Discussion:
Our Founding Fathers (of AFGS)
(too old to reply)
matt2442
2009-12-06 06:54:00 UTC
Permalink
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.gene-scott/browse_frm/month/1993-04?hl=en

The very first AFGS thread. It might be fun to spend a little time
sampling some posts through the early years to see what people were
discussing.
surfkrow
2009-12-06 08:29:03 UTC
Permalink
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.gene-scott/browse_frm/month/19...
The very first AFGS thread. It might be fun to spend a little time
sampling some posts through the early years to see what people were
discussing.
That was cool :) thanx. I noticed the date was april 5'th 3 days
after my birthday... (not that it means anything.....cause it don't
lol) Anyway, this thread has been goin for a long time! And I think
that does mean something! peace:)
studio
2009-12-06 11:17:03 UTC
Permalink
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.gene-scott/browse_frm/month/19...
The very first AFGS thread. It might be fun to spend a little time
sampling some posts through the early years to see what people were
discussing.
...and of course Dennis Wingo is there to help promote doc in all his
tithing schemes. Post number 4.

What was his moniker here on AFGS? I forgot.
matt2442
2009-12-06 12:33:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by studio
...and of course Dennis Wingo is there to help promote doc in all his
tithing schemes. Post number 4.
What was his moniker here on AFGS? I forgot.
Matt2442:
Gondar
matt2442
2009-12-06 12:38:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by matt2442
Post by studio
...and of course Dennis Wingo is there to help promote doc in all his
tithing schemes. Post number 4.
What was his moniker here on AFGS? I forgot.
Gondar
Matt2442:
I didn't even notice that until you mentioned it.
Celestias
2009-12-06 13:19:44 UTC
Permalink
The last guy on that first thread says....

"He plays on peoples' fears."

Well isn't that what religion is all about? People are afraid of going
to hell.

BTW, in 1993 wasn't the internet mostly just used by schools, etc?
PopeChumpo
2009-12-06 16:09:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Celestias
The last guy on that first thread says....
"He plays on peoples' fears."
Well isn't that what religion is all about? People are afraid of going
to hell.
BTW, in 1993 wasn't the internet mostly just used by schools, etc?
Yes, very early pioneers. The internet was not well known until a few
years later. You would think these guys would check in now and then.

Unfortunately, religion does have alot to do with fear. Fear due to a
lack of knowledge. Scott almost made a difference here. On the one
hand he was teaching the liberty you have from the law through the
gospel of Jesus revealed in Paul's letters, but on the other hand was
creating his own requirements of faith works of giving by preaching
there was a necessary "Action" before God would recognize you indeed
had some faith. Thus, adding a requirement to have His life in us that
does not exist unless you can properly twist things before an
unlearned audience.

My question is did Scott know the truth but chose the add-on tithe-
action BS in fear of not making it financially, or was he not capable
of comprehending what the gospels actually say?
studio
2009-12-06 17:50:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by PopeChumpo
Post by Celestias
The last guy on that first thread says....
"He plays on peoples' fears."
Well isn't that what religion is all about? People are afraid of going
to hell.
BTW, in 1993 wasn't the internet mostly just used by schools, etc?
Yes, very early pioneers. The internet was not well known until a few
years later. You would think these guys would check in now and then.
Unfortunately, religion does have alot to do with fear. Fear due to a
lack of knowledge. Scott almost made a difference here. On the one
hand he was teaching the liberty you have from the law through the
gospel of Jesus revealed in Paul's letters, but on the other hand was
creating his own requirements of faith works of giving by preaching
there was a necessary "Action" before God would recognize you indeed
had some faith. Thus, adding a requirement to have His life in us that
does not exist unless you can properly twist things before an
unlearned audience.
My question is did Scott know the truth but chose the add-on tithe-
action BS in fear of not making it financially, or was he not capable
of comprehending what the gospels actually say?
.
.
studio wrote:

Personally, I think doc was afraid of Jesus. He didn't even......I
mean,
he ignored The Gospels in order to promote his own gospel. Much like
in the movie The Last Temptation of Christ, where Paul is still
preaching
a risen Christ even though circumstance lead the outcome differently.

Gene Scott towards the end had us believe that even God could be his
enemy.
With his "God is a liar" and if he is not healed, "it's like slapping
Jesus in the face".
This Gene Scott was a twisted individual. No wonder Melissa is the
leader
of this cult now. She's just as nuts, maybe even more to believe her
own
nonsense.

Pope Chumpo, Gene knew how to extract money from people, so I don't
think
his issue was monetary. His mental illness played a part in his:

1. Believing he was a "domata"

2. Running Old Testament tithing schemes.

3. Spiritual abusiveness

4. Dispensation of all writings other than Paul.

5. Seeking world approval while critisizing church ethics.

6. Nonsensical rants over the number six.

7. Marrying that whore he always fantasized about.

8. Sketchy takeover of Faith Center and TV stations.

9. Never repaying Oroville citizens for his college education.

10. Knowing the difference between right and wrong but
always choosing the crooked path in the name of God.


This list can go on for a while, but the outcome is still the same.
Gene Scott was sick physically and mentally. He preached
an unholy view of Christianity, filled with deception. You can't do
that without knowing the difference. You can't claim ignorance
on this pattern of abuse, even if Ed Massery is your attorney.
surfkrow
2009-12-07 00:57:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by studio
Post by PopeChumpo
Post by Celestias
The last guy on that first thread says....
"He plays on peoples' fears."
Well isn't that what religion is all about? People are afraid of going
to hell.
BTW, in 1993 wasn't the internet mostly just used by schools, etc?
Yes, very early pioneers. The internet was not well known until a few
years later. You would think these guys would check in now and then.
Unfortunately, religion does have alot to do with fear. Fear due to a
lack of knowledge. Scott almost made a difference here. On the one
hand he was teaching the liberty you have from the law through the
gospel of Jesus revealed in Paul's letters, but on the other hand was
creating his own requirements of faith works of giving by preaching
there was a necessary "Action" before God would recognize you indeed
had some faith. Thus, adding a requirement to have His life in us that
does not exist unless you can properly twist things before an
unlearned audience.
My question is did Scott know the truth but chose the add-on tithe-
action BS in fear of not making it financially, or was he not capable
of comprehending what the gospels actually say?
.
.
Personally, I think doc was afraid of Jesus. He didn't even......I
mean,
he ignored The Gospels in order to promote his own gospel. Much like
in the movie  The Last Temptation of Christ, where Paul is still
preaching
a risen Christ even though circumstance lead the outcome differently.
Gene Scott towards the end had us believe that even God could be his
enemy.
With his "God is a liar" and if he is not healed, "it's like slapping
Jesus in the face".
This Gene Scott was a twisted individual. No wonder Melissa is the
leader
of this cult now. She's just as nuts, maybe even more to believe her
own
nonsense.
Pope Chumpo, Gene knew how to extract money from people, so I don't
think
1. Believing he was a "domata"
2. Running Old Testament tithing schemes.
3. Spiritual abusiveness
4. Dispensation of all writings other than Paul.
5. Seeking world approval while critisizing church ethics.
6. Nonsensical rants over the number six.
7. Marrying that whore he always fantasized about.
8. Sketchy takeover of Faith Center and TV stations.
9. Never repaying Oroville citizens for his college education.
10. Knowing the difference between right and wrong but
always choosing the crooked path in the name of God.
This list can go on for a while, but the outcome is still the same.
Gene Scott was sick physically and mentally. He preached
an unholy view of Christianity, filled with deception. You can't do
that without knowing the difference. You can't claim ignorance
on this pattern of abuse, even if Ed Massery is your attorney.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Some of this is just complete subjective conjecture with a few
truths.
1) "scared of jesus" - Better fear God because it is the
beginning of all understanding.

2) "promoted his own gospel' - Salvation by grace through faith.
Last time I checked that was Jesus' Gospel.

3) "God is a liar if he does'nt heal me and "like slapping jesus
in the face" - I can't rebut that seems he was wrong here :(
( however i dont know the context in which he said these
things so the jury is still out with me on this one)

4) "Gene scott is twisted no wonder mellissa is in charge now"
- That he did'nt take more concrete steps to ensure
that his teachings would'nt be removed from the
internet shows poor judgment to say the least :( Also her strip down
of his resources at delores press adds to the question of her intent.
she could have kept selling tapes while transposing them to disc. then
there is the association with Docs old advisaries The crouchs that
just stinks of money, money And a Nicolation mentality. I have already
prayed that i could be wrong but the evidence keeps mounting and it
did drive me away :( As for her being the leader now I don't belive
that this was his intent. She was designated: Administrative Pastor
meaning, she should be administering HIS legacy not HER OWN. So on
this matter. Again it shows poor judgement on his part that he did'nt
do what he had to (legal wise) to prevent her take over :(

5) "Gene knew how to extract money from people so i do'nt think his
issue was monetary, his mental illness played a part in this" -
a) Dr.Scott did'nt have to extract money from people the
spirit of God in people did this (he just taught giving Gods way)
b) The claim that he was mentaly ill is false.

6) " Beliving he was a Domata - He did'nt belive he was a Domata
it was self evident in his ability to teach Gods word with unction.
His insight into Gods word is unsurpassed by his contemporaries.

7) "Running old testament tithing schemes" - The book of Acts
records the earliest christians selling all they had and laying it
down at the apostles feet would you rather take that avenue? Jesus
said "this ye ought to have done".

I step away from this debate for a moment so as to see the
world where its at and where its been sense the fall of man. I see
this greedy and materialistic frame of reference. A Godless existance
occupies the land scape and our own hearts. Now I read Gods word and
it says "the love of money is the root of all evil" and "what would
you give in exchange for your soul". Gods word also say's "lay up for
yourselves treasure in heaven where moth and dust doth not corrupt".
I think about the woman with the alabaster box and what she did for
Jesus. I also consider that Jesus did not prevent the widow from
giving her measly two mights out of her poverty to corrupt priests
because he knew her heart was in the right place ( and we do answer
to god through our worship! Was it to him or the world? ) I have
made my decision.... IF JESUS WANTS IT ALL HE CAN HAVE IT I JUST WANT
HIM

8) "Spiritual abusiveness" - there is nothing in teaching Gods
word Right (which he did) that is spiritualy abusive.

