Welcome to De-Commissioned, a place for former members of the Great Commission movement (aka GCM, GCC, GCAC, GCI, the Blitz) to discuss problems they've experienced in the association's practices and theology.

You may read and post, but some features are restricted to registered members. Please consider registering to gain full access! Registration is free and only takes a few moments to complete.
De-Commissioned Forum
March 28, 2024, 06:02:02 am *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
 
  Home   Forum   Help Search Login Register  
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: How very sad…  (Read 100093 times)
puff of purple smoke
Administrator
Household Name (300+ Posts)
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 604



« Reply #20 on: January 07, 2009, 03:28:14 pm »

Quote from: prince
Well just to play devil's advocate, if Larry is as unscrupulous as Sam suggests, it might cast doubts about his book and his motive for writing it.

I doubt that.  To me it seems that Sam's accusation is that Larry is not "healed" from being abused by GC, and has a bad attitude.  Apparently Larry also wrote a letter to a friend of Sam's that caused a schism between Sam and the friend.  

No, somebody named Mike Royal who used to know Sam while in GC sent a letter to one of Sam's pastor friends. Larry Pile includes this letter in The Blitz Papers, which is basically a raw dump of hundreds of letters sent during GC history.
« Last Edit: January 07, 2009, 03:31:01 pm by puff of purple smoke » Logged
EverAStudent
Private Forum Access
Household Name (300+ Posts)
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 716



WWW
« Reply #21 on: January 07, 2009, 03:38:52 pm »

Quote from: puff
No, somebody named Mike Royal who used to know Sam while in GC sent a letter to one of Sam's pastor friends. Larry Pile includes this letter in The Blitz Papers, which is basically a raw dump of hundreds of letters sent during GC history.

So then, the only accusation that Sam is leveling at Larry Pile is that Larry continues to suffer emotional distress because he had been abused by GC leadership?HuhHuh, but otherwise Larry Pile has not said anything false or done anything violent?

If Larry's behaviors have been generally above reproach, then why would I doubt the accuracy of his book?  Especially when the parts I can personally verify are accurate?




Logged
EverAStudent
Private Forum Access
Household Name (300+ Posts)
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 716



WWW
« Reply #22 on: January 07, 2009, 03:47:07 pm »

Quote from: sam
You missed my point that I do not absolve GC from their sins. My main point is that Larry is not clean and yet he is still praised here and apparently considered infallible. The messenger is just as important as the message... on both sides. Neither side is free from guilt.

Let me restate what I stated earlier:  Here we are again comparing a pea to a bowling ball and calling them equal.  GC leadership is accused of abusing the congregations in 150 churches for decades, while Sam alone accuses Larry of having a bad attitude.  Are these charges not painfully out of balance?  Can it not be grasped that an accusation of one person's bad attitude is petty BY COMPARISON to the gross abuses we have all gone through at the hands of the GC leadership?  Worse, as recent posters have opined, GC seems to continue to do what they had been doing on a national scale, they have not stopped, the damage goes on. 

Speck v. Log   Watch the contest continue...
Logged
Linda
Household Name (300+ Posts)
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2520



« Reply #23 on: January 07, 2009, 04:03:26 pm »

Quote from: Sam
You missed my point that I do not absolve GC from their sins.
I understand your point. You have made it many, many times.
Quote from: Sam
My main point is that Larry is not clean and yet he is still praised here and apparently considered infallible.
Infallible? Really, Sam, no one here has ever said that. You have repeatedly stated in large, colored letters that all Larry Pile wants in heads on a platter and that he is an imperfect human being. You don't have to keep saying it, we understand that you have issues with the man, you disrespect him, and you continually have to tell people that. Plus, we are all imperfect. Perhaps you need to forgive him, move on, and heal, Sam.
Quote from: Sam
The messenger is just as important as the message... on both sides.
Depends on what you mean. God can speak through donkeys if he has to.
Quote from: EAS
I am sometimes amused, sometimes angered, when the abusers blameshift their culpability to the abused, saying the abused are just as bad as the abusers--as if man's imperfect state is some kind of equalizer of morality.  It is not.  Some behaviors are worse than others, and so, some will receive a harsher judgment than others.
I agree.
Logged

Thanks be unto God for his unspeakable gift.
Linda
Household Name (300+ Posts)
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2520



« Reply #24 on: January 07, 2009, 05:49:25 pm »

Sam,

Did you read what Larry wrote in the preface to Marching to Zion?
Quote
In preparing this material for publication, as well as in presenting it now to a limited readership, I have sought to keep always before me King Solomon’s injunction in Proverbs 3:3,4 – “Do not let kindness and truth leave you; Bind them around your neck, Write them on the tablet of your heart. So you will find favor and good repute In the sight of God and man.” Aware of the controversial nature of much that I have written – especially in Parts Two and Three – I have tried as far as possible to verify the facts of everything I have reported; to present as many of the facts as possible; and to present them as fairly and level-headedly as possible. I have likewise endeavored to be honest and moderate in my analysis of the Blitz, refraining (I believe) from extreme or unwarranted conclusions.

