- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Remember that those who belong to God are brothers and if we slander a brother, we are really saying it to the Lord.
I refuse to be part of the slander and I seek real proof that the slander is not slander. If there is no proof, it is slander. If there is proof then Nick should apologise.
Where is the proof?
Until the proof is set forth, I cannot entertain speculation. It would be wise if people learned to tame their tongue and judge righteously.
In addition there are rules in these forums. No slander is the second one. Please respect the rules. the rules are not harsh and are only there for those who break them.
Quote (t8 @ Sep. 22 2006,16:06) To kenrch. Quote (kenrch @ Sep. 23 2006,10:30) 1) Mat 18:15 Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault “BETWEEN THEE AND HIM ALONE”: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother. This is a command of our Lord! This should have been between Nick and H alone. Did Nick follow this command?
2) Mat 18:16 But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.
If H and Nick could not have reasoned this thing out then Nick should have brought it up before two or three witness. Did Nick follow this command?
3) Mat 18:17 And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.
If H was declared wrong then the charges should have been brought up before the “whole” forum. Did Nick follow this command?
I don't know if Nick did or not.But how can you be sure that there wasn't dialogue with Nick and H? I know that such dialogue exists out in the open in these forums.
Also 2 or 3 witnesses are there to establish that what has happened is true and the reaction is true. I would have thought that speaking on the forum is the same thing. It establishes witnessess to the truth of what has happened. Please remember that we are not talking face to face in the same physical space. We are in cyberspace and limited to that media.
If H accuses Nick on the forums, then what other proof is needed. You don't need witnessess etc, because Hescomingintheclouds posts are the witness. They are there for all to see, what more proof is needed.
If you read through the posts with Nick and H, you may find the witness needed to establish that H has indeed accused or slandered Nick. I seem to remember accusations in some of Hs posts, even though I do not read most of what he posts.
Kenrch you appear to be assumming that Nick made a threat to H public, with no previous dialogue with H, or recorded posts (witnesses) preceeding the PM that he revealed.
I have also noticed that your charge against him started off that he shouldn't have made something public to the Church in this forum (even though Paul tells us to do so), to not telling it to H alone, and then 2 or 3 witnessess. Your charge against him has changed. I know in law that changing an accusation in court doesn't bode well for the accuser, yet you have appeared to have done this.
In addition to this, did you approach Nick with his sin and then bring 2 or 3 witnesses, before accusing him before the church in these forums? Or did you think that the forums witnessed to the fact?
If the latter, then why can you use the forums as a witness and not Nick?
I am not taking sides Kenrch, but I just want to judge rightly and in truth, and all I can see so far is a lot of slander and for such, people can and should be removed according to the rules.
If someone actually posted proof that Nick deceptively changed a post as H says, then that would be good enough for me. Until that day happens, I think all the other accusations against Nick are rediculous. There are witnesses in the posts themselves. If someone says something in a post, then why isn't that considered a witness. After all you have condemened Nick by posts alone. So they are obviously a good enough witness for you.
Is this not hypocritical? The advice given to you about taking the log out of your eye, should be taken seriously I think.
once everything is out in the opened the damage was done. I asked Nick and told him he should apologize. Apparently your friendship with Nick is deeper that your love for the Lord. Otherwise you would back SCRIPTURE.There is nothing you have said that changes the ink on the paper. And if you want to kick me off the forum for following scripture go right ahead.
All things I have said are TRUE! And scriptural I might add!
This is a lost cause I just don't see where not following the commands of our Lord is just OK. Why teach them if you don't follow them. It has almost gotten to where it is funny you and Nick I mean. Neither of you are to follow what you teach.
You never answered my question OH that's right you think Nick is right in not following scripture.Unless one repents then God can't forgive!!!
Look weather H was wrong or not doesn't matter because Nick did not follow the Lord's cammands.
Nick should apologize. I believe h already has, hasn't he!Kenrch,
The thing is T8 is not the only one who sees this as being unprofitable. Without any evidence we can't do anything about it.
I have posted several scriptures myself that I think really strike at this matter with force.