9) "dispensation of all writings other than Paul - Complete
slander. He even said himself that marcian (I believe it was, the one
that made his own bible with only Pauls writings and a little of Lukes
stuff) was heretical.

10) "Seeking world approval while critisizing church ethics"
a) The world did not approve of his teachings so if that was
his intent he failed (it was'nt) "If you were of the world the world
would love its own but your not of the world for i have chosen you out
of the world there for the world hates you for my sake". As he used to
say "IF YOU DONT GIVE YOUR GONNA GO TO HELL." The world definately
did not approve of this, nor the church for that matter. to hell with
them to if they don't get this. He used to quote "there are more in
the church scince they left it" and i belive it :(
b) "critisized church ethics" - No he did'nt. He
critisized church hypocracy and traditions that made void the word of
God.

11) "Rants about the # 6" and "marrying a whore" - juvenile and
self-righteousness

12) "sketchy take over of faith center and T.V. stations - He
gave them a clear alternative (not sketchy) all of them, agree on him
as pastor and they did. Later he would disclose on national
television that the vote was not unanimous but they hid that. The
ball was in thier hands and THEY subordinated dissent ( to the glory
of God in my opinion, because he did restore faith to that church and
honor to God in the process)

13) "never repaying Orville" - I know absolutly nothing about
this so . No comment

14) "Knowing the difference between right and wrong yet always
choosing the crooked path" - A complete blanket statement. At
best vague at worst a slanderouss lie...

"This list can go on for a while, but the outcome is still the
same."
Hmm...


" Gene Scott was sick physically"
True

"and mentally"
Prove it

"He preached an unholy view of christianity full of deception"
Thats your opinion and your entitled to it :)

"You cant do that without knowing the difference. You can't claim
ignorance
on this pattern of abuse"
Did you put forth evidence that established a pattern of abuse?
And when you say "abuse" do you mean Spiritual ( which I already
debunked). Or did you mean Physical abuse? Did he sodimize you or
somthing? lol Did he giv ooh a bwoody nose awhhh :(

"even if Ed Massery is your attorney" and... and... and....

Hey you guy's, as long as I can have my say you can have yours :)
matt2442
2009-12-06 21:28:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by PopeChumpo
Post by Celestias
The last guy on that first thread says....
"He plays on peoples' fears."
Well isn't that what religion is all about? People are afraid of going
to hell.
BTW, in 1993 wasn't the internet mostly just used by schools, etc?
Yes, very early pioneers. The internet was not well known until a few
years later. You would think these guys would check in now and then.
Unfortunately, religion does have alot to do with fear. Fear due to a
lack of knowledge. Scott almost made a difference here. On the one
hand he was teaching the liberty you have from the law through the
gospel of Jesus revealed in Paul's letters, but on the other hand was
creating his own requirements of faith works of giving by preaching
there was a necessary "Action" before God would recognize you indeed
had some faith. Thus, adding a requirement to have His life in us that
does not exist unless you can properly twist things before an
unlearned audience.
My question is did Scott know the truth but chose the add-on tithe-
action BS in fear of not making it financially, or was he not capable
of comprehending what the gospels actually say?
Matt2442:
It would seem to me that from his teaching on grace, that he knew the
truth.
studio
2009-12-06 22:07:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by matt2442
Post by PopeChumpo
Post by Celestias
The last guy on that first thread says....
"He plays on peoples' fears."
Well isn't that what religion is all about? People are afraid of going
to hell.
BTW, in 1993 wasn't the internet mostly just used by schools, etc?
Yes, very early pioneers. The internet was not well known until a few
years later. You would think these guys would check in now and then.
Unfortunately, religion does have alot to do with fear. Fear due to a
lack of knowledge. Scott almost made a difference here. On the one
hand he was teaching the liberty you have from the law through the
gospel of Jesus revealed in Paul's letters, but on the other hand was
creating his own requirements of faith works of giving by preaching
there was a necessary "Action" before God would recognize you indeed
had some faith. Thus, adding a requirement to have His life in us that
does not exist unless you can properly twist things before an
unlearned audience.
My question is did Scott know the truth but chose the add-on tithe-
action BS in fear of not making it financially, or was he not capable
of comprehending what the gospels actually say?
It would seem to me that from his teaching on grace, that he knew the
truth.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Please complete the statement matt2442.

"....that he knew the truth..........(is there a however in there
somewhere)?
Gypsie
2009-12-06 22:16:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by PopeChumpo
Post by Celestias
The last guy on that first thread says....
"He plays on peoples' fears."
Well isn't that what religion is all about? People are afraid of going
to hell.
BTW, in 1993 wasn't the internet mostly just used by schools, etc?
Yes, very early pioneers. The internet was not well known until a few
years later. You would think these guys would check in now and then.
Unfortunately, religion does have alot to do with fear. Fear due to a
lack of knowledge. Scott almost made a difference here. On the one
hand he was teaching the liberty you have from the law through the
gospel of Jesus revealed in Paul's letters, but on the other hand was
creating his own requirements of faith works of giving by preaching
there was a necessary "Action" before God would recognize you indeed
had some faith. Thus, adding a requirement to have His life in us that
does not exist unless you can properly twist things before an
unlearned audience.
My question is did Scott know the truth but chose the add-on tithe-
action BS in fear of not making it financially, or was he not capable
of comprehending what the gospels actually say?
gypsie: doc always (at least early on) lamented that he had to bring
out the sledge hammer of the OT tithe. He knew that to perform on
small part of the law meant bringing a curse on everything/everyone.
So, my question is, as doc did indeed teach on the curse of the law,
did he intentionally bring those who tithed and gave the OT way under
a curse?

I noted that doc did indeed change his view and that is when he
renamed the giving to tuition, but still used the OT to extract the $$
$.
PopeChumpo
2009-12-07 07:58:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gypsie
Post by PopeChumpo
Post by Celestias
The last guy on that first thread says....
"He plays on peoples' fears."
Well isn't that what religion is all about? People are afraid of going
to hell.
BTW, in 1993 wasn't the internet mostly just used by schools, etc?
Yes, very early pioneers. The internet was not well known until a few
years later. You would think these guys would check in now and then.
Unfortunately, religion does have alot to do with fear. Fear due to a
lack of knowledge. Scott almost made a difference here. On the one
hand he was teaching the liberty you have from the law through the
gospel of Jesus revealed in Paul's letters, but on the other hand was
creating his own requirements of faith works of giving by preaching
there was a necessary "Action" before God would recognize you indeed
had some faith. Thus, adding a requirement to have His life in us that
does not exist unless you can properly twist things before an
unlearned audience.
My question is did Scott know the truth but chose the add-on tithe-
action BS in fear of not making it financially, or was he not capable
of comprehending what the gospels actually say?
gypsie: doc always (at least early on) lamented that he had to bring
out the sledge hammer of the OT tithe. He knew that to perform on
small part of the law meant bringing a curse on everything/everyone.
So, my question is, as doc did indeed teach on the curse of the law,
did he intentionally bring those who tithed and gave the OT way under
a curse?
I noted that doc did indeed change his view and that is when he
renamed the giving to tuition, but still used the OT to extract the $$
$.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Yes, this is also my conclusion that those who tithe and give are in
danger of the curse, having felt justified with their actions as
adequate works.
surfkrow
2009-12-06 22:21:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by PopeChumpo
Post by Celestias
The last guy on that first thread says....
"He plays on peoples' fears."
Well isn't that what religion is all about? People are afraid of going
to hell.
BTW, in 1993 wasn't the internet mostly just used by schools, etc?
Yes, very early pioneers. The internet was not well known until a few
years later. You would think these guys would check in now and then.
Unfortunately, religion does have alot to do with fear. Fear due to a
lack of knowledge. Scott almost made a difference here. On the one
hand he was teaching the liberty you have from the law through the
gospel of Jesus revealed in Paul's letters, but on the other hand was
creating his own requirements of faith works of giving by preaching
there was a necessary "Action" before God would recognize you indeed
had some faith. Thus, adding a requirement to have His life in us that
does not exist unless you can properly twist things before an
unlearned audience.
My question is did he know the truth
but chose the add-on tithe-
action BS in fear of not making it financially, or was he not capable
of comprehending what the gospels actually say?
"tithe action BS" is a misnomer. You were expounding upon
giving not tithing and there is a difference. Tithing is an act of
stewardship and giving is an act of worship. As for the "action BS"
God declares a promise to the faithfull THAT ACT on this matter. In
Malachi 3:10 God says "Bring ye all the tithes into the storehouse,
that there may be meat in mine house and prove me now herewith, saith
the Lord of hosts, if i will not open you the windows of heaven and
pour you out a blessing that there will not be room enough to contain
it. I would'nt call Gods promise and our call to act upon it BS if I
were you. God may not like it very much...

"Unfortunately, religion does have alot to do with fear. Fear
due to a lack of knowledge. Scott almost made a difference here."

Dr. Scott did make a difference. Of the many examples i could draw
from, his teachings on communion established the table of the lord as
a table of grace not guilt through passing on the knowledge that to
partake in an unworthily manner (not discerning the body of the lord
in that he paid the price of our sins) is different from false
teaching that mis-quotes scripture to read that we must examine
ourselves to see if we are to unworthy to partake of the lords body
which produces guilt and thus, fear of hell. And guilt is the
primary source for fear of hell in the body of christ...