      My efforts to verify the facts of events reported in Parts Two and Three have included sending manuscript portions to virtually every individual named, both within and without the movement. Not all of them have seen fit to respond, so any inaccuracies or errors that remain, either in fact or interpretation, can at least in part be traced to this unresponsiveness.

      I have written Part One of this book in an attempt to chronicle events of a positive nature and to demonstrate the strong emphasis on evangelistic activity that existed (especially) in the Solid Rock Fellowship of Columbus, Ohio. With respect to its operations and outlook, the SRF was fairly typical of the Blitz movement in general, though differences of degree may be observed among the various groups.

      Looking back on my five and a half years of association with the Blitz, I must confess that, whatever else may be said for or against it, it really accomplished much for God, and continues to do so. Personally, I believe the most exciting period of my Blitz years was the first year or so of our labors in Columbus (1973-1974) – to see a new Christian fellowship put down its roots and then struggle through many growing pains to permanence and acceptance in its community (and to be a part of that) has been without parallel thus far in my experience. I sincerely thank God for the many, many lessons he taught me, through good times and hard times, and can truthfully say that my desire to serve him is much stronger as a result of my experiences in the Blitz movement.
It seems to me that if you have knowledge of some specific inaccuracies, the right thing to do would be to contact Larry with proof of the contradictions. It sounds like he would want to know.

Also, about the Mike Royal letter, (which I hadn't really read till you mentioned it), he states his reason for writing in the letter:
Quote
I am writing to you at this time because Victor Legra, a member of the group until recently, sought my help and counsel in order to leave the group without being excommunicated.
Apparently, some guy named Victor Legra sought his counsel and the letter was an attempt to help Victor. It doesn't sound to me like Mike was going around writing letters to people. Also, Sam, the letter isn't really about you at all. I hope you realize that. In fact, I read it two times before I even saw your name. It's about GC and McCotter.

Hey, cool, I can make moving banners, too! Grin
Logged

Thanks be unto God for his unspeakable gift.
DrSam
Veteran (100-299 Posts)
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 273



« Reply #25 on: January 07, 2009, 06:46:40 pm »

The original poster brought up Larry. The response to that that poster seemed to exonerate Larry. Their comments were not considered out of place. Hence my explanation. It is on the topic just like the responses were on the topic. Are the rules of engagement selectively changing here?

I am not talking about amount of accusations towards GC versus amount of accusations towards Larry. I am talking about integrity, motivation, and agenda. If the messenger is flawed, could there be some flaw in his message? Few here seem to think so. If this was a graduate course in research we would have to look at the credibility and character of the messenger as one key factor. Most on these forums have nothing but praise despite the interactions on this forum where I confronted Larry. Larry has a vendetta which he plainly shows via his admissions of his goals and his proof texts he adheres to strongly despite being told his exegesis is poor and shown so. Regardless of these things, he still shows that he is not able to bless his enemies which is a critical indicator (TQM talk) evidencing inward transformation.


 

From our perspective Larry wrote a useful book.  What do you want from Larry or from us that would change that?  So, if Larry did offend you personally, how would that suddenly make his book not useful anymore?
 




Well just to play devil's advocate, if Larry is as unscrupulous as Sam suggests, it might cast doubts about his book and his motive for writing it.
« Last Edit: January 07, 2009, 08:11:03 pm by DrSam » Logged
DrSam
Veteran (100-299 Posts)
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 273



« Reply #26 on: January 07, 2009, 06:52:33 pm »

However, I would still like to point out that:
Shocked GCM Warning is not Larry Pile.Shocked

Noted but majority of participants of GCM Warning see Mr. Pile as a TOTALLY CREDIBLE source. In his writings he only reflect himself and cohorts in a positive light. Can that be biased? Can that be blindly taken to the bank of trust?
Logged
DrSam
Veteran (100-299 Posts)
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 273



« Reply #27 on: January 07, 2009, 07:00:57 pm »

Correction to some posts here: Larry did not write the letter to Pastor Mike Braun. Mike Royal did. Mr. Victor Legra was the excuse to warn Pastor Mike Braun where Mike Royal then encased his message of distrust towards me and the leadership with me. Royal used the Victor Legra incident as a medium to share a truckload of his info to create distrust. To me that is slander. I was slandered. No one dares to challenge Mike Royal on that point. Is is escounced in the terminology and excuse of sharing truth and showing "concern." That is why I say the cohorts of Larry are guilty of the same they accuse GC of. Mikey Royal has a disregard here under the guise of "warning."