Why are we even having this discussion if H can't produce 2 or 3 witnesses (whether people or posts) to demonstrate his case. You seem to think it is Nick who needs these witnesses. Don't you see H, needs them to present his case against Nick?
I am not taking sides either, I just think the whole thing is blown out of proportion.
It would be far more beneficial to just move on in the love of Christ and simply remain wronged. Rejoycing in the Lord for being considered worthy of being wronged for his cause.
The only reason I am adding to these posts is because I hope to try to calm the storm so nobody leaves. Because the truth is I enjoy talking and learning with all of you.
Quote (Mercy @ Sep. 22 2006,16:54) Kenrch, The thing is T8 is not the only one who sees this as being unprofitable. Without any evidence we can't do anything about it.
I have posted several scriptures myself that I think really strike at this matter with force.
Why are we even having this discussion if H can't produce 2 or 3 witnesses (whether people or posts) to demonstrate his case. You seem to think it is Nick who needs these witnesses. Don't you see H, needs them to present his case against Nick?
I am not taking sides either, I just think the whole thing is blown out of proportion.
It would be far more beneficial to just move on in the love of Christ and simply remain wronged. Rejoycing in the Lord for being considered worthy of being wronged for his cause.
The only reason I am adding to these posts is because I hope to try to calm the storm so nobody leaves. Because the truth is I enjoy talking and learning with all of you.
It is HOW Nick handled the matter that goes AGAINST scripture. What is wrong with Nick having to apologize?I don't think asking one who broke scripture to do a simple thin like apologize is blowing anything out of proportion. Scripture and commands of our Lord were broken. Again WHY can't Nick apologize. Does anyone know yet? Again H has apologized what is wrong with Nick.
Nothing is wrong with Nick apologizing, but what good is it to demand that he does?
I think we all need to apologize.
To the Father.
Quote (kenrch @ Sep. 23 2006,11:56) Quote (Mercy @ Sep. 22 2006,16:54) Kenrch, The thing is T8 is not the only one who sees this as being unprofitable. Without any evidence we can't do anything about it.
I have posted several scriptures myself that I think really strike at this matter with force.
Why are we even having this discussion if H can't produce 2 or 3 witnesses (whether people or posts) to demonstrate his case. You seem to think it is Nick who needs these witnesses. Don't you see H, needs them to present his case against Nick?
I am not taking sides either, I just think the whole thing is blown out of proportion.
It would be far more beneficial to just move on in the love of Christ and simply remain wronged. Rejoycing in the Lord for being considered worthy of being wronged for his cause.
The only reason I am adding to these posts is because I hope to try to calm the storm so nobody leaves. Because the truth is I enjoy talking and learning with all of you.
It is HOW Nick handled the matter that goes AGAINST scripture. What is wrong with Nick having to apologize?I don't think asking one who broke scripture to do a simple thin like apologize is blowing anything out of proportion. Scripture and commands of our Lord were broken. Again WHY can't Nick apologize. Does anyone know yet? Again H has apologized what is wrong with Nick.
kenrch you accuse Nick of one thing then changing it to something that you are doing yourself.Come on Kenrch, what good is it going to do by acting this way and hardening your heart?
The real issue is an accusation that so far has no proof. Handling this issue is not the sin, the accusations are. You have given your view point and you continue to do so, even though we/I do not agree with your reasoning.
By all means make Nick accountable. But accountable for a real sin. Let's not get petty and into a cat fight. There are plenty of witnesses in these forums to Hs conduct toward Nick. To me that is enough.
I apologise to anyone I have offended and I ask God for forgiveness of my sins. What about you?
Quote (t8 @ Sep. 22 2006,17:09) Quote (kenrch @ Sep. 23 2006,11:56) Quote (Mercy @ Sep. 22 2006,16:54) Kenrch, The thing is T8 is not the only one who sees this as being unprofitable. Without any evidence we can't do anything about it.
I have posted several scriptures myself that I think really strike at this matter with force.
Why are we even having this discussion if H can't produce 2 or 3 witnesses (whether people or posts) to demonstrate his case. You seem to think it is Nick who needs these witnesses. Don't you see H, needs them to present his case against Nick?
I am not taking sides either, I just think the whole thing is blown out of proportion.