On the one
Post by PopeChumpo
hand he was teaching the liberty you have from the law through the
gospel of Jesus revealed in Paul's letters,
yes i agree...

but on the other hand was
Post by PopeChumpo
creating his own requirements of faith works of giving
Again what are you talking about here giving or tithing? If
your talking about tithing than i already addressed the matter so NO
he did not create his own requirements for faith works because in the
context of the tithe it is God that prompts believers to ACT (in
faith) as a precondition to recieving the blessing. If however, you
are refering to giving, which is an act of worship, then we will
continue with that premis.
let me make clear what I think you postulate and that is:
Dr.Scott twisted the requirements for having Jesus' life in us by
creating his own requirements that faith works of giving (the action
of it) were neccessary as a pre-condition for God to aknowledge that
we had faith and therefor the deposit of his own life in us.

Thats just another way of saying you could buy your way into
heaven! Contrarily, Dr.Scott taught that you could buy your way
straight into hell if you thought that the act of faith giving
(alone) would get you into heaven. Dr.Scott taught Gods word in its
proper context, Mat. 26:13 makes it clear that wherever the gospel is
preached you tell what the woman with the alabaster box did. Do you
know what she did? she took the most precious thing she had and
annointed him with it. Now ask youself a question. Why did Jesus want
her memorialized every time the good news of the Gospel is preached
(taught, whatever...) I am not going to answer that for you.
further more he taught on giving in the context of Gal. 6:6-8 that
when giving is done for the right reasons (in response to having been
taught in the word) than the act of giving is considered sowing to
the spirit and subsuquently "ye shall of the spirit reap life
everlasting.

You ask "My question is did Scott know the truth but choose the
add on tithe BS in fear of not making it financialy or was he not
capable of comprehending What the gospels actualy say."