I kindly digress from you on the healing issue and on judging of issues. I also digress with you that this is poor handling of scripture. Again I point out that the whole book of Proverbs give us case examples of behavior while diagnosing motive... and there is more as I have shared prior. Keep in mind that I, you, us, we will not see that which we are blind to and/or proud/arrogant about and/or have a premeditated agenda about. Hence we each have blinders that do not permit us to see in areas that we ourselves are darkened in. In seminary I shared this principle of personal deception as part of homiletics which create spurious doctrine and imbalance. "From the heart the mouth speaks."

"Watch your life and doctrine closely," said Paul. Life is first to affect doctrine.


Quote from: prince
Well just to play devil's advocate, if Larry is as unscrupulous as Sam suggests, it might cast doubts about his book and his motive for writing it.

I doubt that.  To me it seems that Sam's accusation is that Larry is not "healed" from being abused by GC, and has a bad attitude.  Apparently Larry also wrote a letter to a friend of Sam's that caused a schism between Sam and the friend.  

As for accusation 1 (Larry is not yet healed), who are we to judge that since most of us are not presently in face-to-face contact with Larry?  Is that not a matter between him and God alone?

As for accusation 2 (Larry sent a letter that broke up a friendship between Sam and his fellow national leader) nothing I have heard regarding that episode allows me to consider that it in any way would destroy the credibility of the book Larry authored.  First, Sam continues to allege he knows the motives with which Larry wrote the letter, but Sam cannot know those motives unless Larry told him his motives.  Yet the motive issue seems to the basis of the accusation of foul play in that episode.  Was the content of the letter in error or was it factually correct?  Here the evidence tends to favor Larry as I have read much of what he wrote and found it generally quite accurate, while the bulk of what Sam has written on this forum I have found to be suspect at best (consisting in large part of personal opinions that he holds as a minority opinion and Scripture rather badly handled per the motives issue).  

So my opinion is that Sam has not really accused Larry of anything serious enough to make me question the accuracy of the material in the book in those places where I have no first hand knowledge; the material that describes incidents of which I do have first hand knowledge are accurate.
« Last Edit: January 08, 2009, 11:16:45 am by DrSam » Logged
saved
Regular (15-99 Posts)
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 50



« Reply #28 on: January 07, 2009, 09:28:20 pm »


Take example of the Mike Royal letter to my pastor friend Mike Braun which was designed to create on purpose deep distrust in our friendship. That is mean-spirited in my opinion and slanderous to me! No one here, apparently protests against that kind of abuse, eh?


1) The letter was written by Mike Royal, not Larry Pile.

2) I don't agree that the purpose of the letter was to create deep distrust and destroy your friendship.  My understanding was that the letter was to refer an ex-member to Mike Braun and apprise him of the abusive situation at GC.  The letter mentions you, and leadership (which I guess included you), but wasn't really about you at all.
Logged
Linda
Household Name (300+ Posts)
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2520



« Reply #29 on: January 07, 2009, 09:59:20 pm »

Sam,
Either I'm missing something big, or you are confused about the point of the letter or delusional (which I'm sure you are not). Could you please show me the part where Mike Royal slanders you? At one point he says he was your elder. That's not slander, just a fact. If he wasn't your elder it is an incorrect fact, but it doesn't reflect on your character. He also says:
Quote from: Mike Royal
Regretfully, I was a part of this whole thing. I was involved in deceiving people, ostracizing people and helping in excommunications, all in the name of the Lord. Fortunately for me, there has been opportunity for repentance, and seeking forgiveness and reconciliation.
That's sort of what we all are saying. Lot's of us were involved in GC in various degrees and cooperated to let a lot of bad doctrine go unchecked. We all regret it. Now we are speaking up.

Sam, this letter was not about you.

There is obviously a back story to this letter that none of us know.
Did you go to this EF church? Or were you in the GC church Royal is speaking of?
Was there an issue between you and that Victor fellow?

Mike for some reason mentions you in passing.

Most of the letter is about the unsound doctrine of GC and it's founder JM. It could have been written today by many of us posting on this forum. Nothing seems to have changed with GC.

If anything, this letter is an indictment of Mike Royal on himself. He says he was your elder, then he mentions all the bad stuff he did as a GC elder.

He would be an interesting guy to hear from on this forum. I hope he shows up sometime.

