's insanity here but look in the mirror if you wanna see where it's coming from. Are you saying that RM's church website is ONLY for those that attend his church? Surely not! He puts those sermons up for the PUBLIC to see. If it's only for his church's consumption, he could make the messages password-protected and available to only those who attend or are members.

You're witnessing spin, first hand.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by triumphant1

The issue is not one of judging.

A PUBLIC condemnation took place by RM.

A PUBLIC inconsistency took place one week ltaer in RM's church.

A PUBLIC examination of that inconsistency took place in two discussion forums where things are discussed.

The fact of the matter to me is that RM participates here. He has had plenty of opportunity to join in the discussion seeing this discussion is PUBLIC.

Originally Posted by notofworks

Hogwash. AI brought it up on its pages. It already was public. How does that not make sense??

The bold, above, is what doesn't make sense to me, NOW.

TI talks about two messages preached at RM's church AND then he says, word to effect - "And we are now discussing this on a couple of Internet forums. I don't know why RM doesn't want to participate in that? Come on big guy. We don't like what you did at YOUR church and we want you to answer to US, although, (clearing throat) we don't have anything to do with your church, personally. But, I am a friend on your Facebook page. " LOL! Puleeeze!

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by DAII

And yet your bias continues to shine through rather than addressing the very behaviors you condemn me for as exhibited by these two videos ... when a fellow preacher carcass was dragged out in the road from his pulpit to the WORLD WIDE WEB only to allow this liberty to a preacher the following week because they hold his definition of holiness ...

and trust me this goes on daily on preacher forums, DAILY ... while some of us have been called out on Facebook as well ...

Of which such masonic members have now expressed it is better to destroy one's family in a moral failure than to cause one's church to "fall into false doctrine".

It's duplicitous ... rather than address a systemic failure ... and an EPIDEMIC

... I'll be your buzzard ...

Your agenda will not deter mine to address real issues. You can question my Christian credentials or my man card .... and I'll keep plugging away.

You have a valid point in the bold above, Daniel. I will grant you that. But, if you don't like what they do, then why are you emulating the same behaviour?

[notofworks]

Originally Posted by peyt07

Definition of gossip, which the Bible (I Timothy 5:12, 13) is against: Gossip is idle talk or rumour, especially about the personal or private affairs of others. It is one of the oldest and most common means of sharing facts and views, but also has a reputation for the introduction of errors and variations into the information transmitted. The term can also imply that the news is of personal or trivial nature, as opposed to normal conversation.

"Idle", or, "Useless." This isn't useless. It was cast into the public eye, loud condemnation of others took place, even causing some of us to wonder if it was us and by not revealing who he condemned, he cast many, including me, in a bad light forcing us to wonder if we were recipients of his wrath.

"Rumor". Well, no need to explain that one. This CLEARLY isn't rumor. That would be, "Hey, I heard that Rob McKee took a shot at a pastor that uses secular music in his church."


Strike one. Try again.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by notofworks

PO, come on, that's ridiculous. There's insanity here but look in the mirror if you wanna see where it's coming from. Are you saying that RM's church website is ONLY for those that attend his church? Surely not! He puts those sermons up for the PUBLIC to see. If it's only for his church's consumption, he could make the messages password-protected and available to only those who attend or are members.

NOW,
I believe I said that people have to "choose" to view his website, watch him on TV or attend his services. I never said it was only for his congregation alone.

That is NOT the same as posting a cropped video clip to ridicule him, in public, on YouTube, is it? People scour YouTube and run across random things to view. It is not the same thing or same type of format. Nor is it the same type of setting, at all.

[notofworks]

Originally Posted by DAII

You're witnessing spin, first hand.

The spinning is so intense, I'm getting dizzy!