Archive for February, 2007

h1

A CRN Heretic!!!! at least to them… but kudos Jon Cardwell I see you are trying to understand.

February 28, 2007

A CRN Heretic!!!! at least to them… but kudos to Jon Cardwell as I see you are trying to understand.

Really this was one of the first articles on CRN that I actually appreciated… I think this guy is at least “trying” to understand and not just carelessly toss out straw men arguments.

He claims someone called him a Ken Silva wannabe… nope I think Jon, you are much better than that and that Ken should take notice.

Here is the article.

Yet I just truly wonder… how sincere is he?

Blessings,
iggy


Technorati tags:
, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Advertisements
h1

He’s a Two Faced Liar and Hypocrite… but I love him anyway (updated Phil Perkins report)

February 28, 2007

Phil Perkins I am writing about today is a local person who seems to think attacking other Christians with lies and made up accusation, is a “Christian” thing to do. He seems to not listen to authority nor does he take discipline from those God has set above him… so he reaps what he sows.

It seems in Phil Perkins hatred and pursuit to attack and mischaracterize the emerging church, he has lost his job. He has a business he owns so i am not worried he will starve. I admire that he stands on his convictions… yet…

One of the main criticism of me as well as other emerging people, was that he says we are liars, and dishonest… yet he seems to think that one can spread the Gospel with lies and deceit. He preaches the Law at the expense of God’s grace.

Let me explain… He has written his own tracts and in his own words he states, “Law, wrath, and repentance will be the emphasis 90%. Then the good news is given.”

As you read the tract, it is as he stated, yet there is a glaring contradiction about this hateful God… He states at one point… “Because of your sin, God hates you and will destroy you.”

Then in a few lines later states: “Despite your sin problem, God loves you and offers you a solution.”

And then here is the real point in which he without knowing it… thinks lying and being dishonest with the Gospel is a “good” thing… in fact is runs right against his main critic of others… that they add and subtract from the word of God… He is doing just that in this tract.

I don’t care what he has said about me… and it seems he does read me and at times has softened his view… ever so slightly… but I will state this… One must not twist God’s word nor place God’s wrath over what Jesus accomplished at the Cross… That is a depraved mind and a sinful heart that negates the Cross and the finished works of Jesus…

He does give a disclaimer that the “contradiction” is to “cause thought”… yet to contradict God’s word is wrong as he states and has even attacked others in his own camp for doing, he simply is a hypocrite. he also does not get that the Gospel in itself is offensive to many, and that we do not have to make it more so.

Again, I do admire him in his street preaching… Like I admire the JW’s and Mormons in how they go door to door… but I pray it will not be teaching a different Gospel of hate and wrath at the expense of the Grace of God… and our sins being taken away by the Blood of Jesus… Without realizing it this person is perpetrating the same sort of lies and another gospel just like the cults he claims he is against.

For Jesus’ blood was real blood… Jesus suffered God’s wrath so we do not have to… and we must never trod over that Grace in fear we treat it unworthy.

Again this is more to rebuke this person in his reckless abandon of the Truth he purports he stands on. I want him to know I am not doing this out of pettiness, but in hopes he will turn from his error and return to Christ… I am rebuking in love. The bottom line is we emerging folk are trying to work out that our orthodoxy matches our orthopraxy… I just see that this person seems to not care much for either. He only wants to prove he is right.

(update: I wanted to show how illogical this person thinks… and how he jumps to conclusions without even listening to people… here is an example)

“ROB: I’m arguing that the Bible is to be believed, perhaps not literally in all cases (Genesis, Abraham’s boosom (sic) Jonah, Job etc)…

ANSWER: What in Genesis is not true? Moses presented all of it as true. He did not say, “Here is a parable. In the Beginning God created…”

Logic 101–There are only three possibilities for the veracity of a statement proposed as true by the speaker/writer. It is a mistake. It is a lie. It is true.”

Here is the thing Phil jumps to the conclusion rob does not believe in truth.. why, because Phil knows all and he says all Emergent do not believe in truth… which is a lie! So Phil creates an argument out of a falsehood he made up! Notice in the next point Phil agrees with Rob who he just “proved” wrong!

“ROB: …but hyperbole and story is the way God has chosen to communicate.

ANSWER: God uses a number of literary genre, forms, and devices, including hyperbole and story. However, you miss four important things here.”