As far as the letter goes, I keep skimming it in search of your name and came across this interesting line:
Quote
You may wonder why I have adressed myself to Jim McCotter and have not spoken more specifically of Campus Bible Church/Gator Christian Life. It is because they are one in the same. Nothing is taught in this group, as to its basic purposes and goals, that it not parrotted from McCotter. No elder, and probably no deacon, is recognized in this group without the direct approval of McCotter.
Again, he did not address himself to issues with Sam Lopez, he addressed himself to issues with JM and GC.

JM recognized all elders. I'm guessing that all GC board members were elders who were originally recognized by Jim McCotter. Doesn't this bother anyone? The authority of these men comes from a self-appointed apostle who left the movement for mysterious reasons after getting it on cult watch lists.

I am not saying that GC board members and elders don't love the Lord, I am saying that they need to stop saying that only "character" matters when choosing elders and instead say "character AND doctrine" is what matters in choosing elders. Character can be easily faked.

Keep a close watch on yourself and on the teaching. Persist in this, for by so doing you will save both yourself and your hearers.I Timothy 4:16

In my opinion, this is the heart of the problem with GC. All emphasis is put on outward character to the exclusion of sound teaching.
« Last Edit: January 08, 2009, 07:46:47 am by Linda » Logged

Thanks be unto God for his unspeakable gift.
EverAStudent
Private Forum Access
Household Name (300+ Posts)
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 716



WWW
« Reply #30 on: January 08, 2009, 09:19:50 am »

I think we have made some progress on this issue.

To date, Sam's complaints are:

1) Larry Pile has a bad attitude with regard to having been abused by GC leadership, and so his book should not be trusted
2) Mike Royal is a slanderer because he wrote a letter that described the specific abuses of GC leadership, of which Sam was a part at the time the letter was written.

Fine. 

As for point 1, can Larry's book be trusted for factual accuracy regardless of his attitude?  This can be tested.  Those parts of the book that I have read and which describe events with which I have first hand knowledge are accurately depicted.  Does anyone have any knowledge of any part of Larry's book that is inaccurate?  If so, this is the time to make it public.  Sam?  Is any part of Larry's book factually inaccurate?  If so, what specific passage?  If no one is able to identify factual errors, then regardless of Larry's actual or presumed attitude when writing it, the book stands as a generally accurate record of what transpired in GC's early years.

Point 2, did Mike Royal "slander" Sam in his letter to Mike Braun?  The dictionary defines slander as: "slan·der [slándər] n (plural slan·ders) 1.  saying something false and damaging: the act of saying something false or malicious that damages somebody’s reputation; 2.  false and damaging statement: a false and malicious statement that damages somebody’s reputation."    The Greek words for slander in the New Testament indicate that slander is the use of evil words, that is, lying.

So, back to Point 2, did Mike Royal lie about Sam in his letter to Mike Braun?  After reading the letter for the first time (as a result of these accusations by Sam Lopez calling the letter is a slanderous lie), I was unable to find anything untruthful or factually incorrect in the letter.  Sam, what specific statement in the letter is untrue, and thus slanderous?  If nothing is erroneous in the letter, then it is not slander. 
Logged
Angry
Veteran (100-299 Posts)
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 103



« Reply #31 on: January 08, 2009, 10:22:07 am »

Chicken, egg, egg, chicken....

From what I know, Sam Lopez denied that in the early days of an ISU Study Group there were no elders.  Depending on how one reads the syntax, Sam either made this claim TO Mike Royals, or in conjunction WITH Mike Royals.

Either way, we're splitting hairs about something that happened decades ago.

GC* has much bigger problems than the "he said/she said" finger pointing about their management flowchart of March 1985.

Sam, Larry - you have both given me some good "insiders" advice over the past 18 months.  You have both given me some bad "insiders" advice.

I'm going to cling to the good advice, wash the bad advice from my colon, and move onward.

Good luck to both of you in your endeavours - may you both find a happy place to grow old within.

Remember - when all is said and done, you guys simply prayed to the wrong rock for awhile.
Logged
DrSam
Veteran (100-299 Posts)
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 273



« Reply #32 on: January 08, 2009, 11:01:48 am »

Linda, I feel there is still a misunderstanding here.

I agree that Mike Royal is warning Rev. Mike Braun about GC. My issue is that the warning is designed to put Rev. Braun in a distrust stance about all of GC, including me. That's what I call a very subtle and back door form of slander. If I were Mike Braun I would immediately become suspicious of his local pastor friend (me). That is my point. I was one of the founders of that church Mike Royal refers to. I was in transition of deciding if I was going to stay in D.C. when the Legra incident happened. I was not present and would have stopped the incident. It came from immature leadership on the homefront. That was corrected and admitted when we confronted those elders. The elders realized they made a big boo boo. The damage was done and Legra left the church and possibly went to Rev. Braun's church. By the way, Victor Legra and I are good friends to this day. He, as a matter of fact called me a week ago on the phone.