It would be far more beneficial to just move on in the love of Christ and simply remain wronged. Rejoycing in the Lord for being considered worthy of being wronged for his cause.
The only reason I am adding to these posts is because I hope to try to calm the storm so nobody leaves. Because the truth is I enjoy talking and learning with all of you.
It is HOW Nick handled the matter that goes AGAINST scripture. What is wrong with Nick having to apologize?I don't think asking one who broke scripture to do a simple thin like apologize is blowing anything out of proportion. Scripture and commands of our Lord were broken. Again WHY can't Nick apologize. Does anyone know yet? Again H has apologized what is wrong with Nick.
kenrch you accuse Nick of one thing then changing it to something that you are doing yourself.Come on Kenrch, what good is it going to do by acting this way and hardening your heart?
The real issue is an accusation that so far has no proof. Handling this issue is not the sin, the accusations are. You have given your view point and you continue to do so, even though we/I do not agree with your reasoning.
By all means make Nick accountable. But accountable for a real sin. Let's not get petty and into a cat fight. There are plenty of witnesses in these forums to Hs conduct toward Nick. To me that is enough.
I apologise to anyone I have offended and I ask God for forgiveness of my sins. What about you?
Ha! What sin did I commit—following scripture– of course if I have sinned then I will REPENT just as I have in the past how about you?I don't consider it a sin, but you inevitiably do.
So you should adhere to your own rules.
That is the sin. Doing that which you consider as sin.Your latest accusation is that Nick didn't rebuke H by himself, (even though you have no proof that he didn't). You then say that there should have been witnesses, even though I consider the posts to be witnesses.
You also have said some not so nice things about Nick to other people in this discussion and at least one other that I have read, yet I wonder if you went through the same process that you are advocating that Nick should have gone through before rebuking him before the Church?
Hypocracy is a sin, handling a situation not your liking is not.
Quote (t8 @ Sep. 22 2006,17:19) I don't consider it a sin, but you inevitiably do.
So you should adhere to your own rules.
That is the sin. Doing that which you consider as sin.Your latest accusation is that Nick didn't rebuke H by himself, (even though you have no proof that he didn't). You then say that there should have been witnesses, even though I consider the posts to be witnesses.
You also have said some not so nice things about Nick to other people in this discussion and at least one other that I have read, yet I wonder if you went through the same process that you are advocating that Nick should have gone through before rebuking him before the Church?
Hypocracy is a sin, handling a situation not your liking is not.
You sir are sinning by not following scripture and keeping things in line because of your one sided judgement.NOW H has apologized WHY can't NICK?
To kenrch.
Personally speaking I think that you and H are not here to do good, but to cause division. I disagree with your reasoning and condemnation of another member with no proof.
I will only judge when proof is given of a sin.
Mishandling is not a sin, and I do not even think it was mishandled.
I think that you have it in for Nick and took this opportunity to put the boot in and I am not impressed by your and Hs behaviour.
I also think that those who search and love the truth are better off without these distractions.
You are going to do what YOU want so I see no point in continuing but you and Nick have shown me who you follow and it is not scripture or the Holy Spirit if you followed the Holy Spirit you would back scripture. It's just that simple.
OK you have drawn your conclusion and it is here for all to read. So can we let it rest now?
There is nothing more to say. I disagree with your behaviour toward Nick and I disagree with your reasoning for condemning him.
I don't think any good is going to come of this by continuing to argue. It's not a good witness to continue in this manner Kenrch, and I prefer that you stop speaking badly of another member.
Enough had been said and the readers can judge for themselves with what has been presented.
Quote (t8 @ Sep. 22 2006,17:30) To kenrch. Personally speaking I think that you and H are not here to do good, but to cause division. I disagree with your reasoning and condemnation of another member with no proof.
I will only judge when proof is given of a sin.
Mishandling is not a sin, and I do not even think it was mishandled.
I think that you have it in for Nick and took this opportunity to put the boot in and I am not impressed by your and Hs behaviour.
I also think that those who search and love the truth are better off without these distractions.