So in ones sentence Rob is wrong, then here Rob is right? So out of a made up straw man Phil goes on and on about why the Bible is believed in all cases literally, yet then negates his own argument it is to be understood in different ways… strange this is what Rob was actually saying in the first place. The thing is Phil does not believe the bible literally… Phil adds to the Word as he adds works to grace and the law to mercy… He teaches the same thing that Paul states “bewitched” the Galatians… He teaches legalism and negates the Cross of Jesus by works righteousness… Phil answered nothing as to Robs questions as Phil just created his own version of reality then answered it… much like John MacArthur! Phil is teaching another gospel!

Galatians 1:6 – 9

“I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned! “

This is just the tip of the iceberg as Phil seems to think it is alright for him to lie about brothers and sisters in Christ by saying things like this.

“If you wonder why Emergents have discovered the new understanding that no one can understand the Scripture inspite of the fact Jesus said we could, here is a little 5-minute excerpt from a John MacArthur sermon. Go here and scroll down. Look to the right hand column. Find “Mentioned On The Air.” Click the “John MacArthur: Emerging Church” link and take a listen. (Hint: It’s because they love their sin.)”

The link he links to is of course to John MacArthur whose book is so badly researched it is a joke! Now, I do not know one “Emergent who loves to sin… but Phil seems to love to sin by lying and bearing false witness with every post. Then again you become like the god you serve and his is a god of wrath and hate… at the expense of Grace and Mercy. Remember Phil the Law was given to show transgression and to lead us to Christ… I might add that you try to read Galatians. Turn to Christ and lean on Jesus for your salvation and not your own works Phil… I am still praying for you. My prayers are always with you my friend… i pray that you find your Sabbath Rest in Jesus.

Blessings,
iggy


Technorati tags:
, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

h1

He’s a Two Faced Liar and Hypocrite… but I love him anyway (updated Phil Perkins report)

February 28, 2007

Phil Perkins I am writing about today is a local person who seems to think attacking other Christians with lies and made up accusation, is a “Christian” thing to do. He seems to not listen to authority nor does he take discipline from those God has set above him… so he reaps what he sows.

It seems in Phil Perkins hatred and pursuit to attack and mischaracterize the emerging church, he has lost his job. He has a business he owns so i am not worried he will starve. I admire that he stands on his convictions… yet…

One of the main criticism of me as well as other emerging people, was that he says we are liars, and dishonest… yet he seems to think that one can spread the Gospel with lies and deceit. He preaches the Law at the expense of God’s grace.

Let me explain… He has written his own tracts and in his own words he states, “Law, wrath, and repentance will be the emphasis 90%. Then the good news is given.”

As you read the tract, it is as he stated, yet there is a glaring contradiction about this hateful God… He states at one point… “Because of your sin, God hates you and will destroy you.”

Then in a few lines later states: “Despite your sin problem, God loves you and offers you a solution.”

And then here is the real point in which he without knowing it… thinks lying and being dishonest with the Gospel is a “good” thing… in fact is runs right against his main critic of others… that they add and subtract from the word of God… He is doing just that in this tract.

I don’t care what he has said about me… and it seems he does read me and at times has softened his view… ever so slightly… but I will state this… One must not twist God’s word nor place God’s wrath over what Jesus accomplished at the Cross… That is a depraved mind and a sinful heart that negates the Cross and the finished works of Jesus…

He does give a disclaimer that the “contradiction” is to “cause thought”… yet to contradict God’s word is wrong as he states and has even attacked others in his own camp for doing, he simply is a hypocrite. he also does not get that the Gospel in itself is offensive to many, and that we do not have to make it more so.

Again, I do admire him in his street preaching… Like I admire the JW’s and Mormons in how they go door to door… but I pray it will not be teaching a different Gospel of hate and wrath at the expense of the Grace of God… and our sins being taken away by the Blood of Jesus… Without realizing it this person is perpetrating the same sort of lies and another gospel just like the cults he claims he is against.

For Jesus’ blood was real blood… Jesus suffered God’s wrath so we do not have to… and we must never trod over that Grace in fear we treat it unworthy.

Again this is more to rebuke this person in his reckless abandon of the Truth he purports he stands on. I want him to know I am not doing this out of pettiness, but in hopes he will turn from his error and return to Christ… I am rebuking in love. The bottom line is we emerging folk are trying to work out that our orthodoxy matches our orthopraxy… I just see that this person seems to not care much for either. He only wants to prove he is right.