Did he know the truth? In my opinion, Yes. Did he choose the add on
tithe BS because he was afraid of not making it financialy. No, He
taught the add on tithe BS because it is sound biblical teaching and
he was a sound biblical teacher. Was he capable of of comprehending
What the gospels actualy say? Yes...
Gypsie
2009-12-06 22:28:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by PopeChumpo
Post by Celestias
The last guy on that first thread says....
"He plays on peoples' fears."
Well isn't that what religion is all about? People are afraid of going
to hell.
BTW, in 1993 wasn't the internet mostly just used by schools, etc?
Yes, very early pioneers. The internet was not well known until a few
years later. You would think these guys would check in now and then.
Unfortunately, religion does have alot to do with fear. Fear due to a
lack of knowledge. Scott almost made a difference here. On the one
hand he was teaching the liberty you have from the law through the
gospel of Jesus revealed in Paul's letters, but on the other hand was
creating his own requirements of faith works of giving by preaching
there was a necessary "Action" before God would recognize you indeed
had some faith. Thus, adding a requirement to have His life in us that
does not exist unless you can properly twist things before an
unlearned audience.
My question is did he know the truth
but chose the add-on tithe-
action BS in fear of not making it financially, or was he not capable
of comprehending what the gospels actually say?
      "tithe action BS"  is a misnomer.  You were expounding upon
giving not tithing and there is a difference. Tithing is an act of
stewardship and giving is an act of worship.  As for the "action BS"
God declares a promise to the faithfull THAT ACT on this matter.  In
Malachi 3:10 God says "Bring ye all the tithes into the storehouse,
that there may be meat in mine house and prove me now herewith, saith
the Lord of hosts, if i will not open you the windows of heaven and
pour you out a blessing that there will not be room enough to contain
it. I would'nt call Gods promise and our call to act upon it BS if I
were you. God may not like it very much...
      "Unfortunately, religion does have alot to do with fear. Fear
due to a lack of knowledge.  Scott almost made a difference here."
Dr. Scott did make a difference.  Of the many examples i could draw
from, his teachings on communion established the table of the lord as
a table of grace not guilt through passing on the knowledge that to
partake in an unworthily manner (not discerning the body of the lord
in that he paid the price of our sins) is different from false
teaching that mis-quotes scripture to read that we must examine
ourselves to see if we are to unworthy to partake of the lords body
which produces guilt and thus, fear of hell.  And guilt is the
primary source for fear of hell in the body of christ...
On the one
Post by PopeChumpo
hand he was teaching the liberty you have from the law through the
gospel of Jesus revealed in Paul's letters,
yes i agree...
but on the other hand was
Post by PopeChumpo
creating his own requirements of faith works of giving
       Again what are you talking about here giving or tithing? If
your talking about tithing than i already addressed the matter so NO
he did not create his own requirements for faith works because in the
context of the tithe it is God that prompts believers to ACT (in
faith) as a precondition to recieving the blessing.  If however, you
are refering to giving, which is an act of worship, then we will
continue with that premis.
Dr.Scott twisted the requirements for having Jesus' life in us by
creating his own requirements that faith works of giving (the action
of it) were neccessary as a pre-condition for God to aknowledge that
we had faith and therefor the deposit of his own life in us.
   Thats just another way of saying you could buy your way into
heaven!  Contrarily, Dr.Scott taught that you could buy your way
straight into hell if you thought that the act of faith giving
(alone)  would get you into heaven. Dr.Scott taught Gods word in its
proper context, Mat. 26:13 makes it clear that wherever the gospel is
preached you tell what the woman with the alabaster box did. Do you
know what she did?  she took the most precious thing she had  and
annointed him with it. Now ask youself a question. Why did Jesus want
her memorialized every time the good news of the Gospel is preached
(taught, whatever...) I am not going to answer that for you.
further more he taught on giving in the context of  Gal. 6:6-8  that
when giving is done for the right reasons (in response to having been
taught in the word)  than the act of giving is considered sowing to
the spirit and subsuquently "ye shall of the spirit reap life
everlasting.
    You ask  "My question is did Scott know the truth but choose the
add on tithe BS in fear of not making it financialy or was he not
capable of comprehending What the gospels actualy say."
Did he know the truth? In my opinion, Yes.  Did he choose the add on
tithe BS because he was afraid of not making it financialy. No, He
taught the add on tithe BS because it is sound biblical teaching and
he was a sound biblical teacher.  Was he capable of of comprehending
What the gospels actualy say? Yes...- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
gypsie: SO, clapping like a seal. YAAAHHHHH!! paragraphs!!!!!
YHAAAAHHHHHH, SLURP!
surfkrow
2009-12-06 22:37:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gypsie
Post by PopeChumpo
Post by Celestias
The last guy on that first thread says....
"He plays on peoples' fears."
Well isn't that what religion is all about? People are afraid of going
to hell.
BTW, in 1993 wasn't the internet mostly just used by schools, etc?
Yes, very early pioneers. The internet was not well known until a few
years later. You would think these guys would check in now and then.
Unfortunately, religion does have alot to do with fear. Fear due to a
lack of knowledge. Scott almost made a difference here. On the one
hand he was teaching the liberty you have from the law through the
gospel of Jesus revealed in Paul's letters, but on the other hand was
creating his own requirements of faith works of giving by preaching
there was a necessary "Action" before God would recognize you indeed
had some faith. Thus, adding a requirement to have His life in us that
does not exist unless you can properly twist things before an
unlearned audience.
My question is did he know the truth
but chose the add-on tithe-
action BS in fear of not making it financially, or was he not capable
of comprehending what the gospels actually say?
      "tithe action BS"  is a misnomer.  You were expounding upon
giving not tithing and there is a difference. Tithing is an act of
stewardship and giving is an act of worship.  As for the "action BS"
God declares a promise to the faithfull THAT ACT on this matter.  In
Malachi 3:10 God says "Bring ye all the tithes into the storehouse,
that there may be meat in mine house and prove me now herewith, saith
the Lord of hosts, if i will not open you the windows of heaven and
pour you out a blessing that there will not be room enough to contain
it. I would'nt call Gods promise and our call to act upon it BS if I
were you. God may not like it very much...
      "Unfortunately, religion does have alot to do with fear. Fear
due to a lack of knowledge.  Scott almost made a difference here."
Dr. Scott did make a difference.  Of the many examples i could draw
from, his teachings on communion established the table of the lord as
a table of grace not guilt through passing on the knowledge that to
partake in an unworthily manner (not discerning the body of the lord
in that he paid the price of our sins) is different from false
teaching that mis-quotes scripture to read that we must examine
ourselves to see if we are to unworthy to partake of the lords body
which produces guilt and thus, fear of hell.  And guilt is the
primary source for fear of hell in the body of christ...
On the one
Post by PopeChumpo
hand he was teaching the liberty you have from the law through the
gospel of Jesus revealed in Paul's letters,
yes i agree...
but on the other hand was
Post by PopeChumpo
creating his own requirements of faith works of giving
       Again what are you talking about here giving or tithing? If
your talking about tithing than i already addressed the matter so NO
he did not create his own requirements for faith works because in the
context of the tithe it is God that prompts believers to ACT (in
faith) as a precondition to recieving the blessing.  If however, you
are refering to giving, which is an act of worship, then we will
continue with that premis.
Dr.Scott twisted the requirements for having Jesus' life in us by
creating his own requirements that faith works of giving (the action
of it) were neccessary as a pre-condition for God to aknowledge that
we had faith and therefor the deposit of his own life in us.
   Thats just another way of saying you could buy your way into
heaven!  Contrarily, Dr.Scott taught that you could buy your way
straight into hell if you thought that the act of faith giving
(alone)  would get you into heaven. Dr.Scott taught Gods word in its
proper context, Mat. 26:13 makes it clear that wherever the gospel is
preached you tell what the woman with the alabaster box did. Do you
know what she did?  she took the most precious thing she had  and
annointed him with it. Now ask youself a question. Why did Jesus want
her memorialized every time the good news of the Gospel is preached
(taught, whatever...) I am not going to answer that for you.
further more he taught on giving in the context of  Gal. 6:6-8  that
when giving is done for the right reasons (in response to having been
taught in the word)  than the act of giving is considered sowing to
the spirit and subsuquently "ye shall of the spirit reap life
everlasting.
    You ask  "My question is did Scott know the truth but choose the
add on tithe BS in fear of not making it financialy or was he not
capable of comprehending What the gospels actualy say."
Did he know the truth? In my opinion, Yes.  Did he choose the add on
tithe BS because he was afraid of not making it financialy. No, He
taught the add on tithe BS because it is sound biblical teaching and
he was a sound biblical teacher.  Was he capable of of comprehending
What the gospels actualy say? Yes...- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
gypsie: SO, clapping like a seal. YAAAHHHHH!! paragraphs!!!!!
YHAAAAHHHHHH, SLURP!- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
:))) Thanx for showing me the way gypsie....
rpbc
2009-12-07 00:06:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by PopeChumpo
Post by Celestias
The last guy on that first thread says....
"He plays on peoples' fears."
Well isn't that what religion is all about? People are afraid of going
to hell.
BTW, in 1993 wasn't the internet mostly just used by schools, etc?
Yes, very early pioneers. The internet was not well known until a few
years later. You would think these guys would check in now and then.
Unfortunately, religion does have alot to do with fear. Fear due to a
lack of knowledge. Scott almost made a difference here. On the one
hand he was teaching the liberty you have from the law through the
gospel of Jesus revealed in Paul's letters, but on the other hand was
creating his own requirements of faith works of giving by preaching
there was a necessary "Action" before God would recognize you indeed
had some faith. Thus, adding a requirement to have His life in us that
does not exist unless you can properly twist things before an
unlearned audience.
My question is did he know the truth
but chose the add-on tithe-
action BS in fear of not making it financially, or was he not capable
of comprehending what the gospels actually say?
      "tithe action BS"  is a misnomer.  You were expounding upon
giving not tithing and there is a difference. Tithing is an act of
stewardship and giving is an act of worship.  As for the "action BS"
God declares a promise to the faithfull THAT ACT on this matter.  In
Malachi 3:10 God says "Bring ye all the tithes into the storehouse,
that there may be meat in mine house and prove me now herewith, saith
the Lord of hosts, if i will not open you the windows of heaven and
pour you out a blessing that there will not be room enough to contain
it. I would'nt call Gods promise and our call to act upon it BS if I
were you. God may not like it very much...
      "Unfortunately, religion does have alot to do with fear. Fear
due to a lack of knowledge.  Scott almost made a difference here."
Dr. Scott did make a difference.  Of the many examples i could draw
from, his teachings on communion established the table of the lord as
a table of grace not guilt through passing on the knowledge that to
partake in an unworthily manner (not discerning the body of the lord
in that he paid the price of our sins) is different from false
teaching that mis-quotes scripture to read that we must examine
ourselves to see if we are to unworthy to partake of the lords body
which produces guilt and thus, fear of hell.  And guilt is the
primary source for fear of hell in the body of christ...
On the one
Post by PopeChumpo
hand he was teaching the liberty you have from the law through the
gospel of Jesus revealed in Paul's letters,
yes i agree...
but on the other hand was
Post by PopeChumpo
creating his own requirements of faith works of giving
       Again what are you talking about here giving or tithing? If
your talking about tithing than i already addressed the matter so NO
he did not create his own requirements for faith works because in the
context of the tithe it is God that prompts believers to ACT (in
faith) as a precondition to recieving the blessing.  If however, you
are refering to giving, which is an act of worship, then we will
continue with that premis.
Dr.Scott twisted the requirements for having Jesus' life in us by
creating his own requirements that faith works of giving (the action
of it) were neccessary as a pre-condition for God to aknowledge that
we had faith and therefor the deposit of his own life in us.
   Thats just another way of saying you could buy your way into
heaven!  Contrarily, Dr.Scott taught that you could buy your way
straight into hell if you thought that the act of faith giving
(alone)  would get you into heaven. Dr.Scott taught Gods word in its
proper context, Mat. 26:13 makes it clear that wherever the gospel is
preached you tell what the woman with the alabaster box did. Do you
know what she did?  she took the most precious thing she had  and
annointed him with it. Now ask youself a question. Why did Jesus want
her memorialized every time the good news of the Gospel is preached
(taught, whatever...) I am not going to answer that for you.
further more he taught on giving in the context of  Gal. 6:6-8  that
when giving is done for the right reasons (in response to having been
taught in the word)  than the act of giving is considered sowing to
the spirit and subsuquently "ye shall of the spirit reap life
everlasting.
    You ask  "My question is did Scott know the truth but choose the
add on tithe BS in fear of not making it financialy or was he not
capable of comprehending What the gospels actualy say."
Did he know the truth? In my opinion, Yes.  Did he choose the add on
tithe BS because he was afraid of not making it financialy. No, He
taught the add on tithe BS because it is sound biblical teaching and
he was a sound biblical teacher.  Was he capable of of comprehending
What the gospels actualy say? Yes...- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
rpbc:
Yes... the woman with the alabaster box. Thing is Scott used that as
a vehicle to put himself through what he taught in the place of Jesus
in the story and transfered guilt to anyone who would not annoint him
similarly. It's like that.... a program ready to run whenever the
subject comes up whether internally or in discussion. Nobody puts
themselves between Jesus and anyone else, if they do they're building
a cult. It runs deep with the subject ranging from did he start out
doing this to when did he start doing this to what does someone mean
when they suggest he was a crook because he was teaching Biblical
truths and taking pains to see it wasn't compromised in the area of
giving, that being closest to God's heart.
surfkrow
2009-12-07 01:47:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by PopeChumpo
Post by Celestias
The last guy on that first thread says....
"He plays on peoples' fears."
Well isn't that what religion is all about? People are afraid of going
to hell.
BTW, in 1993 wasn't the internet mostly just used by schools, etc?
Yes, very early pioneers. The internet was not well known until a few
years later. You would think these guys would check in now and then.
Unfortunately, religion does have alot to do with fear. Fear due to a
lack of knowledge. Scott almost made a difference here. On the one
hand he was teaching the liberty you have from the law through the
gospel of Jesus revealed in Paul's letters, but on the other hand was
creating his own requirements of faith works of giving by preaching
there was a necessary "Action" before God would recognize you indeed
had some faith. Thus, adding a requirement to have His life in us that
does not exist unless you can properly twist things before an
unlearned audience.
My question is did he know the truth
but chose the add-on tithe-
action BS in fear of not making it financially, or was he not capable
of comprehending what the gospels actually say?
      "tithe action BS"  is a misnomer.  You were expounding upon
giving not tithing and there is a difference. Tithing is an act of
stewardship and giving is an act of worship.  As for the "action BS"
God declares a promise to the faithfull THAT ACT on this matter.  In
Malachi 3:10 God says "Bring ye all the tithes into the storehouse,
that there may be meat in mine house and prove me now herewith, saith
the Lord of hosts, if i will not open you the windows of heaven and
pour you out a blessing that there will not be room enough to contain
it. I would'nt call Gods promise and our call to act upon it BS if I
were you. God may not like it very much...
      "Unfortunately, religion does have alot to do with fear. Fear
due to a lack of knowledge.  Scott almost made a difference here."
Dr. Scott did make a difference.  Of the many examples i could draw
from, his teachings on communion established the table of the lord as
a table of grace not guilt through passing on the knowledge that to
partake in an unworthily manner (not discerning the body of the lord
in that he paid the price of our sins) is different from false
teaching that mis-quotes scripture to read that we must examine
ourselves to see if we are to unworthy to partake of the lords body
which produces guilt and thus, fear of hell.  And guilt is the
primary source for fear of hell in the body of christ...
On the one
Post by PopeChumpo
hand he was teaching the liberty you have from the law through the
gospel of Jesus revealed in Paul's letters,
yes i agree...
but on the other hand was
Post by PopeChumpo
creating his own requirements of faith works of giving
       Again what are you talking about here giving or tithing? If
your talking about tithing than i already addressed the matter so NO
he did not create his own requirements for faith works because in the
context of the tithe it is God that prompts believers to ACT (in
faith) as a precondition to recieving the blessing.  If however, you
are refering to giving, which is an act of worship, then we will
continue with that premis.
Dr.Scott twisted the requirements for having Jesus' life in us by
creating his own requirements that faith works of giving (the action
of it) were neccessary as a pre-condition for God to aknowledge that
we had faith and therefor the deposit of his own life in us.
   Thats just another way of saying you could buy your way into
heaven!  Contrarily, Dr.Scott taught that you could buy your way
straight into hell if you thought that the act of faith giving
(alone)  would get you into heaven. Dr.Scott taught Gods word in its
proper context, Mat. 26:13 makes it clear that wherever the gospel is
preached you tell what the woman with the alabaster box did. Do you
know what she did?  she took the most precious thing she had  and
annointed him with it. Now ask youself a question. Why did Jesus want
her memorialized every time the good news of the Gospel is preached
(taught, whatever...) I am not going to answer that for you.
further more he taught on giving in the context of  Gal. 6:6-8  that
when giving is done for the right reasons (in response to having been
taught in the word)  than the act of giving is considered sowing to
the spirit and subsuquently "ye shall of the spirit reap life
everlasting.
    You ask  "My question is did Scott know the truth but choose the
add on tithe BS in fear of not making it financialy or was he not
capable of comprehending What the gospels actualy say."
Did he know the truth? In my opinion, Yes.  Did he choose the add on
tithe BS because he was afraid of not making it financialy. No, He
taught the add on tithe BS because it is sound biblical teaching and
he was a sound biblical teacher.  Was he capable of of comprehending
What the gospels actualy say? Yes...- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Yes... the woman with the alabaster box.  Thing is Scott used that as
a vehicle to put himself through what he taught in the place of Jesus
in the story and transfered guilt to anyone who would not annoint him
similarly.  It's like that.... a program ready to run whenever the
subject comes up whether internally or in discussion.   Nobody puts
themselves between Jesus and anyone else, if they do they're building
a cult.  It runs deep with the subject ranging from did he start out
doing this to when did he start doing this to what does someone mean
when they suggest he was a crook because he was teaching Biblical
truths and taking pains to see it wasn't compromised in the area of
giving, that being closest to God's heart.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
not to be mean rp but if your making a valid point your just gonna
have to find a better way to articulate it. sounds like rationalized
jibberish and caricitured exegesis. Sorry..... i really do want to
understand what you are saying :(
Celestias
2009-12-07 04:15:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by surfkrow
Post by PopeChumpo
Post by Celestias
The last guy on that first thread says....
"He plays on peoples' fears."
Well isn't that what religion is all about? People are afraid of going
to hell.
BTW, in 1993 wasn't the internet mostly just used by schools, etc?
Yes, very early pioneers. The internet was not well known until a few
years later. You would think these guys would check in now and then.
Unfortunately, religion does have alot to do with fear. Fear due to a
lack of knowledge. Scott almost made a difference here. On the one
hand he was teaching the liberty you have from the law through the
gospel of Jesus revealed in Paul's letters, but on the other hand was
creating his own requirements of faith works of giving by preaching
there was a necessary "Action" before God would recognize you indeed
had some faith. Thus, adding a requirement to have His life in us that
does not exist unless you can properly twist things before an
unlearned audience.
My question is did he know the truth
but chose the add-on tithe-
action BS in fear of not making it financially, or was he not capable
of comprehending what the gospels actually say?
      "tithe action BS"  is a misnomer.  You were expounding upon
giving not tithing and there is a difference. Tithing is an act of
stewardship and giving is an act of worship.  As for the "action BS"
God declares a promise to the faithfull THAT ACT on this matter.  In
Malachi 3:10 God says "Bring ye all the tithes into the storehouse,
that there may be meat in mine house and prove me now herewith, saith
the Lord of hosts, if i will not open you the windows of heaven and
pour you out a blessing that there will not be room enough to contain
it. I would'nt call Gods promise and our call to act upon it BS if I
were you. God may not like it very much...
      "Unfortunately, religion does have alot to do with fear. Fear
due to a lack of knowledge.  Scott almost made a difference here."
Dr. Scott did make a difference.  Of the many examples i could draw
from, his teachings on communion established the table of the lord as
a table of grace not guilt through passing on the knowledge that to
partake in an unworthily manner (not discerning the body of the lord
in that he paid the price of our sins) is different from false
teaching that mis-quotes scripture to read that we must examine
ourselves to see if we are to unworthy to partake of the lords body
which produces guilt and thus, fear of hell.  And guilt is the
primary source for fear of hell in the body of christ...
On the one
Post by PopeChumpo
hand he was teaching the liberty you have from the law through the
gospel of Jesus revealed in Paul's letters,
yes i agree...
but on the other hand was
Post by PopeChumpo
creating his own requirements of faith works of giving
       Again what are you talking about here giving or tithing? If
your talking about tithing than i already addressed the matter so NO
he did not create his own requirements for faith works because in the
context of the tithe it is God that prompts believers to ACT (in
faith) as a precondition to recieving the blessing.  If however, you
are refering to giving, which is an act of worship, then we will
continue with that premis.
Dr.Scott twisted the requirements for having Jesus' life in us by
creating his own requirements that faith works of giving (the action
of it) were neccessary as a pre-condition for God to aknowledge that
we had faith and therefor the deposit of his own life in us.
   Thats just another way of saying you could buy your way into
heaven!  Contrarily, Dr.Scott taught that you could buy your way
straight into hell if you thought that the act of faith giving
(alone)  would get you into heaven. Dr.Scott taught Gods word in its
proper context, Mat. 26:13 makes it clear that wherever the gospel is
preached you tell what the woman with the alabaster box did. Do you
know what she did?  she took the most precious thing she had  and
annointed him with it. Now ask youself a question. Why did Jesus want
her memorialized every time the good news of the Gospel is preached
(taught, whatever...) I am not going to answer that for you.
further more he taught on giving in the context of  Gal. 6:6-8  that
when giving is done for the right reasons (in response to having been
taught in the word)  than the act of giving is considered sowing to
the spirit and subsuquently "ye shall of the spirit reap life
everlasting.
    You ask  "My question is did Scott know the truth but choose the
add on tithe BS in fear of not making it financialy or was he not
capable of comprehending What the gospels actualy say."
Did he know the truth? In my opinion, Yes.  Did he choose the add on
tithe BS because he was afraid of not making it financialy. No, He
taught the add on tithe BS because it is sound biblical teaching and
he was a sound biblical teacher.  Was he capable of of comprehending
What the gospels actualy say? Yes...- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Yes... the woman with the alabaster box.  Thing is Scott used that as
a vehicle to put himself through what he taught in the place of Jesus
in the story and transfered guilt to anyone who would not annoint him
similarly.  It's like that.... a program ready to run whenever the
subject comes up whether internally or in discussion.   Nobody puts
themselves between Jesus and anyone else, if they do they're building
a cult.  It runs deep with the subject ranging from did he start out
doing this to when did he start doing this to what does someone mean
when they suggest he was a crook because he was teaching Biblical
truths and taking pains to see it wasn't compromised in the area of
giving, that being closest to God's heart.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
not to be mean rp but if your making a valid point your just gonna
have to find a better way to articulate it. sounds like rationalized
jibberish and caricitured exegesis.   Sorry.....  i really do want to
understand what you are saying :(
Well, isn't anyone going to call him a docamentalized scottbot?