Deliberately Not following the commands of Jesus Christ is not a SIN?! As I said I don't follow men so what you or anyone on this forum thinks I'm doing is wrong by following scripture and asking for an apology. Then you are wrong because scripture is behind me and truth WILL prevail.Quote (kenrch @ Sep. 20 2006,21:31) Quote (Cubes @ Sep. 19 2006,22:09) Hi Kenrch, Regarding Nick's sharing of the PM sent to him, I think in this case Nick was right to share it for the following reasons (and please don't think I am taking sides. I consider both H & Nick as my brothers and friends):
1. The content of the PM is about Nick (Not H), thus Nick's prerogative to do with it what he wants.
2. H said that it was out of regard to Nick he PM'd him rather than publicize the content, so again, this gives Nick the prerogative to do what he wants with the unfavorable information about himself.
3. In this case, given the content of the PM, I side with Nick's handling of it. If we don't bring such things to light we run the risk of being under the power of others or living in fear, which for both parties' sake, is uncalled for.
4. On the other hand, the issue about which H speaks can also now be addressed as among brethren, as is being done now.
Having said all that, I do respect and acknowledge your concerns for confidentiality and privacy for the most part.
Hi Cubes,You are siding against scripture:
Mat 18:15 Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him “ALONE “: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother.Is this what our brother (who is a teacher) did? Did he confront H about the matter? NO! Did he tell t8 about it BEFORE bring it before the forum? NO!
Mat 18:16 But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee ONE OR TWO MORE , that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. Did Nick do this? NO!
Nick did “his” thing and did not follow scripture. Who is Nick that he can break rules and ignore what our Lord said?
Nick cannot apologize because his pride won't let him. Sad but nonetheless true.
Should not have Nick followed scripture? Of course he should have but he doesn't seem to care that he didn't. Jesus Christ said through scripture that what Nick did was wrong.
How can anyone say Nick did nothing wrong when scripture point to the truth. It's in black and white! He did wrong and he knows he did wrong but won't apologize.Perhaps someone may explain what Matt. 18:15-17 means. since Nick won't apologize and some of you believe he is right.
Hi Ken,Sorry for my delayed response. I put forth what I hope to be an unbiased view.
We will not side with others because they are great or small, rich or poor…, but we would by the grace of God judge justly. Not condemn any, however.
Let me say that what I am writing is solely based on the OP and implies no further knowledge of whatever may have transpired privately between the two.
You see this as a dispute but I see it as post-dispute.
Imagine if Nick had written that same PM to H, basically saying H has been found to be this, that and the other thing and has been unrelenting when it was brought to his attention; thus the next time around he would be sure that all knew that H is XY and Z. Imagine Nick says to H, I would have told this to the church by now but for your sake, I'm giving you this warning now. Don't let it happen again or else I shall let everyone know that you are XY and Z. This accusation appears to question the integrity of one as a christian and a teacher.
That is what I understood H's PM to mean.
Mind you, the obvious contention b/n the two has been going on over the forum for sometime, for those who follow their debates, as David noted above.
My subjective understanding of what Nick did is that he decided to cut thru' the chase and fast forward this before the church: He seemed to be saying, If I am XY and Z as you say, let all tell me so or let me be once and for all exonerated from your accusations.
——–
1. Apparently both brothers got tired: I understand H to be saying, Nick is not fit to be a teacher based on character so would be ready to expose him if he persists. Scripture allows for that.2. I understand Nick to be subjecting himself to and appealing to the church's judgment. Scripture allows for that too.
Not comparing Nick to Christ nor H to Judas Iscariot, I refer to the last supper solely for illustration purposes to help us judge more objectively. Did this sort of thing not happen at the Last Supper when Jesus commented that he who dipped his hand with him was going to betray him (his disciples wanted to know). Perhaps as AP stated, Nick might have removed H's name.
Did Jesus not tell Judas to hurry up and get it over with? In this case, Nick presented it prerogatively. Jesus didn't have a private conversation with Judas or bring Judas before two or three as far as we know. Why? Because it was not about a dispute at that point, for onething.
H may have a valid point upon which he based his accusations, as does Nick for bringing what seems like a hidden threat to the open. Jesus brought his threat to the open. He didn't directly name the person.