(update: I wanted to show how illogical this person thinks… and how he jumps to conclusions without even listening to people… here is an example)

“ROB: I’m arguing that the Bible is to be believed, perhaps not literally in all cases (Genesis, Abraham’s boosom (sic) Jonah, Job etc)…

ANSWER: What in Genesis is not true? Moses presented all of it as true. He did not say, “Here is a parable. In the Beginning God created…”

Logic 101–There are only three possibilities for the veracity of a statement proposed as true by the speaker/writer. It is a mistake. It is a lie. It is true.”

Here is the thing Phil jumps to the conclusion rob does not believe in truth.. why, because Phil knows all and he says all Emergent do not believe in truth… which is a lie! So Phil creates an argument out of a falsehood he made up! Notice in the next point Phil agrees with Rob who he just “proved” wrong!

“ROB: …but hyperbole and story is the way God has chosen to communicate.

ANSWER: God uses a number of literary genre, forms, and devices, including hyperbole and story. However, you miss four important things here.”

So in ones sentence Rob is wrong, then here Rob is right? So out of a made up straw man Phil goes on and on about why the Bible is believed in all cases literally, yet then negates his own argument it is to be understood in different ways… strange this is what Rob was actually saying in the first place. The thing is Phil does not believe the bible literally… Phil adds to the Word as he adds works to grace and the law to mercy… He teaches the same thing that Paul states “bewitched” the Galatians… He teaches legalism and negates the Cross of Jesus by works righteousness… Phil answered nothing as to Robs questions as Phil just created his own version of reality then answered it… much like John MacArthur! Phil is teaching another gospel!

Galatians 1:6 – 9

“I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned! “

This is just the tip of the iceberg as Phil seems to think it is alright for him to lie about brothers and sisters in Christ by saying things like this.

“If you wonder why Emergents have discovered the new understanding that no one can understand the Scripture inspite of the fact Jesus said we could, here is a little 5-minute excerpt from a John MacArthur sermon. Go here and scroll down. Look to the right hand column. Find “Mentioned On The Air.” Click the “John MacArthur: Emerging Church” link and take a listen. (Hint: It’s because they love their sin.)”

The link he links to is of course to John MacArthur whose book is so badly researched it is a joke! Now, I do not know one “Emergent who loves to sin… but Phil seems to love to sin by lying and bearing false witness with every post. Then again you become like the god you serve and his is a god of wrath and hate… at the expense of Grace and Mercy. Remember Phil the Law was given to show transgression and to lead us to Christ… I might add that you try to read Galatians. Turn to Christ and lean on Jesus for your salvation and not your own works Phil… I am still praying for you. My prayers are always with you my friend… i pray that you find your Sabbath Rest in Jesus.

Blessings,
iggy


Technorati tags:
, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

h1

Rationalism and Empiricism

February 24, 2007

Disclaimer: I want to state first I am a novice on this topic.

In the last few days I have been listening to hours of lectures (yes hours) by Gordon Clark. (Not to be confused with singer from the Scottish band the Bay City Rollers). This was an amazing fellow, with a great wit, intellect and knowledge I can only hope to attain in my life. He was still lecturing at age 95 and was very lucid in his speaking. If you don’t know who he is check out this small bio here.

As I listen to him he ran through dozens if not more theologians and philosophers who all dealt in the area of thought and/or reasoning. Gordon is very much a rationalist in his thinking and built great ideological rebuttals against many other views of thought and thinking.

Yet, as I listen I noticed not just with GC, but with many others he quoted, a dogmatism that seemed to be too “either/or”… It seemed one had to choose between either empiricism or rationalism… Clark as I said leaned heavily on the rationalist side and built strong arguments against empiricism.

That is all well and good and I suggest reading him… yet I seem to disagree with the notion one must choose one over the other… and with the “Postmodern” leanings I have, it seemed as if one could choose both/and.

Let me explain.

Gordon Clark states that the image of man is not in that man looks like God… meaning that the dust of the earth made in human form does not mean that is what God looks like… and has Gordon states “God is Spirit”. I do agree with that to a degree, yet he then asserts that the image in the ability to rationalize thought and that is what separates us from the animals. Again, I do agree with this somewhat. I tend toward that it is more about our vocation and purpose that we are “God’s image”.

