There Has Been A Change

Originally Posted by HeavenlyOne

I've understood from the beginning what you've been saying about what you felt and your perceptions. It's not something I can explain in words, but I understand.

Amen! and so have I and I actually quite understand what he meant too.

I have to admit I am totally lost here... people keep saying that they didn't say things that they clearly said... must be that non-preacher lack of intelligence again...

[chaotic_resolve]

Originally Posted by HeavenlyOne

LOL!

I suppose I learned things from a different school. When I make a statement in regard to my intentions and someone says, 'that's debateable', that tells me that they don't trust my word, and that makes me a liar in their eyes.

So, exactly what did you mean by the statement, 'that's debateable'......unless you are going to hide being saying it was somewhat TIC....

I meant just that . . . it's debatable. There's an open debate as to whether or not it will actually happen.

Now, if I was insinuating he was lying, it wouldn't be debatable, now would it? It would be pretty straight forward, something like "it's not happening."

Honestly, I don't really trust his word. No offense meant, just being honest here. I've asked, as has Dan and others for answers to specific questions and we get the run-around. We say there needs to be something said to the minister in question, and instead we're told to call him and have him call BS.

So I'm a little hesitant to take him at face-value or for what he's written.

Comprende?

[BoredOutOfMyMind]

Originally Posted by chaotic_resolve

I meant just that . . . it's debatable. There's an open debate as to whether or not it will actually happen.

Now, if I was insinuating he was lying, it wouldn't be debatable, now would it? It would be pretty straight forward, something like "it's not happening."

Honestly, I don't really trust his word. No offense meant, just being honest here. I've asked, as has Dan and others for answers to specific questions and we get the run-around. We say there needs to be something said to the minister in question, and instead we're told to call him and have him call BS.

So I'm a little hesitant to take him at face-value or for what he's written.

Comprende?

So are we all at an impasse where no further imput here is worthwhile. Maybe at some point Bro Strange will stop responding to your responding about him not responding to you saying he is not responding. (I wonder at your response of this...)

While I don't necessary agree with Bro Strange, the reaction has been less than perfect for sure.

And yes, the question for MB would need to come from MB.

[South of I 90]

Originally Posted by BoredOutOfMyMind

So are we all at an impasse where no further imput here is worthwhile. Maybe at some point Bro Strange will stop responding to your responding about him not responding to you saying he is not responding. (I wonder at your response of this...)

While I don't necessary agree with Bro Strange, the reaction has been less than perfect for sure.

And yes, the question for MB would need to come from MB.

.................so we all need to get together, hold hands and sing the John Lennon chant (oops) "All We Are Saying; Is give peace a chance"

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Brother Strange

Prax...

If you have to be told in words, you would not understand. Someone would have to speak in a heavenly language...but then, you would have to have an interpreter. Doubtful that will happen.

So, as I said to Timmy. You would not understand.

See what I mean guys? Why say something to someone then refuse to explain it? Might as well not have said it to begin with.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by chaotic_resolve

What he's saying is . . . you're dumb. Timmy's dumb. We're all dumb except for him and the few that agree with him. If you read through a couple threads you'll notice that people who disagree with BS are, in a way, said to be novices, dumb, ignorant, etc. Only the people who have agreed with BS are smart and get it. :sshhh

I am not trying to be rude here, but I have seen this sort of reply a LOT. One has to wonder why people post such things that they can't explain.....

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Brother Strange

Don't listen to other people's ill considered estimation of what I said. Note: I did not say that anyone was under demonic influence. The human spirit is given wide lattitude within its own fallen nature often motivated by many human considerations of human nature which very often calls into question personal agenda, motivations, political thoughts, reputation, and pride among others. For instance; Pride is not a demonic spirit though the Pride was found in Devil which effected his expulsion from realms of light. Pride can also be found in us which is NOT demonic but rather, entirely human. It is of the flesh and what follows are the works of the flesh.

Where I made my huge blunder here is, I jumped off into an area of spiritual nature that is little understood by the rank and file. My bad! But once in here, I should not have responded to the many unlearned questions and comments that was directed at me. I should have just let them continue to think of me the fool that they probably consider me, without the attempted explanation. Hence, my "fishing trip." It will do no good to try to explain it any more than I have already. I have tried, but it only raises more questions. Therefore, my despair for Oneness Pentecostalism that we know as Apostolic has not been pacified in the least by these discussion here, rather the opposite.

OK so when you were saying "spirit" and called the spirit a he and that you knew who that spirit was well and that there was a change in the spirit, you were referring to the human spirit? Is that correct?

BTW where you blundered was in being very vague and posting in such a way that it can be interpreted a number of ways and not being specific or answering when asked to clarify what you meant. It has nothing to do with being spiritual because being spiritual does not mean we can read minds.

You called the spirit a HE. Very often when people do that they ARE referring to demons. I've rarely seen you just humbly accept responsibilty for a lack of communicating more clearly from you and usually you just blame it on spiritual stupidity of the readers....hardly a spiritual attitude in itself.

That seems to be your MO brother. If anyone dares question you or ask for clarification you put on a superior mask and blame it on everyone else's inferior spirituality. Sad.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Sheltiedad

Honestly this is what annoys me more than anything else... when preachers think that the peasants cannot understand what they are trying to say because they have some super secret knowledge of the "spirit" world...

What's the point then in being a preacher if they can't communicate to the ones they are sent for? Maybe they were not really called to be preachers if they have such an inability and a lack of patience

1Ti 3:2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behavior, given to hospitality, apt to teach;

2Ti 2:24 And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient,
2Ti 2:25 In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth;
2Ti 2:26 And that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil, who are taken captive by him at his will.

Not become arrogant like "How dare you peons question me? You can't understand the things I understand, you are all spiritually inferior"

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Brother Strange

Don't be annoyed. There is nothing really secret or even any super secret knowledge of the spirit world that a little instructions and experience would not help.

This is not said arrogantly though it may sound that way. This is said humbly.

I guess you are not the one to be giving the instruction then. Your job is to be confusing and then it's someone else's job to clean up the mess?