Again, my point is that the by product of Mike Royal's letter is that there is embedded info designed to bring distrust towards me since the goal of the letter is a warning to create distrust towards all of GC (not to mention that he mentions my name specifically). I consider Mike Royal's implications of me as slander. I fault Larry and his cohorts of this type of tactic and strategy that creates consistent distrust and defensiveness on their opposites. Few apparently are able to see this dynamic. That's why I fault both sides and both sides need healing.


Sam,
Either I'm missing something big, or you are confused about the point of the letter or delusional (which I'm sure you are not). Could you please show me the part where Mike Royal slanders you? At one point he says he was your elder. That's not slander, just a fact. If he wasn't your elder it is an incorrect fact, but it doesn't reflect on your character. He also says:
Quote from: Mike Royal
Regretfully, I was a part of this whole thing. I was involved in deceiving people, ostracizing people and helping in excommunications, all in the name of the Lord. Fortunately for me, there has been opportunity for repentance, and seeking forgiveness and reconciliation.
That's sort of what we all are saying. Lot's of us were involved in GC in various degrees and cooperated to let a lot of bad doctrine go unchecked. We all regret it. Now we are speaking up.

Sam, this letter was not about you.

There is obviously a back story to this letter that none of us know.
Did you go to this EF church? Or were you in the GC church Royal is speaking of?
Was there an issue between you and that Victor fellow?

Mike for some reason mentions you in passing.

Most of the letter is about the unsound doctrine of GC and it's founder JM. It could have been written today by many of us posting on this forum. Nothing seems to have changed with GC.

If anything, this letter is an indictment of Mike Royal on himself. He says he was your elder, then he mentions all the bad stuff he did as a GC elder.

He would be an interesting guy to hear from on this forum. I hope he shows up sometime.

As far as the letter goes, I keep skimming it in search of your name and came across this interesting line:
Quote
You may wonder why I have adressed myself to Jim McCotter and have not spoken more specifically of Campus Bible Church/Gator Christian Life. It is because they are one in the same. Nothing is taught in this group, as to its basic purposes and goals, that it not parrotted from McCotter. No elder, and probably no deacon, is recognized in this group without the direct approval of McCotter.
Again, he did not address himself to issues with Sam Lopez, he addressed himself to issues with JM and GC.

JM recognized all elders. I'm guessing that all GC board members were elders who were originally recognized by Jim McCotter. Doesn't this bother anyone? The authority of these men comes from a self-appointed apostle who left the movement for mysterious reasons after getting it on cult watch lists.

I am not saying that GC board members and elders don't love the Lord, I am saying that they need to stop saying that only "character" matters when choosing elders and instead say "character AND doctrine" is what matters in choosing elders. Character can be easily faked.

Keep a close watch on yourself and on the teaching. Persist in this, for by so doing you will save both yourself and your hearers.I Timothy 4:16

In my opinion, this is the heart of the problem with GC. All emphasis is put on outward character to the exclusion of sound teaching.

« Last Edit: January 08, 2009, 11:04:26 am by DrSam » Logged
DrSam
Veteran (100-299 Posts)
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 273



« Reply #33 on: January 08, 2009, 11:12:46 am »

Thank you, Angry. I consider your stance a mature and healthy one. Just for the record. I have no ill will towards Mike Royal or Larry Pile. I can sit down with great ease over a coffee and have fellowship with these men over what is eternally important and about loving Jesus. I would welcome clarifying and cleaning up any manure that was dropped along the way, regardless of which side. I am only responding to those here that have a tendency to 100% exonerate only one side. Both sides have erred and have had agendas fueled by hurt and anger. Both sides are immature in my humble opinion. Both sides have hurt people deeply. Trust me... I have a wonderful life without GC and without Larry Pile, Mike Royal and Associates. I pray for blessing on both sides. We all are trying to love Jesus based on the light we have.

Chicken, egg, egg, chicken....

From what I know, Sam Lopez denied that in the early days of an ISU Study Group there were no elders.  Depending on how one reads the syntax, Sam either made this claim TO Mike Royals, or in conjunction WITH Mike Royals.

Either way, we're splitting hairs about something that happened decades ago.

GC* has much bigger problems than the "he said/she said" finger pointing about their management flowchart of March 1985.

Sam, Larry - you have both given me some good "insiders" advice over the past 18 months.  You have both given me some bad "insiders" advice.

I'm going to cling to the good advice, wash the bad advice from my colon, and move onward.

Good luck to both of you in your endeavours - may you both find a happy place to grow old within.