Yet, the short coming seems to be this. That God created man from the dust of the earth and then breathed his life giving Spirit into man, and man became a living being. Clark here asserts that it is that man became a rational being at this point and in that bears the image of God… but back up the boat a bit here….

It is in the organics of the brain that thoughts are created… and a brain without thoughts is… well… dead. So it seems that one must be in relation to the other in order to function as a whole…

Man is a being because he has both a body and is able to think… one cannot be separate from the other. We can think in image and relate that in words…in fact I often think more in pictures in my mind and then translate them into words to communicate my thoughts.

The polarization that either/or is where the relational factor seems to break down, and if one does follow through logically to the end, one will assert as Gordon did that one could literally translate John 1:1 as “In the beginning was Logic, and Logic was with God and was God.”

I do think that Gordon was trying to convey that Jesus is literally the words (logos) of God and the Word (Logos) of God as in one lecture I believe he said that one cannot separate these from each other. With that I see that one cannot separate the organic (empiricism) from the logic (rationalism) without doing damage to both any more than one can remove the thoughts from a persons brain without hurting the person and losing the thoughts. Granted on can unite the thoughts and the physical and as I am use the body to convey the thoughts in words by typing them out.

How this work out in theology is like this.

In God (The Speaker) were His Thoughts, which became manifest in creation itself. Later at the specific time the Incarnation of Jesus, who was the Physical manifestation of God’s thoughts came to be. God’s literal Thoughts that brought creation became a man and part of creation itself. Kierkegaard would say the incarnation was a contradiction that could not be explained but just accepted as the infinite could not be both finite and infinite at the same time… but Jesus had a temporal body of clay… like us that died and was raised imperishable. The contradiction is only that before the incarnation Jesus appears to have a heavenly body as He appears in the OT pre incarnationally. The lack of contradiction comes as Jesus existed as the thoughts of God in the Words spoken… which later took on flesh. It now has continuity as the Word must have the physical to be relational.

Interestingly in all of this I also found that the idea of the “conversation” that is the main thrust of emerging, is that thoughts without the mouth to speak or some other physical media are in a way not able to exist. They depend on the mouth to speak, the hand to write or what ever way the information that is trying to be conveyed can be transported.

(A side note on this is NASA is doing cutting edge studies on the theory of information. The theory simply overstated is that everything that exists is information or in a sense can be broken down to bits as in binary code… everything is a 0 or 1)

It is the idea that the conversation started at creation and God transferring from creation to the promises to Abraham, to choosing the Jews, to literally becoming flesh… all transferring information as to Who He is. It is in the relationship God had with Abraham, Moses, and The Hebrews, and now with Jesus that He transfers this info to us now.

There must be physical and rationalization or we get forms of twisted doctrine ranging from Barth to MacArthur… which seem to be on either side of the either/or argument which is more often of not, on different playing fields and seem to talk right past each other in their attempt to show each other wrong.

One can learn of God through some art form, or by reasoning. Yet there is one key missing in the pure rationalist ideas of thought… and that is the Person of Jesus. One must be known by Jesus in order to know Jesus. Much of he lectures I listened to seemed to assume that it is we who must come to know God… by rationalistic thinking, while the bible teaches it is better to be known by God than to have knowledge by itself it must have the irrational emotion of love.

1 Corinthians 8:1-3 … We know that we all possess knowledge. Knowledge puffs up, but love builds up. The man who thinks he knows something does not yet know as he ought to know. But the man who loves God is known by God. (NIV)

Love can be thought of as a commitment… but that seems a bit too scientific and lacks the reflection of something deeper people seem to truly be seeking. I am committed to my wife… yet, in that by words, it may comfort her some, but by a touch and a kiss I convey without words the emotional side of love.

To reduce love to a rationalistic view misses the deep almost un-expressionable thing that love is. That is why love is often better left to the artists and impressions to convey than to simply define in some scientific terms.

Again I can tell my wife I love her with words but I had to physically go and get a marriage license to show my love… even more stand in front of family and friends and before God and take vows (words again). It is in the action that I am also showing my love for my bride of 22 years.