Like it or not, the ball is in the court of the church regarding this:
Is Nick guilty of the things that H says of him? Nick listed it some pages ago and H clarified it.
If Nick is guilty, then what should we and/or Nick do?
If Nick is not guilty, then what should we and/or H do?
That's the real issue I think.
What the issue is not, is that Nick chose to make public what he perceived to be a threat. We cannot fault anyone of us for doing that.
kenrch, you accuse Nick for not having witnesses even though the dialogues are witness. The PM was not the first time Nick was accused was it. If that is not good enough for you, then go somewhere else where the standard reaches your expectations. It obviously doesn't here and no one is telling you that you should stay in a place that doesn't reach your expectation.
But the truth still remains, if you don't adhere to your own rules, that is hypocracy my friend. E.g., it is not a sin to eat meat, but it is if you believe it to be a sin.
Nobody likes it when people accuse others and I plead for you to end this.
You should take the log out of your eye brother. But if you don't want to, then please end this now for the sake of the time that is being wasted.
One of the biggest enemies I find here it seems are those who try to distract you from your mission and drag you into unprofitable things.
I still await the evidence of Nicks sin. I never said it didn't exist, I just want to see the evidence. All that other stuff about mis-managing something to me is nothing but a distraction.
Quote (Cubes @ Sep. 22 2006,17:41) Quote (kenrch @ Sep. 20 2006,21:31) Quote (Cubes @ Sep. 19 2006,22:09) Hi Kenrch, Regarding Nick's sharing of the PM sent to him, I think in this case Nick was right to share it for the following reasons (and please don't think I am taking sides. I consider both H & Nick as my brothers and friends):
1. The content of the PM is about Nick (Not H), thus Nick's prerogative to do with it what he wants.
2. H said that it was out of regard to Nick he PM'd him rather than publicize the content, so again, this gives Nick the prerogative to do what he wants with the unfavorable information about himself.
3. In this case, given the content of the PM, I side with Nick's handling of it. If we don't bring such things to light we run the risk of being under the power of others or living in fear, which for both parties' sake, is uncalled for.
4. On the other hand, the issue about which H speaks can also now be addressed as among brethren, as is being done now.
Having said all that, I do respect and acknowledge your concerns for confidentiality and privacy for the most part.
Hi Cubes,You are siding against scripture:
Mat 18:15 Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him “ALONE “: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother.Is this what our brother (who is a teacher) did? Did he confront H about the matter? NO! Did he tell t8 about it BEFORE bring it before the forum? NO!
Mat 18:16 But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee ONE OR TWO MORE , that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. Did Nick do this? NO!
Nick did “his” thing and did not follow scripture. Who is Nick that he can break rules and ignore what our Lord said?
Nick cannot apologize because his pride won't let him. Sad but nonetheless true.
Should not have Nick followed scripture? Of course he should have but he doesn't seem to care that he didn't. Jesus Christ said through scripture that what Nick did was wrong.
How can anyone say Nick did nothing wrong when scripture point to the truth. It's in black and white! He did wrong and he knows he did wrong but won't apologize.Perhaps someone may explain what Matt. 18:15-17 means. since Nick won't apologize and some of you believe he is right.
Hi Ken,Sorry for my delayed response. I put forth what I hope to be an unbiased view.
We will not side with others because they are great or small, rich or poor…, but we would by the grace of God judge justly. Not condemn any, however.
Let me say that what I am writing is solely based on the OP and implies no further knowledge of whatever may have transpired privately between the two.
You see this as a dispute but I see it as post-dispute.
Imagine if Nick had written that same PM to H, basically saying H has been found to be this, that and the other thing and has been unrelenting when it was brought to his attention; thus the next time around he would be sure that all knew that H is XY and Z. Imagine Nick says to H, I would have told this to the church by now but for your sake, I'm giving you this warning now. Don't let it happen again or else I shall let everyone know that you are XY and Z. This accusation appears to question the integrity of one as a christian and a teacher.
That is what I understood H's PM to mean.
Mind you, the obvious contention b/n the two has been going on over the forum for sometime, for those who follow their debates, as David noted above.