As for giving being closest to God's heart, giving goes beyond the
church. I been thinking about all the people who need help, and what
Gerald has been saying about that, and how Jesus said if you do it
unto one of these you've done it unto him. There's a lot of giving
that can be done in a human life, and I agree it's very close to God's
heart.

If we can't help each other out, what good are we?
matt2442
2009-12-07 08:36:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Celestias
Well, isn't anyone going to call him a docamentalized scottbot?
As for giving being closest to God's heart, giving goes beyond the
church. I been thinking about all the people who need help, and what
Gerald has been saying about that, and how Jesus said if you do it
unto one of these you've done it unto him. There's a lot of giving
that can be done in a human life, and I agree it's very close to God's
heart.
If we can't help each other out, what good are we?
Matt2442:
Sounds like compassion to me, something that was missing from Gene
Scott's idea of giving. You weren't supposed to care about the poor.
The poor you have with you always, he would say, quoting Jesus, but
you had an obligation to testify to the value of the teaching of God's
Word.
surfkrow
2009-12-08 00:52:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Celestias
Post by surfkrow
Post by PopeChumpo
Post by Celestias
The last guy on that first thread says....
"He plays on peoples' fears."
Well isn't that what religion is all about? People are afraid of going
to hell.
BTW, in 1993 wasn't the internet mostly just used by schools, etc?
Yes, very early pioneers. The internet was not well known until a few
years later. You would think these guys would check in now and then.
Unfortunately, religion does have alot to do with fear. Fear due to a
lack of knowledge. Scott almost made a difference here. On the one
hand he was teaching the liberty you have from the law through the
gospel of Jesus revealed in Paul's letters, but on the other hand was
creating his own requirements of faith works of giving by preaching
there was a necessary "Action" before God would recognize you indeed
had some faith. Thus, adding a requirement to have His life in us that
does not exist unless you can properly twist things before an
unlearned audience.
My question is did he know the truth
but chose the add-on tithe-
action BS in fear of not making it financially, or was he not capable
of comprehending what the gospels actually say?
      "tithe action BS"  is a misnomer.  You were expounding upon
giving not tithing and there is a difference. Tithing is an act of
stewardship and giving is an act of worship.  As for the "action BS"
God declares a promise to the faithfull THAT ACT on this matter.  In
Malachi 3:10 God says "Bring ye all the tithes into the storehouse,
that there may be meat in mine house and prove me now herewith, saith
the Lord of hosts, if i will not open you the windows of heaven and
pour you out a blessing that there will not be room enough to contain
it. I would'nt call Gods promise and our call to act upon it BS if I
were you. God may not like it very much...
      "Unfortunately, religion does have alot to do with fear. Fear
due to a lack of knowledge.  Scott almost made a difference here."
Dr. Scott did make a difference.  Of the many examples i could draw
from, his teachings on communion established the table of the lord as
a table of grace not guilt through passing on the knowledge that to
partake in an unworthily manner (not discerning the body of the lord
in that he paid the price of our sins) is different from false
teaching that mis-quotes scripture to read that we must examine
ourselves to see if we are to unworthy to partake of the lords body
which produces guilt and thus, fear of hell.  And guilt is the
primary source for fear of hell in the body of christ...
On the one
Post by PopeChumpo
hand he was teaching the liberty you have from the law through the
gospel of Jesus revealed in Paul's letters,
yes i agree...
but on the other hand was
Post by PopeChumpo
creating his own requirements of faith works of giving
       Again what are you talking about here giving or tithing? If
your talking about tithing than i already addressed the matter so NO
he did not create his own requirements for faith works because in the
context of the tithe it is God that prompts believers to ACT (in
faith) as a precondition to recieving the blessing.  If however, you
are refering to giving, which is an act of worship, then we will
continue with that premis.
Dr.Scott twisted the requirements for having Jesus' life in us by
creating his own requirements that faith works of giving (the action
of it) were neccessary as a pre-condition for God to aknowledge that
we had faith and therefor the deposit of his own life in us.
   Thats just another way of saying you could buy your way into
heaven!  Contrarily, Dr.Scott taught that you could buy your way
straight into hell if you thought that the act of faith giving
(alone)  would get you into heaven. Dr.Scott taught Gods word in its
proper context, Mat. 26:13 makes it clear that wherever the gospel is
preached you tell what the woman with the alabaster box did. Do you
know what she did?  she took the most precious thing she had  and
annointed him with it. Now ask youself a question. Why did Jesus want
her memorialized every time the good news of the Gospel is preached
(taught, whatever...) I am not going to answer that for you.
further more he taught on giving in the context of  Gal. 6:6-8  that
when giving is done for the right reasons (in response to having been
taught in the word)  than the act of giving is considered sowing to
the spirit and subsuquently "ye shall of the spirit reap life
everlasting.
    You ask  "My question is did Scott know the truth but choose the
add on tithe BS in fear of not making it financialy or was he not
capable of comprehending What the gospels actualy say."
Did he know the truth? In my opinion, Yes.  Did he choose the add on
tithe BS because he was afraid of not making it financialy. No, He
taught the add on tithe BS because it is sound biblical teaching and
he was a sound biblical teacher.  Was he capable of of comprehending
What the gospels actualy say? Yes...- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Yes... the woman with the alabaster box.  Thing is Scott used that as
a vehicle to put himself through what he taught in the place of Jesus
in the story and transfered guilt to anyone who would not annoint him
similarly.  It's like that.... a program ready to run whenever the
subject comes up whether internally or in discussion.   Nobody puts
themselves between Jesus and anyone else, if they do they're building
a cult.  It runs deep with the subject ranging from did he start out
doing this to when did he start doing this to what does someone mean
when they suggest he was a crook because he was teaching Biblical
truths and taking pains to see it wasn't compromised in the area of
giving, that being closest to God's heart.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
not to be mean rp but if your making a valid point your just gonna
have to find a better way to articulate it. sounds like rationalized
jibberish and caricitured exegesis.   Sorry.....  i really do want to
understand what you are saying :(
Well, isn't anyone going to call him a docamentalized scottbot?
As for giving being closest to God's heart, giving goes beyond the
church. I been thinking about all the people who need help, and what
Gerald has been saying about that, and how Jesus said if you do it
unto one of these you've done it unto him. There's a lot of giving
that can be done in a human life, and I agree it's very close to God's
heart.
If we can't help each other out, what good are we?- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Yes, i agree :) but not the exclusion of doing it gods way. And
paradoxicly when you do, God enables u to share:) And he loves to
share:) "if you have the spirit of Christ it makes u a giver"
rpbc
2009-12-07 09:46:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by surfkrow
   Thats just another way of saying you could buy your way into
heaven!  Contrarily, Dr.Scott taught that you could buy your way
straight into hell if you thought that the act of faith giving
(alone)  would get you into heaven. Dr.Scott taught Gods word in its
proper context, Mat. 26:13 makes it clear that wherever the gospel is
preached you tell what the woman with the alabaster box did. Do you
know what she did?  she took the most precious thing she had  and
annointed him with it. Now ask youself a question. Why did Jesus want
her memorialized every time the good news of the Gospel is preached
(taught, whatever...) I am not going to answer that for you.
further more he taught on giving in the context of  Gal. 6:6-8  that
when giving is done for the right reasons (in response to having been
taught in the word)  than the act of giving is considered sowing to
the spirit and subsuquently "ye shall of the spirit reap life
everlasting.
- Show quoted text -
Yes... the woman with the alabaster box.  Thing is Scott used that story as
a vehicle to put himself, personified by what he taught, in the place of Jesus
in the story of the alabaster box and transfered guilt to anyone who would not annoint him
similarly.  It's like that.... a program ready to run whenever the
subject comes up whether internally or in discussion.   Nobody should put
themselves between Jesus and anyone else, if they do they're building
a cult.  It runs deep with thoughts on the subject ranging from did he start out
doing this to when did he start doing this to what does someone mean
when they suggest he was a crook because he was teaching Biblical
truths and taking pains to see it wasn't compromised in the area of
giving, that being closest to God's heart.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
not to be mean rp but if your making a valid point your just gonna
have to find a better way to articulate it. sounds like rationalized
jibberish and caricitured exegesis.   Sorry.....  i really do want to
understand what you are saying :(- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
rpbc:
You're not a mean guy Surf..... but I did re read my post and it still
makes perfectly good sense to me. I was drawing upon an assumed
context from previous posts for the sake of brevity and that could be
missing from the readers mind. However... one thing it was not is
anything like rationalized jibberish and caricitured exegesis so
explain what you mean... take the syntax apart the way one diagrams
words in a sentence and I think you'll get it. Scott elevated
himself to Jesus as subject in the storyline and whether one agrees
with him doing that or not is besides the fact of whether that's what
he did or not. I edited my post in question a little for
clarification and it reads better. It's just above in this post.
Celestias
2009-12-07 10:36:25 UTC
Permalink
Emmett, do you own a dictionary with etymologies of words in it? My
Websters says Doc was right about worship and worth-ship.