Remember - when all is said and done, you guys simply prayed to the wrong rock for awhile.
Logged
theresearchpersona
Household Name (300+ Posts)
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 418



« Reply #34 on: January 08, 2009, 05:31:00 pm »

Sam,

     How many times can you make this letter that mentions you only in passing, about yourself? How many times are you going to take issue with this or that document that mentions you? How many times are the people here, one by one, going to examine what you accuse, and find your accusations baseless, and gently tell you such is so, that it is not about you, to which you are going to, again, come-up with another unverifiable, opinionated, or whatever, circumlocution, to attack a factually verifiable document and/or its author as slanderous of you or untrustworthy?
     I've read that letter too, and guess what...even after having known/corresponded here on the forums with you over and over, I didn't even notice you in the letter, you were an afterthought, barely even mentioned in passing.

In the end, I can find documents (like the Cause aggregation) written by your hand, with plenty of fodder that under Scripture's light, would be torn to pieces. You helped spread the "not knowledge but zeal is needed" mentality in GC; you were one of those who demonstratably abused Scripture, such as taking scripture of the OT about zealous Israelites killing the disobedient among them, and applied it to the Chrsitians you and your cohorts were savagely dealing condemnation upon just for crying out against your torture and false teaching, in the context of a publication designed to justify GC's false and unrighteous "discipline" (persecution).

I for one, Sam, and very tired of your constant circumlocution, dodging, refusal to accept repeated witness one after another of gracious, biblical, wise, men and women even in such little things as "Sam, chill, I read the letter...it really isn't about you"; as for circumlocuations, I once just asked you to clarify that you were not implying that a person needn't actually believe the gospel, to actually hear of Christ, and basically was trying to get you to deny universalism in the vein of Schuller...you wouldn't even make a simple statement like that: if you'd like to disavow that, please do so now, now's your chance. None of this "I can't judge his heart", is it that they must believe, or not?

And we really can't care about the intent of the author, Sam, if they have verified their facts, and professed due diligence to restrain themselves, whatever their passions, however ardently angry or hurt or whatever, and do what 's right: if they have shown themselves diligent in presenting things fairly, and their handling of the matters, scripture, etc., is upright, and they profess to be doing what they are hoping for the good of those their works is about (at least at the time of writing, such as with Larry's book), then are we to be uncharitable and suspect them, when nothing about what they're doing can be proven suspect, or shown false?

However Larry is now, would we be right to accuse is former work by an attitude now? Do we condemn an abused man, who wrote about men who haven't repented to him (or us) once, much less 70 times 70, for any genuine reconcilliation or forgiveness, if he does have a zeal for justice. Those last three words are echoing your language, by the way, if I am actually reading the work "by Sam Lopez, the Hispanic co-ordinator for GCI" who lived in "Rockville Md.", that says (in part)

Quote
"God immediately stopped the plague because Phinehas judged sin quickly and severely. [break] Where are the men and women of God who will eagerly stand up and execute judgment on the unrighteousness? If no one stands up, God will surely judge the complacent. [...] "We cannot allow sin to reign in our own lives or in the church. If we do, it will become like a cancer and destroy us. [break] We must carry out justice no matter waht it may cost us personally. To have a holy zeal for God burning on your heart and to learn to execute justice in our own lives and with others is the way to experience true joy."

Sam, you probably merited more than a mere passing reference, but a full exposure as a persecutor of sheep who abominably abused Scripture: you helped build the "rest of the Church is lukewarm, but we are to be zealous and on fire...we don't need more learning and knowledge, we need more zeal" unbalanced mentality; you participated in the persecution of the sheep in the name of "zeal" and loving and doing "justice". And now here you are, reading yourself into this letter, meanwhile defending yourself as one who'd have corrected and stopped the abuse?

Perhaps you might have, but I see no evidence to this, from your very own writing, at that time anyways, and if you would these days, great, but please stop with the "me, me, me" obsession; seriously.

And I echoe the call now, several times, be specific about your beef, with factual inaccuracies, and actually clarify your position rather than vomiting-up the "Larry isn't healed" canard. If there is slander, then where? what? If there's an insidious design of an evil plot against the healed, would-have-stopped-the-abuse Dr. Sam, then divulge it already.

No more of this "I feel" stuff: give us reason; we feel that you feel stuff, that's alright, but be forthright already.
« Last Edit: January 08, 2009, 07:13:34 pm by theresearchpersona » Logged
DrSam
Veteran (100-299 Posts)
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 273



« Reply #35 on: January 08, 2009, 08:00:40 pm »


It is foolish to defend myself since any attempt I have made to explain and answer questions quickly gets dismissed, trashed, ridiculed, called non-biblical, and generously labeled. So... Mr. Erudite...

"It is" what YOU "say."  You are THE uncontested authority. Bless you my dear brother.