My subjective understanding of what Nick did is that he decided to cut thru' the chase and fast forward this before the church: He seemed to be saying, If I am XY and Z as you say, let all tell me so or let me be once and for all exonerated from your accusations.
——–
1. Apparently both brothers got tired: I understand H to be saying, Nick is not fit to be a teacher based on character so would be ready to expose him if he persists. Scripture allows for that.2. I understand Nick to be subjecting himself to and appealing to the church's judgment. Scripture allows for that too.
Not comparing Nick to Christ nor H to Judas Iscariot, I refer to the last supper solely for illustration purposes to help us judge more objectively. Did this sort of thing not happen at the Last Supper when Jesus commented that he who dipped his hand with him was going to betray him (his disciples wanted to know). Perhaps as AP stated, Nick might have removed H's name.
Did Jesus not tell Judas to hurry up and get it over with? In this case, Nick presented it prerogatively. Jesus didn't have a private conversation with Judas or bring Judas before two or three as far as we know. Why? Because it was not about a dispute at that point, for onething.
H may have a valid point upon which he based his accusations, as does Nick for bringing what seems like a hidden threat to the open. Jesus brought his threat to the open. He didn't directly name the person.
Like it or not, the ball is in the court of the church regarding this:
Is Nick guilty of the things that H says of him? Nick listed it some pages ago and H clarified it.
If Nick is guilty, then what should we and/or Nick do?
If Nick is not guilty, then what should we and/or H do?
That's the real issue I think.
What the issue is not, is that Nick chose to make public what he perceived to be a threat. We cannot fault anyone of us for doing that.
I guess I didn't make myself clear. If H would have did what Nick did and NOT apologize then H would be guilty of breaking Jesus Christ commands. However H did apologize. My question is why won't Nick apologize? He broke the commands of Jesus. Like it or not that is what he did and by NOT apologizing that makes it worse. It's up to Jesus and the Father t8 made his mind up before the whole thing happened. So that is the END of thgis matter for me the smoke has cleared so let the Holy Spirit decide. Of course the Holy Spirit has to side with scripture.In my opinion to make light of this matter is a grave mistake on everyone's part.
Sorry Kenrch but he didn't break the commands of Jesus.
A person should apologise when he sins and knows that he has sinned.Where does Jesus say you cannot expose a PM?
It doesn't.Your interpretation regarding the lack of witnesses (that you broke yourself) should be subject to the church.
So from what I can see, only H agrees with you, but that means nothing as he is the one who slandered Nick and probably needs all the help he can get right now.
But I wonder how long it will take before others who hate Nick to see an opportunity to put the boot in?
You say that he sinned, yet you have sinned in the same way by accusing Nick without going through the procedure that you are advocating he should go through.
So where is your apology Kenrch?
Should you not practice what you preach?
To me, to end this on the best possible note for you, would be to apologise for not practicing what you preach, and then rest your case and let others decide.
Quote (t8 @ Sep. 22 2006,18:00) Sorry Kenrch but he didn't break the commands of Jesus. Where does Jesus say you cannot expose a PM?
It doesn't.Your interpretation regarding the lack of witnesses (that you broke yourself) should be subject to the church.
So far from what I can see, only H agrees with you, but that means nothing as he is the one who slandered Nick and probably needs all the help he can get right now.
But I wonder how long it will take before others who hate Nick to see an opportunity to put the boot in?
Are we under the Old Testament when just adhere to the strict letter of the law? Are we not led by the Spirit of God?Such a responce shows that you are not being guided by the Holy Spirit. Where did Jesus say not to make an PM public! Are you joking!
Look you wanted to let it go and I am willing to leave it up to the Holy Spirit who is a better judge.
Now you want to stir it up again. One last time this is scripture this is a command of Jesus:
Mat 18:15 Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother.
Nick and H alone. How much more simpler can that be?We are in the NEW TESTAMENT and are led by the Spirit not the letter of the law.
Can't you read scripture. I'm really fighting a loosing battle if you can't interpret scripture and a simple one at that.If your conscience is bothering you then ask for forgiveness. I'm finished it's up to the Holy Spirit. You do what you want.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