Everything the old man said was not a lie, or wrong either.
Emmett
2009-12-07 16:34:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Celestias
Emmett, do you own a dictionary with etymologies of words in it? My
Websters says Doc was right about worship and worth-ship.
Everything the old man said was not a lie, or wrong either.
Emmett writes:
The way Dr. jean deciphered worship was worth-ship. He said that
meant in order to worship you had to give money as the worth part.
Because that was the only real value we had was our money (worth).
That is crazy shit.

Show me where this is defined:

worship (n.)
O.E. worðscip, wurðscip (Anglian), weorðscipe (W.Saxon) "condition of
being worthy, honor, renown," from weorð "worthy" (see worth) + -scipe
(see -ship). Sense of "reverence paid to a supernatural or divine
being" is first recorded c.1300. The original sense is preserved in
the title worshipful (c.1300). The verb is recorded from c.1200.
cult
1617, "worship," also "a particular form of worship," from Fr. culte,
from L. cultus "care, cultivation, worship," originally "tended,
cultivated," pp. of colere "to till" (see colony). Rare after 17c.;
revived mid-19c. with reference to ancient or primitive rituals.
Meaning "devotion to a person or thing" is from 1829.
bibliolatry
1763, "worship of books," from biblio- + -latry. Meaning "worship of
the Bible" is from 1847.
anthropolatry
"worship of a human being," from Gk. anthropos (see anthropo-) +
latreia "hired labor, service, worship."
-latry
suffix meaning "worship of," in use in native formations from 19c.
(e.g. bardolatry), from Gk. -latreia "worship, service paid to the
gods, hired labor," related to latron "pay, hire," latris "servant,
worshipper."
idolatry
c.1250, from O.Fr. idolatrie, shortened from L.L. idololatria
(Tertullian), from Gk. eidololatria "worship of idols," from eidolon
"image" + latreia "worship, service."
adore
c.1300, "to pay divine honors to," from O.Fr. aourer "to adore,
worship" (10c.), from L. adorare "speak to formally, beseech, ask in
prayer," in L.L. "to worship," from ad- "to" + orare "speak formally,
pray" (see orator). Meaning "to honor very highly" is attested from
1590s; weakened sense of "to be very fond of" emerged by 1880s.
temple (1)
"building for worship," O.E. tempel, from L. templum "piece of ground
consecrated for the taking of auspices, building for worship," of
uncertain signification. Commonly referred either to PIE base *tem-
"to cut," on notion of "place reserved or cut out," or to PIE base
*temp- "to stretch," on notion of cleared space in front of an altar.
Fig. sense of "any place regarded as occupied by divine presence" was
in O.E. Applied to Jewish synagogues from 1598.
Methodist
"One of a new kind of puritans lately arisen, so called from their
profession to live by rules and in constant method" [Johnson].
Protestant religious sect founded 1729 at Oxford University by John
and Charles Wesley, took that name almost from inception, but it had
been used since at least 1686 for various new methods of worship.
venerable
early 15c., from L. venerabilis, from venerari "to worship,
revere" (see veneration). As a title, used in reference to
ecclesiastics or those who had obtained the first degree of
canonization.
Cyprus
from Gk. Kypros "land of cypress trees" (see cypress); eastern
Mediterranean island famous in ancient times as the birthplace of
Aphrodite and for erotic worship rituals offered to her there; hence
Cyprian (adj.) "licentious, lewd" (1599); applied 18c.-19c. to
prostitutes.
altar
O.E., from L. altare (pl. altaria), probably originally meaning "burnt
offerings" (cf. L. adolere "to worship, to offer sacrifice, to honor
by burning sacrifices to"), but infl. by L. altus "high."
adorable
1611, from Fr. adorable, from L. adorabilem "worthy of worship," from
adorare (see adore). Weakened sense of "delightful, charming" is
recorded from 1710.
venerate
1620s, from L. veneratus, pp. of venerari "to reverence, worship" (see
veneration). Related: Venerated, venerating.
ophidian
"pertaining to snakes," 1883, from Gk. ophidion, dim. of ophis
"serpent," of unknown origin. Hence, ophiolatry "serpent-
worship" (1862), and the 2c. sect of the Ophitæ, who revered the
serpent as the symbol of divine wisdom. Also ophiomancy (1683), the
ancient art of divination by the movements of snakes.
Azerbaijan
country name, of unknown origin, perhaps from O.Pers. Aturpatakan,
from Gk. Atropatene, from the Pers. Atropates, who ruled there in the
time of Alexander the Great; or from local azer "fire" + baydjan
(Iranian baykan) "guardian," in ref. to fire-worship.
tabernacle
c.1250, "portable sanctuary carried by the Israelites in the
wilderness," from O.Fr. tabernacle (12c.), from L. tabernaculum
"tent," especially "a tent of an augur" (for taking observations),
dim. of taberna "hut, cabin, booth" (see tavern). Transfered 1388 to
the Temple in Jerusalem (which continued its function). Sense of
"house of worship" first recorded 1693. The Jewish Feast of
Tabernacles (mid-October) was observed as a thanksgiving for harvest.
Leviticus
third book of the Pentateuch, c.1400, from L.L. Leviticus (liber),
lit. "book of the Levites," from Gk. to Leuitikon biblion, properly
the part of the Pentateuch dealing with the function of the priests
who were of the tribe of Levi (a portion of the tribe acted as
assistants to the priests in the temple-worship). The Heb. title is
Torath Kohanim, lit. "the law of the priests."
mosque
c.1400, moseak, probably from M.Fr. mosquée, from It. moschea, from
Sp. mesquita (modern mezquita), from Arabic masjid "temple, place of
worship," from sajada "he worshipped" + prefix ma- denoting "place."
In M.E. as muskey, moseache, etc.
meet (v.)
O.E. metan, from P.Gmc. *motijanan (cf.O.N. mæta, O.S. motian "to
meet"). Related to O.E. gemot "meeting." The noun, in the sporting
sense, is attested from 1831, originally of hunting. Meeting
"gathering of people for discussion, etc." is attested from 1513. In
17c., it was applied generally to worship assemblies of
nonconformists, but this now is retained mostly by Quakers.
toleration
1517, "permission granted by authority, license," from M.Fr.
tolération (15c.), from L. tolerationem (nom. toleratio) "a bearing,
supporting, enduring," from toleratus, pp. of tolerare "to tolerate,
lit. "to bear" (see extol). Meaning "forbearance, sufferance" is from
1582. Religious sense is from Act of Toleration, statute granting
freedom of religious worship (with conditions) to dissenting
Protestants in England, 1689.
veneration
early 15c., from M.Fr. veneration, from L. venerationem (nom.
veneratio) "reverence," from venerari "to worship, revere," from venus
(gen. veneris) "beauty, love, desire" (see Venus).
idol
c.1250, "image of a deity as an object of (pagan) worship," from O.Fr.
idole, from L.L. idolum "image (mental or physical), form," used in
Church L. for "false god," from Gk. eidolon "appearance," later
"mental image, apparition, phantom," also "material image, statue,"
from eidos "form" (see -oid). Figurative sense of "something idolized"
is first recorded 1562. Meaning "a person so adored" is from 1591;
hence idolize (1598).
voodoo
religious witchcraft of Haiti and Southern U.S., ult. of African
origin, 1850, from Louisiana Fr. voudou, from a W.African language
(e.g. Ewe and Fon vodu "spirit, demon, deity," also Vandoo, supposedly
the name of an African deity, from a language of Dahomey). Cf. vodun
"fetish connected with snake worship in Dahomey," said to be from vo
"to be afraid," or vo "harmful." The verb is attested from 1880.
orator
late 14c., "one who pleads or argues for a cause," from Anglo-Fr.
oratour, from O.Fr. orateur (14c.), from L. oratorem (nom. orator)
"speaker," from orare "speak before a court or assembly, plead," from
PIE base *or- "to pronounce a ritual formula" (cf. Skt. aryanti "they
praise," Homeric Gk. are, Attic ara "prayer," Hittite ariya- "to ask
the oracle," aruwai- "to revere, worship"). Meaning "public speaker"
is attested from early 15c.
Zion
O.E. Sion, from Gk. Seon, from Heb. Tsiyon, name of a Canaanite hill
fortress in Jerusalem captured by David and called in the Bible "City
of David." It became the center of Jewish life and worship. Zionism
"movement for forming (later supporting) a Jewish national state in
Palestine" first attested 1896, from Ger. Zionismus (from Zion + L.-
derived suffix -ismus), first recorded 1886 in "Selbstemancipation,"
by "Matthias Acher" (pseudonym of Nathan Birnbaum).
template
1677, templet "horizontal piece under a girder or beam," probably from
Fr. templet "weaver's stretcher," dim. of temple, which meant the same
thing, from L. templum "plank, rafter," also "building for
worship" (see temple (1)). The meaning "pattern or gauge for shaping a
piece of work" is first recorded 1819 in this form, earlier temple
(1688); the form was altered 1844, probably influenced by plate, but
the pronunciation did not begin to shift until much more recently.
orgy
1561, orgies (pl.) "secret rites in the worship of certain Gk. and
Roman gods," especially Dionysus, from M.Fr. orgies (c.1500), from L.
orgia, from Gk. orgia (pl.) "secret rites," from PIE base *werg- "to
work" (see urge (v.)). The singular, orgy, was first used in Eng. 1665
for the extended sense of "any licentious revelry." OED says of the
ancient rites that they were "celebrated with extravagant dancing,
singing, drinking, etc.," which gives "etc." quite a workout.
liturgy
1560, "the service of the Holy Eucharist," from M.Fr. liturgie, from
L.L. liturgia "public service, public worship," from Gk. leitourgia,
from leitourgos "one who performs a public ceremony or service, public
servant," from leito- "public" (from laos "people;" cf. leiton "public
hall," leite "priestess") + -ergos "that works," from ergon
"work" (see urge (v.)). Meaning "collective formulas for the conduct
of divine service in Christian churches" is from c.1593.
logos
1587, "second person of the Christian Trinity," from Gk. logos "word,
speech, discourse," also "reason," from PIE base *leg- "to
collect" (with derivatives meaning "to speak," on notion of "to pick
out words;" see lecture); used by Neo-Platonists in various
metaphysical and theological senses and picked up by N.T. writers.
Other Eng. formations from logos include logolatry "worship of words,
unreasonable regard for words or verbal truth" (1810 in Coleridge);
logomachy "fighting about words" (1569); logomania (1870); logophobia
(1923); and logorrhea (1902).
bless
O.E. bletsian, bledsian, Northumbrian bloedsian "to consecrate, make
holy," from P.Gmc. *blothisojan "mark with blood," from *blotham
"blood" (see blood). Originally a blood sprinkling on pagan altars.
This word was chosen in O.E. bibles to translate L. benedicere and Gk.
eulogein, both of which have a ground sense of "to speak well of, to
praise," but were used in Scripture to translate Heb. brk "to bend
(the knee), worship, praise, invoke blessings." Meaning shifted in
late O.E. toward "to confer happiness, well-being," by resemblance to
unrelated bliss. No cognates in other languages.
service (n.)
c.1100, "celebration of public worship," from O.Fr. servise, from L.
servitium "slavery, servitude," from servus "slave" (see serve).
Meaning "act of serving" is attested from 1230. Sense of "duty of a
military man" first recorded 1580s, hence "the military as an
occupation" (1706). Meaning "the furniture of the table" (tea service,
etc.) is from mid-15c. Serving "a helping of food" is from 1769.
Serviceable "ready to serve" is from early 14c.
Edgar: I know thee well: a serviceable villain,
As duteous to the vices of thy mistress
As badness would desire.
"King Lear," Act IV, Scene vi
wish (v.)
O.E. wyscan "to wish," from P.Gmc. *wunskijanan (cf. O.N. æskja, Dan.
ønske, Swed. önska, M.Du. wonscen, Du. wensen, O.H.G. wunsken, Ger.
wunschen "to wish"), from PIE *wun-/*wen-/*won- "to strive after,
wish, desire, be satisfied" (cf. Skt. vanati "he desires, loves,
wins," L. venus "love, sexual desire, loveliness," venerari "to
worship;" see Venus). The noun is attested from c.1300. Wishful first
recorded 1523. Wishful thinking is recorded from 1932; wish
fulfillment (1901) translates Ger. wunscherfüllung (Freud, "Die
Traumdeutung," 1900).
bard
mid-15c., from Scottish, from O.Celt. bardos "poet, singer," from PIE
base *gwer- "to lift up the voice, praise." In historical times, a
term of contempt among the Scots (who considered them itinerant
troublemakers), but one of great respect among the Welsh.
"All vagabundis, fulis, bardis, scudlaris, and siclike idill pepill,
sall be brint on the cheek." [local Scottish ordinance, c.1500]
Subsequently idealized by Scott in the more ancient sense of "lyric
poet, singer." Poetic use of the word in English is from Gk. bardos,