I will wrap this up with James 1: 23-25

“Do not merely listen to the word, and so deceive yourselves. Do what it says.
Anyone who listens to the word but does not do what it says is like a man who looks at his face in a mirror and, after looking at himself, goes away and immediately forgets what he looks like. But the man who looks intently into the perfect law that gives freedom, and continues to do this, not forgetting what he has heard, but doing it–he will be blessed in what he does.” (NIV)

We need to be hearers and doers… if we are just rationalists and do nothing; it will not matter as nothing will change. But to put feet to our thoughts, that is when things happen.

Blessings,
iggy


Technorati tags:
, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

h1

Rationalism and Empiricism

February 24, 2007

Disclaimer: I want to state first I am a novice on this topic.

In the last few days I have been listening to hours of lectures (yes hours) by Gordon Clark. (Not to be confused with singer from the Scottish band the Bay City Rollers). This was an amazing fellow, with a great wit, intellect and knowledge I can only hope to attain in my life. He was still lecturing at age 95 and was very lucid in his speaking. If you don’t know who he is check out this small bio here.

As I listen to him he ran through dozens if not more theologians and philosophers who all dealt in the area of thought and/or reasoning. Gordon is very much a rationalist in his thinking and built great ideological rebuttals against many other views of thought and thinking.

Yet, as I listen I noticed not just with GC, but with many others he quoted, a dogmatism that seemed to be too “either/or”… It seemed one had to choose between either empiricism or rationalism… Clark as I said leaned heavily on the rationalist side and built strong arguments against empiricism.

That is all well and good and I suggest reading him… yet I seem to disagree with the notion one must choose one over the other… and with the “Postmodern” leanings I have, it seemed as if one could choose both/and.

Let me explain.

Gordon Clark states that the image of man is not in that man looks like God… meaning that the dust of the earth made in human form does not mean that is what God looks like… and has Gordon states “God is Spirit”. I do agree with that to a degree, yet he then asserts that the image in the ability to rationalize thought and that is what separates us from the animals. Again, I do agree with this somewhat. I tend toward that it is more about our vocation and purpose that we are “God’s image”.

Yet, the short coming seems to be this. That God created man from the dust of the earth and then breathed his life giving Spirit into man, and man became a living being. Clark here asserts that it is that man became a rational being at this point and in that bears the image of God… but back up the boat a bit here….

It is in the organics of the brain that thoughts are created… and a brain without thoughts is… well… dead. So it seems that one must be in relation to the other in order to function as a whole…

Man is a being because he has both a body and is able to think… one cannot be separate from the other. We can think in image and relate that in words…in fact I often think more in pictures in my mind and then translate them into words to communicate my thoughts.

The polarization that either/or is where the relational factor seems to break down, and if one does follow through logically to the end, one will assert as Gordon did that one could literally translate John 1:1 as “In the beginning was Logic, and Logic was with God and was God.”

I do think that Gordon was trying to convey that Jesus is literally the words (logos) of God and the Word (Logos) of God as in one lecture I believe he said that one cannot separate these from each other. With that I see that one cannot separate the organic (empiricism) from the logic (rationalism) without doing damage to both any more than one can remove the thoughts from a persons brain without hurting the person and losing the thoughts. Granted on can unite the thoughts and the physical and as I am use the body to convey the thoughts in words by typing them out.

How this work out in theology is like this.

In God (The Speaker) were His Thoughts, which became manifest in creation itself. Later at the specific time the Incarnation of Jesus, who was the Physical manifestation of God’s thoughts came to be. God’s literal Thoughts that brought creation became a man and part of creation itself. Kierkegaard would say the incarnation was a contradiction that could not be explained but just accepted as the infinite could not be both finite and infinite at the same time… but Jesus had a temporal body of clay… like us that died and was raised imperishable. The contradiction is only that before the incarnation Jesus appears to have a heavenly body as He appears in the OT pre incarnationally. The lack of contradiction comes as Jesus existed as the thoughts of God in the Words spoken… which later took on flesh. It now has continuity as the Word must have the physical to be relational.

Interestingly in all of this I also found that the idea of the “conversation” that is the main thrust of emerging, is that thoughts without the mouth to speak or some other physical media are in a way not able to exist. They depend on the mouth to speak, the hand to write or what ever way the information that is trying to be conveyed can be transported.

(A side note on this is NASA is doing cutting edge studies on the theory of information. The theory simply overstated is that everything that exists is information or in a sense can be broken down to bits as in binary code… everything is a 0 or 1)

It is the idea that the conversation started at creation and God transferring from creation to the promises to Abraham, to choosing the Jews, to literally becoming flesh… all transferring information as to Who He is. It is in the relationship God had with Abraham, Moses, and The Hebrews, and now with Jesus that He transfers this info to us now.

