Helen CCG busybody

[onesimus_jones (onesimus_jones)]

Helen,

Due to banishment from CCG, your presumptuous assertions about me are answered here.

I know you are reading this, but would respond to your sinful practice of bearing false witness even if you didn't.

Particularly astonishing is your habit of assigning motives to others, while taking Steve Born to task for same.

Here are your words in italics, interspersed with my comments - which are designed to correct factual errors and expose your demagoguery.

they have all three Godhead positions; UROG, JING and PIG, represented on that board and their differences of opinions on that subject are being avoided for the sake of “the cause”. This is presumptuous on several counts: <font size="-1">1.)</font> the board has been up one week - a little early to draw this conclusion <font size="-1">2.)</font> we have other interests besides Christology, <font size="-1">3.)</font>you don't know me, or why I do or don't address certain subjects <font size="-1">4.)</font>I'm more interested in exposing your cultic mindset and refusal to be accountable for the inferences you make about me than I am discussing Christology.


Though they were hot subjects between these same individuals on this board, it is not expedient to “get into it” at this time.

The false paradox you present here is an obvious attempt to create a scism, and is reprehensible. Since you won't answer for yourself, I assume that you can't stand it that I circumvent my banishment through this forum.

So, for the sake of the cause, they are willing to set aside their differences...
Be afraid. Be very afraid. You have really uncovered something sinister here.

I ask, where’s the freedom in this?
I answer - everywhere. Anything I want to say, I can say here. And if you and your ilk tried to give me the bum's rush off of here, the moderators would oust you, instead.

After one week, you presume that subjects not yet addressed here are being avoided.

If you guessed right, and some subject is being avoided, you presume to know the motive.

If you guessed right about a subject being avoided, and got the motive right, you wax demagogic about said motive. If my differences with Steve Born take a back seat to my objections about your hypocrisy, you warn the peanut gallery of some sinister "cause" afoot.

The CCG moderator won't hinder your incessant use of innuendo, your refusal to practice biblical accountability for your words about others...

...or your absurd accusations of coercion when your gossip is confronted on this forum when doing so on CCG is verboten.

I'm a real human, not just a deleted entry on CCG.

Your posts need to be circumcised.

(Message edited by onesimus_jones on September 10, 2005)

[movinon (movinon)]

One,

Of course, this site will be watched for any faltering or failing that can be picked at by those that seem to wish for its demise. The fact that certain topics have not been addressed doesn't mean anything. It was not those topics that caused those that have exited CCG to leave in the first place.

It was the very attitudes and actions that have been and are now being voiced by CCG board posters that have had the cumulative effect of causing others to no longer feel comfortable or accepted there. The CCG board has changed over the last two or three years, and that could only be readily obvious to those that had been there for most of its lifespan, not those that have just recently (in the last two to three years) shown up to dominate the place.

If I, for one, do not discuss certain topics, it's more from a point of interest or lack of same, not any other reason. The truth is, most of the doctrinal topics have been hashed, rehashed, and re-re-hashed so many times that we all know intimately what the other folks feel and why.

So, for those that love to quote their commentators and refuse to allow others to express an opinion if it goes against the "group think", the CCG board is exactly where they belong, and exactly where I don't belong.

mo

[steve26 (steve26)]

Yes, they're going to mightily jerk on all the old hooks that the Chapel put into anybody who is not fully convinced of the truth of Trinitarianism, but yet who would like to now get free of the "group think" so obvious in the Chapel mindset. In other words, I think anti-Trinitarianism is a big player in the group-think that exists over at CCG. It involves the way people think of themselves in relation to the church as it has actually existed down through history. Many ex-Chapelites can see the harmfulness of much of the rest of Chapel doctrine, but because they are still convinced of the truth of its anti-Trinitarianism they can't really fit in anyplace else, and remain to some degree isolated, or to some degree suspicious of historic Christian dogma - to them it remains a negative. In my mind, that's also one of the tragic, continuing effects of the Chapel.

(Message edited by steve26 on September 10, 2005)

[onesimus (onesimus)]

I made the mistake of dialoging with her on the CCG.

I came here to remind myself why that was a big mistake.

My big sin is suggesting that Don is a false teacher.

You would think I had vandalized her house, the way she started defending Don.

I got a new perspective on legalism. You see, Don couldn't possibly be a false teacher, because not every single thing he says is false.

And he still says Jesus is the saviour, to boot.

I asked, "If Don isn't a false teacher, who is?"

I got two responses:

Lanny gave me Jim Jones, while of course denying that Don could be a false teacher.

Helen, wanting to be Perry Mason, but without the legal skills, asked how I would like it if she judged me to be a false teacher.

The good news is that 8 out of 14 poll respondents agreed that DB is a false teacher.

[onesimus (onesimus)]

bump

[steveb (steveb)]

Onesimus,

Are you referring to a literal poll taken on the CCG board when you say, "...8 out of 14 poll respondents agreed that DB is a false teacher"?

If so, that is very interesting. A majority agrees that Don is a false teacher, but yet they still hang on to his false teaching (UROG). It is a doctrinal system entirely of his own creation, differing both from the UPC Oneness in which he was raised and from his current JING theology. They all (Don's other beliefs about God throughout his life as well as the current beliefs of almost all ex-Chapelites) have in common only their anti-Trinitarianism, which they share also with cults such as the JWs and Mormons. I have to regard that as very telling.