**preacher forums** - Page 19

CC1 · #**181** 03-17-2011, 10:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ron

[/B]

Alright CC1, here are 2 quotes from Charnock (whoever he/she is) you either did not read this thread or you agree with his statements.
Which is it?

You are correct that I missed that post from Charnock. His assertion is absurd. I know many of the men on one particular preachers forum and although I fundamentally disagree with them on many issues they are upstanding ethical men who do not provide the "haven" Charnock describes.

Theophil · #**182** 03-17-2011, 10:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CC1

During a coffee break this morning I finally speed read this thread from start to finish. Someone had complained about the content so I was expecting heaven knows what. I did not see anything in this thread to cause anybody to get upset about unless some posts have been edited or deleted before I saw them.

I have no problem with preacher only forums. I think it is great preachers of like faith can have a place to discuss both doctrine and church matters AND comment on the church world as they see it.

A forum of conservative preachers would naturally discuss trends or ministries they see as straying from their beloved legalism "ALERT: It is rumored Bro. SoandSo had a youth meeting and there were THREE teenagers with short sleeves on there!!!!!"

By the same token I have no doubt that a lib preachers forum would discuss the absurdity of their local ultra cons legalism and the irony when an ultra con or conservative preacher is discovered to have been engaging in ongoing sexual sin while thumping his pulpit and enforicing a stringent clothesline of dress codes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Esther

Oh my common sense has reared his head again.

It just won't do!
BTW, Real good post CC1.

Theophil · #**183** 03-17-2011, 10:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stephanas

We are in agreement about the dangers of painting with a broad brush, but you appear to be condemning preachers with "faint praise," when you say that "Not all preachers are greedy, dishonest, and immoral."

The implication is that most preachers are greedy, dishonest, and immoral.

It has been my experience that very few meet that low estimation, and that most are "honest and sincere individuals who are literally laying down their lives for their flocks..."

I apologize in advance if I have misread your intent; loss of tone and inflection is the achilles heel of written communication.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sam

Stephanas,
it was written with a sarcastic tone that doesn't show up in print.
The perception of the world is that preachers are money grubbing hypocrites. Unfortunately we have given them enough examples to justify that in some cases. It is my opinion, however, that there are multitudes of good servants of God who are laying down their lives for the portion of the flock they've been given oversight of and for the Chief Shepherd. These may often go unnoticed when the eyes of the world are focused on the pampered, privileged, pomaded, princes of pentecost who are pontificating from our pulpits and enjoying privileges of the family cash cow(church run as a family business) and privileged places in the large political/religious organization.

The vast majority, the overwhelming majority of men and women in ministry are sincere, holy living, selfless, sacrificing men and women of God. I would "stake my life" on the presumption that Charnock believes this as well.

rgcraig · #**184** 03-17-2011, 10:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charnock

Originally Posted by Charnock
No, not since they became havens for adulterers, perverts and pretend preachers.

Preachers forums thrive on ferreting out "rats" and holiness nonconformists but they will cover their buddies sins better than a dog buries his favorite bone.

I understood his post to say the forum was a "haven" for some that are adulterers, perverts and pretend preachers. I don't believe he's saying they are ALL one of those.

It's a strong statement, but we have not allowed some to be members here because of those issues.

aegsm76 · #**185** 03-17-2011, 10:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rgcraig

I understood his post to say the forum was a "haven" for some that are adulterers, perverts and pretend preachers. I don't believe he's saying they are ALL one of those.

It's a strong statement, but we have not allowed some to be members here because of those issues.

So there are some on the preachers forum that are adulterers, perverts and pretend preachers?
If this is the case, what's wrong with naming them.

Theophil · #**186** 03-17-2011, 10:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rgcraig;1046589"

I understood his post to say the forum was a "haven" for some that are adulterers, perverts and pretend preachers. I don't believe he's saying they are ALL one of those..."

This my understanding as well.

rgcraig · #**187** 03-17-2011, 10:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aegsm76

So there are some on the preachers forum that are adulterers, perverts and pretend preachers?
If this is the case, what's wrong with naming them.

Because.

See Miss Bratty's posts.

MissBrattified · #**188** 03-17-2011, 11:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CC1

You are correct that I missed that post from Charnock. His assertion is absurd. I know many of the men on one particular preachers forum and although I fundamentally disagree with them on many issues they are upstanding ethical men who do not provide the "haven" Charnock describes.

I'm not sure I understand Charnock's statement, actually. How are they providing a "haven?" Are they supporting men in their sins? Covering it up? "Haven" implies protection. From what? The situations I know about, no one has been protected; they're already dealing with the consequences of their actions.

Quote:

Originally Posted by rgcraig

I understood his post to say the forum was a "haven" for some that are adulterers, perverts and pretend preachers. I don't believe he's saying they are ALL one of those.

It's a strong statement, but we have not allowed some to be members here because of those issues.

That's a bit different, though, because this is a mixed gender forum, and presumably those on the forum would fall into the category of *elders* who could most definitely offer help to someone who has been "overtaken in a fault." Are the preachers forums mixed gender? Some were asked to leave here because of their interactions with the opposite sex.

I'm not sure I'm on board with booting people out as members simply because they commit sins. If they are promoting their own sin--okay. If not? Hmmmmm....

I can think of several people on this board who would have to be promptly removed if we made a list of sins and then removed people accordingly.

berkeley · #**189** 03-17-2011, 11:19 AM

AMF is predominately male, there are female members. IDK about the other preacher forums.

Charnock · #**190** 03-17-2011, 11:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Theophil

The vast majority, the overwhelming majority of men and women in ministry are sincere, holy living, selfless, sacrificing men and women of God. I would "stake my life" on the presumption that Charnock believes this as well.

Quote:

Originally Posted by rgcraig

I understood his post to say the forum was a "haven" for some that are adulterers, perverts and pretend preachers. I don't believe he's saying they are ALL one of those.

It's a strong statement, but we have not allowed some to be members here because of those issues.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aegsm76

So there are some on the preachers forum that are adulterers, perverts and pretend preachers?
If this is the case, what's wrong with naming them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

I'm not sure I understand Charnock's statement, actually. How are they providing a "haven?" Are they supporting men in their sins? Covering it up? "Haven" implies protection. From what? The situations I know about, no one has been protected; they're already dealing with the consequences of their actions.

That's a bit different, though, because this is a mixed gender forum, and presumably those on the forum would fall into the category of *elders* who could most definitely offer help to someone who has been "overtaken in a fault." Are the preachers forums mixed gender? Some were asked to leave here because of their interactions with the opposite sex.

I'm not sure I'm on board with booting people out as members simply because they commit sins. If they are promoting their own sin--okay. If not? Hmmmmm....

I can think of several people on this board who would have to be promptly removed if we made a list of sins and then removed people accordingly.

Providing haven means to offer sanctuary or protection.

The unnamed forum routinely boots men for "not believing the message," and the message includes the laundry list of 60 year old standards. Yet, for some odd reason, adulterers are allowed to stay and post.

Further, the guys that don't believe "the message," are excoriated endlessly while any mention of the gross sin of the ones doing the excoriating is taboo, and deleted immediately.

So I asked myself, "What is being promoted here?" The answer is clear. Adultery is preferable, and entirely more tolerable than not preaching "the message."

In fact, that exact sentiment has been expressed on this thread by bishoph.