There must be physical and rationalization or we get forms of twisted doctrine ranging from Barth to MacArthur… which seem to be on either side of the either/or argument which is more often of not, on different playing fields and seem to talk right past each other in their attempt to show each other wrong.

One can learn of God through some art form, or by reasoning. Yet there is one key missing in the pure rationalist ideas of thought… and that is the Person of Jesus. One must be known by Jesus in order to know Jesus. Much of he lectures I listened to seemed to assume that it is we who must come to know God… by rationalistic thinking, while the bible teaches it is better to be known by God than to have knowledge by itself it must have the irrational emotion of love.

1 Corinthians 8:1-3 … We know that we all possess knowledge. Knowledge puffs up, but love builds up. The man who thinks he knows something does not yet know as he ought to know. But the man who loves God is known by God. (NIV)

Love can be thought of as a commitment… but that seems a bit too scientific and lacks the reflection of something deeper people seem to truly be seeking. I am committed to my wife… yet, in that by words, it may comfort her some, but by a touch and a kiss I convey without words the emotional side of love.

To reduce love to a rationalistic view misses the deep almost un-expressionable thing that love is. That is why love is often better left to the artists and impressions to convey than to simply define in some scientific terms.

Again I can tell my wife I love her with words but I had to physically go and get a marriage license to show my love… even more stand in front of family and friends and before God and take vows (words again). It is in the action that I am also showing my love for my bride of 22 years.

I will wrap this up with James 1: 23-25

“Do not merely listen to the word, and so deceive yourselves. Do what it says.
Anyone who listens to the word but does not do what it says is like a man who looks at his face in a mirror and, after looking at himself, goes away and immediately forgets what he looks like. But the man who looks intently into the perfect law that gives freedom, and continues to do this, not forgetting what he has heard, but doing it–he will be blessed in what he does.” (NIV)

We need to be hearers and doers… if we are just rationalists and do nothing; it will not matter as nothing will change. But to put feet to our thoughts, that is when things happen.

Blessings,
iggy


Technorati tags:
, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

h1

CRN are the hearsay hunters… spreading gossip…

February 23, 2007

I Just followed a link on Rick’s blog to another wonderful addition to the great research of CRN the gossip mill.

Following those links take you to how persecuted those at CRN think they are… never once thinking of the harm they cause to others with their lies, slander and innuendos. I have never seen them retract an incorrect statement… bearing false witness is part of the Big Ten guys… (That would be the Ten Commandments). These guys show once again they do not truly believe of follow the teaching of the bible but are out for self promotion and selfish ambition. Even when they seem to have the story right, I would doubt what they wrote as the bulk of the site is misinformation and lacking any real discernment. They seem to not truly value the Bible or Jesus’ teachings. So, can you be a “christian” and hate your brothers? Can you believe the words of Jesus and slander and gossip and lie about others? Mostly can you seek after the Kingdom of God if you are building your own out of selfish ambition? Beware or divisive men and women like these.

Be sure to read the comments on the MMI post… it sets the record straight.

This is really sad.

Blessings,
iggy


Technorati tags:
, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

h1

CRN are the hearsay hunters… spreading gossip…

February 23, 2007

I Just followed a link on Rick’s blog to another wonderful addition to the great research of CRN the gossip mill.

Following those links take you to how persecuted those at CRN think they are… never once thinking of the harm they cause to others with their lies, slander and innuendos. I have never seen them retract an incorrect statement… bearing false witness is part of the Big Ten guys… (That would be the Ten Commandments). These guys show once again they do not truly believe of follow the teaching of the bible but are out for self promotion and selfish ambition. Even when they seem to have the story right, I would doubt what they wrote as the bulk of the site is misinformation and lacking any real discernment. They seem to not truly value the Bible or Jesus’ teachings. So, can you be a “christian” and hate your brothers? Can you believe the words of Jesus and slander and gossip and lie about others? Mostly can you seek after the Kingdom of God if you are building your own out of selfish ambition? Beware or divisive men and women like these.

Be sure to read the comments on the MMI post… it sets the record straight.

This is really sad.

Blessings,
iggy


Technorati tags:
, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,