Resolution 3 Massacre Begins in South Texas Dist.

[SDG]

Originally Posted by rrford

I don't disagree with your points but am afraid you are not seeing mine. Ethics never hurt anyone and let's remember the law is really for the lawless.

Yet the arguments you gave in favor is exactly why this measure is used ... it becomes a tool for many to constrict individual freedoms and ensure selfish desires ... most often enforced wantonly based on influence and vendettas.

Let people and individual churches choose ... This present system of regulation has inherent flaws that promote abuse ... and so it needs to be re-examined.

The law is not just for the lawless ... well at least not gov't that is ... RR ... you know that.

[Brad Murphy]

Originally Posted by rrford

I don't disagree with your points but am afraid you are not seeing mine. Ethics never hurt anyone and let's remember the law is really for the lawless.

I thought laws were only for people who follow them... for example, gun control only keeps the law-abiding citizens from owning guns, not the criminals who don't care about the law in the first place.

[rrford]

Originally Posted by Brad Murphy

I thought laws were only for people who follow them... for example, gun control only keeps the law-abiding citizens from owning guns, not the criminals who don't care about the law in the first place.

The creation of law is two-fold: 1) To protect the law abiding citizen 2) To define the parameters of legality.

I think it is easily understood that the law affects the lawless much more than the law abiding person. JMO.

[Brad Murphy]

Originally Posted by rrford

The creation of law is two-fold: 1) To protect the law abiding citizen 2) To define the parameters of legality.

I think it is easily understood that the law affects the lawless much more than the law abiding person. JMO.

I remember having a conversation with you about amorality before... A LONG time ago...

[SDG]

Originally Posted by Brad Murphy

I thought laws were only for people who follow them... for example, gun control only keeps the law-abiding citizens from owning guns, not the criminals who don't care about the law in the first place.

Yeah, yeah.

[Sam]

Originally Posted by ReformedDave

My dad left 2 huge filing cab. FULL of his papers. It will take years to sort thru it.....when I have the time and energy. Unfortunately I think he also gave some things to the UPCI historical society...

One night last week I was watching TBN. It is very rare for me to watch tv. I do have ours set up to record Bill Gaither, Hal Lindsey, Matthew Barnette and Perry Stone. That's basically all the tv I watch except for Law and Order in the winter. The host for the program was Phil Munsey. I wouldn't recognize him and I really don't know anything about him except I've heard negative stuff on this and/or other forums. At the end of the program he was talking about passing on our heritage. He quoted what he called an old African proverb which said, "When an elder dies, it is like a library being burned to the ground"

RD, when your Dad went to his reward, all his wisdom and knowledge that he accumulated during the years (except for a couple of books he had written) was no longer available to the body of Christ. If you could in time go through some of that stuff and make it available it could be a valuable treasure trove to the Church. I recently obtained his book on "The Mystery of Israel's Flag" from Amazon. The copy I got had his autograph in it. I enjoyed it and I thought "he being dead yet speaketh" as I read it.

Than Haney is taking his grandfather's notes and publishing them so that library is not burned to the ground. I've got the book we mentioned here on Revelation plus "A Mystery No More" (he taught that the 7 churches of Revelation chapters 2 and 3 could be used to describe the church age), "The Rapture" and "Daniel's 70 Weeks." These are typical dispensationalist type teachings but they represent what has been taught to ministers at some of our Bible Schools for years.

[SDG]

Dave ... please share those notes w/ us one day ... looking forward to reading some of that ...

[Steve Epley]

Originally Posted by rrford

To be honest, one would have to be a pastor to see a certain side of this issue. When a man has been unethical, immoral, etc. and leaves the fellowship of the UPCI or no longer embraces the same doctrinal stances, then some if it can make perfect sense.

Perhaps this illustration would help: Let's say that you are pastoring and you have an assistant. Said assistant, very talented and well-liked, decides he no longer believes the same message you preach and therefore relocates. After a period of time he comes to town and is ministering at a church another friend of yours pastors, who believes as you do. Are you seriously going to tell me you wouldn't be concerned? That it would not affect you at all?

Again, I am not saying the broad brush approach is correct, but there are indeed instances where such an action is a good thing.

Would some of you be for convicted felons having the right to own firearms? (I know, I knowl Someone is going to say "Apples and Oranges." But is it, really when we consider only the principle involved?)

That is so.

[rgcraig]

bump