L. bardus, both from Gaulish. Bardolatry "worship of Shakespeare (the
'Bard of Avon')" first recorded 1901.
church
O.E. cirice "church," from W.Gmc. *kirika, from Gk. kyriake (oikia)
"Lord's (house)," from kyrios "ruler, lord." For vowel evolution, see
bury. Gk. kyriakon (adj.) "of the Lord" was used of houses of
Christian worship since c.300, especially in the East, though it was
less common in this sense than ekklesia or basilike. An example of the
direct Gk.-to-Gmc. progress of many Christian words, via the Goths; it
was probably used by W.Gmc. people in their pre-Christian period. Also
picked up by Slavic, via Gmc. (cf. O.Slav. criky, Rus. cerkov).
Romance and Celtic languages use variants of L. ecclesia. Slang church
key for "can or bottle opener" is from 1950s. Church-mouse, proverbial
in many languages for its poverty, is 1731 in Eng.
offer (v.)
O.E. ofrian, from L. offerre "to present, bestow, bring before" (in
L.L. "to present in worship"), from ob "to" + ferre "to bring, to
carry" (see infer). Non-religious sense reinforced by O.Fr. offrir "to
offer," from L. offerre. The noun is first recorded 1433, from O.Fr.
offre (12c.), verbal noun from offrir. The native noun formation is
offering (O.E. offrung), verbal noun from offrian.
nude
1531, a legal term, "unsupported, not formally attested," from L.
nudus "naked, bare" (see naked). General sense of "mere, plain,
simple" attested from 1551. In ref. to the human body, meaning
"unclothed" is an artistic euphemism for naked, dating from 1611
(implied in nudity). Nudism is a 1929 borrowing from Fr. nudisme;
nudist "one who practices nudism" appeared at the same time.
"Made in Germany, imported to France, is the cult of Nudism, a
mulligan stew of vegetarianism, physical culture and pagan
worship." ["Time," July 1, 1929]
Nudie "a nude show" is from 1935.
sanctuary
c.1340, "building set apart for holy worship," from Anglo-Fr.
sentuarie, from O.Fr. sainctuarie, from L.L. sanctuarium "a sacred
place, shrine" (especially the Hebrew Holy of Holies; see sanctum),
also "a private room," from L. sanctus "holy" (see saint). By medieval
Church law, fugitives or debtors enjoyed immunity from arrest in
churches, hence transf. sense of "immunity from punishment" (c.1380).
General (non-ecclesiastical) sense of "place of refuge or protection"
is attested from 1568; as "land set aside for wild plants or animals
to breed and live" it is recorded from 1879. Under English law, one
claiming the right of sanctuary had 40 days to confess and accept
permanent banishment. This was abolished in Britain 1625 in criminal
cases, 1696, 1722 in civil cases.
hero
1387, "man of superhuman strength or courage," from L. heros "hero,"
from Gk. heros "demi-god" (a variant singular of which was heroe),
originally "defender, protector," from PIE base *ser- "to watch over,
protect" (cf. L. servare "to save, deliver, preserve, protect"). Sense
of "chief male character in a play, story, etc." first recorded 1697.
Fem. form heroine first attested 1659, from L. heroina, from Gk.
heroine. First record of hero-worship is from 1774. Heroic verse
(1617), decasyllabic iambic, is from It. Hero, the New York term for a
sandwich elsewhere called submarine, grinder, poor boy (New Orleans),
or hoagie (Philadelphia), is 1955, origin unknown, perhaps folk
etymology of Gk. gyro, a type of sandwich.
Satan
proper name of the supreme evil spirit in Christianity, O.E. Satan,
from L.L. Satan (in Vulgate, in O.T. only), from Gk. Satanas, from
Heb. satan "adversary, one who plots against another," from satan "to
show enmity to, oppose, plot against," from root s-t-n "one who
opposes, obstructs, or acts as an adversary." In Septuagint (Gk.)
usually translated as diabolos "slanderer," lit. "one who throws
(something) across" the path of another (see devil), though epiboulos
"plotter" is used once.
"In biblical sources the Hebrew term the satan describes an
adversarial role. It is not the name of a particular character.
Although Hebrew storytellers as early as the sixth century B.C.E.
occasionally introduced a supernatural character whom they called the
satan, what they meant was any one of the angels sent by God for the
specific purpose of blocking or obstructing human activity." [Elaine
Pagels, "The Origin of Satan," 1995]
Satanic "pertaining to Satan" is first recorded 1667 (in "Paradise
Lost"); meaning "diabolical" is from 1793. Satanism "worship of Satan"
dates from 1896, with ref. to France, where it was said to be active
at that time; Satanist is attested from 1559, applied by their enemies
to Protestant sects.
guild
c.1230, yilde (spelling later infl. by O.N. gildi), a semantic fusion
of O.E. gegyld "guild" and gild, gyld "payment, tribute,
compensation," from P.Gmc. *gelth- "pay" (cf. O.Fris. geld "money,"
O.S. geld "payment, sacrifice, reward," O.H.G. gelt "payment,
tribute"). The connecting sense is of a tribute or payment to join a
protective or trade society. But some see the root in its alternative
sense of "sacrifice," as if in worship, and see the word as meaning a
combination for religious purposes, either Christian or pagan. The
Anglo-Saxon guilds had a strong religious component; they were burial
societies that paid for masses for the souls of deceased members as
well as paying fines in cases of justified crime. The continental
custom of guilds of merchants arrived after the Conquest, with
incorporated societies of merchants in each town or city holding
exclusive rights of doing business there. In many cases they became
the governing body of a town (cf. Guildhall, which came to be the
London city hall). Trade guilds arose 14c., as craftsmen united to
protect their common interest.
religion
c.1200, "state of life bound by monastic vows," also "conduct
indicating a belief in a divine power," from Anglo-Fr. religiun
(11c.), from O.Fr. religion "religious community," from L. religionem
(nom. religio) "respect for what is sacred, reverence for the gods,"
in L.L. "monastic life" (5c.); according to Cicero, derived from
relegare "go through again, read again," from re- "again" + legere
"read" (see lecture). However, popular etymology among the later
ancients (and many modern writers) connects it with religare "to bind
fast" (see rely), via notion of "place an obligation on," or "bond
between humans and gods." Another possible origin is religiens
"careful," opposite of negligens. Meaning "particular system of faith"
is recorded from c.1300.
"To hold, therefore, that there is no difference in matters of
religion between forms that are unlike each other, and even contrary
to each other, most clearly leads in the end to the rejection of all
religion in both theory and practice. And this is the same thing as
atheism, however it may differ from it in name." [Pope Leo XIII,
Immortale Dei, 1885]
Modern sense of "recognition of, obedience to, and worship of a
higher, unseen power" is from 1530s. Religious is first recorded early
13c. Transfered sense of "scrupulous, exact" is recorded from 1590s.
surfkrow
2009-12-08 04:53:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by PopeChumpo
Post by Celestias
The last guy on that first thread says....
"He plays on peoples' fears."
Well isn't that what religion is all about? People are afraid of going
to hell.
BTW, in 1993 wasn't the internet mostly just used by schools, etc?
Yes, very early pioneers. The internet was not well known until a few
years later. You would think these guys would check in now and then.
Unfortunately, religion does have alot to do with fear. Fear due to a
lack of knowledge. Scott almost made a difference here. On the one
hand he was teaching the liberty you have from the law through the
gospel of Jesus revealed in Paul's letters, but on the other hand was
creating his own requirements of faith works of giving by preaching
there was a necessary "Action" before God would recognize you indeed
had some faith. Thus, adding a requirement to have His life in us that
does not exist unless you can properly twist things before an
unlearned audience.
My question is did he know the truth
but chose the add-on tithe-
action BS in fear of not making it financially, or was he not capable
of comprehending what the gospels actually say?
      "tithe action BS"  is a misnomer.  You were expounding upon
giving not tithing and there is a difference. Tithing is an act of
stewardship and giving is an act of worship.  As for the "action BS"
God declares a promise to the faithfull THAT ACT on this matter.  In
Malachi 3:10 God says "Bring ye all the tithes into the storehouse,
that there may be meat in mine house and prove me now herewith, saith
the Lord of hosts, if i will not open you the windows of heaven and
pour you out a blessing that there will not be room enough to contain
it. I would'nt call Gods promise and our call to act upon it BS if I
were you. God may not like it very much...
      "Unfortunately, religion does have alot to do with fear. Fear
due to a lack of knowledge.  Scott almost made a difference here."
Dr. Scott did make a difference.  Of the many examples i could draw
from, his teachings on communion established the table of the lord as
a table of grace not guilt through passing on the knowledge that to
partake in an unworthily manner (not discerning the body of the lord
in that he paid the price of our sins) is different from false
teaching that mis-quotes scripture to read that we must examine
ourselves to see if we are to unworthy to partake of the lords body
which produces guilt and thus, fear of hell.  And guilt is the
primary source for fear of hell in the body of christ...
On the one
Post by PopeChumpo
hand he was teaching the liberty you have from the law through the
gospel of Jesus revealed in Paul's letters,
yes i agree...
but on the other hand was
Post by PopeChumpo
creating his own requirements of faith works of giving
       Again what are you talking about here giving or tithing? If
your talking about tithing than i already addressed the matter so NO
he did not create his own requirements for faith works because in the
context of the tithe it is God that prompts believers to ACT (in
faith) as a precondition to recieving the blessing.  If however, you
are refering to giving, which is an act of worship, then we will
continue with that premis.
Dr.Scott twisted the requirements for having Jesus' life in us by
creating his own requirements that faith works of giving (the action
of it) were neccessary as a pre-condition for God to aknowledge that
we had faith and therefor the deposit of his own life in us.
   Thats just another way of saying you could buy your way into
heaven!  Contrarily, Dr.Scott taught that you could buy your way
straight into hell if you thought that the act of faith giving
(alone)  would get you into heaven. Dr.Scott taught Gods word in its
proper context, Mat. 26:13 makes it clear that wherever the gospel is
preached you tell what the woman with the alabaster box did. Do you
know what she did?  she took the most precious thing she had  and
annointed him with it. Now ask youself a question. Why did Jesus want
her memorialized every time the good news of the Gospel is preached
(taught, whatever...) I am not going to answer that for you.
further more he taught on giving in the context of  Gal. 6:6-8  that
when giving is done for the right reasons (in response to having been
taught in the word)  than the act of giving is considered sowing to
the spirit and subsuquently "ye shall of the spirit reap life
everlasting.
    You ask  "My question is did Scott know the truth but choose the
add on tithe BS in fear of not making it financialy or was he not
capable of comprehending What the gospels actualy say."
Did he know the truth? In my opinion, Yes.  Did he choose the add on
tithe BS because he was afraid of not making it financialy. No, He
taught the add on tithe BS because it is sound biblical teaching and
he was a sound biblical teacher.  Was he capable of of comprehending
What the gospels actualy say? Yes...- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Yes... the woman with the alabaster box.  Thing is Scott used that as
a vehicle to put himself through what he taught in the place of Jesus
in the story and transfered guilt to anyone who would not annoint him
similarly.  It's like that.... a program ready to run whenever the
subject comes up whether internally or in discussion.   Nobody puts
themselves between Jesus and anyone else, if they do they're building
a cult.  It runs deep with the subject ranging from did he start out
doing this to when did he start doing this to what does someone mean
when they suggest he was a crook because he was teaching Biblical
truths and taking pains to see it wasn't compromised in the area of
giving, that being closest to God's heart.- Hide quoted text
Hey rp :) lets break it down :)