Sam,

     How many times can you make this letter that mentions you only in passing, about yourself? How many times are you going to take issue with this or that document that mentions you? How many times are the people here, one by one, going to examine what you accuse, and find your accusations baseless, and gently tell you such is so, that it is not about you, to which you are going to, again, come-up with another unverifiable, opinionated, or whatever, circumlocution, to attack a factually verifiable document and/or its author as slanderous of you or untrustworthy?
     I've read that letter too, and guess what...even after having known/corresponded here on the forums with you over and over, I didn't even notice you in the letter, you were an afterthought, barely even mentioned in passing.

In the end, I can find documents (like the Cause aggregation) written by your hand, with plenty of fodder that under Scripture's light, would be torn to pieces. You helped spread the "not knowledge but zeal is needed" mentality in GC; you were one of those who demonstratably abused Scripture, such as taking scripture of the OT about zealous Israelites killing the disobedient among them, and applied it to the Chrsitians you and your cohorts were savagely dealing condemnation upon just for crying out against your torture and false teaching, in the context of a publication designed to justify GC's false and unrighteous "discipline" (persecution).

I for one, Sam, and very tired of your constant circumlocution, dodging, refusal to accept repeated witness one after another of gracious, biblical, wise, men and women even in such little things as "Sam, chill, I read the letter...it really isn't about you"; as for circumlocuations, I once just asked you to clarify that you were not implying that a person needn't actually believe the gospel, to actually hear of Christ, and basically was trying to get you to deny universalism in the vein of Schuller...you wouldn't even make a simple statement like that: if you'd like to disavow that, please do so now, now's your chance. None of this "I can't judge his heart", is it that they must believe, or not?

And we really can't care about the intent of the author, Sam, if they have verified their facts, and professed due diligence to restrain themselves, whatever their passions, however ardently angry or hurt or whatever, and do what 's right: if they have shown themselves diligent in presenting things fairly, and their handling of the matters, scripture, etc., is upright, and they profess to be doing what they are hoping for the good of those their works is about (at least at the time of writing, such as with Larry's book), then are we to be uncharitable and suspect them, when nothing about what they're doing can be proven suspect, or shown false?

However Larry is now, would we be right to accuse is former work by an attitude now? Do we condemn an abused man, who wrote about men who haven't repented to him (or us) once, much less 70 times 70, for any genuine reconcilliation or forgiveness, if he does have a zeal for justice. Those last three words are echoing your language, by the way, if I am actually reading the work "by Sam Lopez, the Hispanic co-ordinator for GCI" who lived in "Rockville Md.", that says (in part)

Quote
"God immediately stopped the plague because Phinehas judged sin quickly and severely. [break] Where are the men and women of God who will eagerly stand up and execute judgment on the unrighteousness? If no one stands up, God will surely judge the complacent. [...] "We cannot allow sin to reign in our own lives or in the church. If we do, it will become like a cancer and destroy us. [break] We must carry out justice no matter waht it may cost us personally. To have a holy zeal for God burning on your heart and to learn to execute justice in our own lives and with others is the way to experience true joy."

Sam, you probably merited more than a mere passing reference, but a full exposure as a persecutor of sheep who abominably abused Scripture: you helped build the "rest of the Church is lukewarm, but we are to be zealous and on fire...we don't need more learning and knowledge, we need more zeal" unbalanced mentality; you participated in the persecution of the sheep in the name of "zeal" and loving and doing "justice". And now here you are, reading yourself into this letter, meanwhile defending yourself as one who'd have corrected and stopped the abuse?

Perhaps you might have, but I see no evidence to this, from your very own writing, at that time anyways, and if you would these days, great, but please stop with the "me, me, me" obsession; seriously.

And I echoe the call now, several times, be specific about your beef, with factual inaccuracies, and actually clarify your position rather than vomiting-up the "Larry isn't healed" canard. If there is slander, then where? what? If there's an insidious design of an evil plot against the healed, would-have-stopped-the-abuse Dr. Sam, then divulge it already.

No more of this "I feel" stuff: give us reason; we feel that you feel stuff, that's alright, but be forthright already.
« Last Edit: January 08, 2009, 08:08:36 pm by DrSam » Logged
EverAStudent
Private Forum Access
Household Name (300+ Posts)
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 716



WWW
« Reply #36 on: January 08, 2009, 09:21:17 pm »

Quote from: researchguy
be specific about your beef, with factual inaccuracies, and actually clarify your position rather than vomiting-up the "Larry isn't healed" canard. If there is slander, then where? what? If there's an insidious design of an evil plot against the healed, would-have-stopped-the-abuse Dr. Sam, then divulge it already.

Quote from: sam
It is foolish to defend myself since any attempt I have made to explain and answer questions quickly gets dismissed, trashed, ridiculed, called non-biblical, and generously labeled. So... Mr. Erudite...

"It is" what YOU "say."  You are THE uncontested authority. Bless you my dear brother.

If I may be so bold as to render a layman's interpretation of this "dialogue":
  - Researchguy: "Give documented evidence you were lied about, or stop claiming you were slandered"
  - Sam: "No, I have no evidence that I was slandered so I will show you none"

The End
Logged
puff of purple smoke
Administrator
Household Name (300+ Posts)
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 604



« Reply #37 on: January 08, 2009, 09:26:56 pm »

If I may be so bold as to render a layman's interpretation of this "dialogue":
  - Researchguy: "Give documented evidence you were lied about, or stop claiming you were slandered"
  - Sam: "No, I have no evidence that I was slandered so I will show you none"

The End
Grin
Logged
DrSam
Veteran (100-299 Posts)
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 273



« Reply #38 on: January 08, 2009, 09:54:22 pm »

Ever...

You are entitled to your interpretation as I am. The problem is that your interpretation is "valid" and mine is "invalid" as decided by you. Answering some of you is like dealing with viral creations... you may answer someone's question then 20 more questions are created. You answer those, and 80 questions follow them. You answer those and several hundred are spawned. It looks like the interest is not in healing but in debating, fighting, proving one is "right," and pursuing almost narcissistically the love of one's own words/knowledge. I am reminded by the words of Jesus where he said he could dance and other for those listening to his words but they would NEVER be satisfied. Have it your way just like I told the guy on the erudition drug.


Quote from: researchguy
be specific about your beef, with factual inaccuracies, and actually clarify your position rather than vomiting-up the "Larry isn't healed" canard. If there is slander, then where? what? If there's an insidious design of an evil plot against the healed, would-have-stopped-the-abuse Dr. Sam, then divulge it already.

Quote from: sam
It is foolish to defend myself since any attempt I have made to explain and answer questions quickly gets dismissed, trashed, ridiculed, called non-biblical, and generously labeled. So... Mr. Erudite...

"It is" what YOU "say."  You are THE uncontested authority. Bless you my dear brother.

If I may be so bold as to render a layman's interpretation of this "dialogue":
  - Researchguy: "Give documented evidence you were lied about, or stop claiming you were slandered"
  - Sam: "No, I have no evidence that I was slandered so I will show you none"

The End
« Last Edit: January 08, 2009, 09:56:32 pm by DrSam » Logged
EverAStudent
Private Forum Access
Household Name (300+ Posts)
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 716



WWW
« Reply #39 on: January 08, 2009, 10:13:31 pm »

Quote from: sam
Take example of the Mike Royal letter to my pastor friend Mike Braun which was designed to create on purpose deep distrust in our friendship. That is mean-spirited in my opinion and slanderous to me! No one here, apparently protests against that kind of abuse, eh?

Quote from: student
did Mike Royal "slander" Sam in his letter to Mike Braun?  The dictionary defines slander as: "slan·der [slándər] n (plural slan·ders) 1.  saying something false and damaging: the act of saying something false or malicious that damages somebody’s reputation; 2.  false and damaging statement: a false and malicious statement that damages somebody’s reputation."    The Greek words for slander in the New Testament indicate that slander is the use of evil words, that is, lying.

So, back to Point 2, did Mike Royal lie about Sam in his letter to Mike Braun?  After reading the letter for the first time (as a result of these accusations by Sam Lopez calling the letter is a slanderous lie), I was unable to find anything untruthful or factually incorrect in the letter.  Sam, what specific statement in the letter is untrue, and thus slanderous?  If nothing is erroneous in the letter, then it is not slander. 

Quote from: sam
You are entitled to your interpretation as I am. The problem is that your interpretation is "valid" and mine is "invalid" as decided by you. Answering some of you is like dealing with viral creations... you may answer someone's question then 20 more questions are created. You answer those, and 80 questions follow them. You answer those and several hundred are spawned. It looks like the interest is not in healing but in debating, fighting, proving one is "right," and pursuing almost narcissistically the love of one's own words/knowledge. I am reminded by the words of Jesus where he said he could dance and other for those listening to his words but they would NEVER be satisfied. Have it your way just like I told the guy on the erudition drug.

My own opinion of what a condensed summary version of the above snippets (from different posts) might look like:
  - Sam:  "Mike Royal lied about me in that letter and that is slander, you should care about that."
  - Student: "What specific comment or comments in the letter were lies?"
  - Sam: "Nothing specific was innacurate, I just did not like the fact that he told the truth about me and GCI."

The End (I hope)
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  


Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC
SimplePortal 2.1.1