rpbc says:

Thing is Scott used that as
a vehicle to put himself through what he taught in the place of Jesus
in the story and transfered guilt to anyone who would not annoint him
similarly. It's like that
Two wires have been crossed here in my opinion.

When Dr.Scott prompted us to give in response to the "teaching"
he drew off of Gal.6:6-8 not the message of the alabaster box.
Therefor he did not replace Jesus with himself through his teachings.
Therefor, he did not transfer guilt to any one who would not annoint
him similarly. (in this context)


2) When Dr.Scott preached the gospel he also told what the woman
with the alabaster box did because Jesus said to do this. Jesus' own
attachment of her act to the preaching of the gosple justifies the
preacher's expectancy of the same response from those that hear it!
Furthermore, those that preach the gosple and recieve the same
adoration will also be challanged and betrayed by those with a Judas
mentality. The Judas mentality considers the needs of the poor above
Jesus recieving what is valuable. I say "Jesus" and not God" because
Judas did not recognize that Jesus was God in the flesh at the time
that he betrayed him. When he did he hung himself.

Jesus asks, “Who do people say that the Son of Man is?” The
disciples give various answers. When he asks, "Who do you say that I
am?" Simon Peter answers, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living
God." In turn, Jesus declares Peter to be "blessed" for having
recognized Jesus' true identity and attributes this recognition to a
divine revelation. Then Jesus addresses Simon by what seems to have
been the nickname "Peter" and says, "On this rock I will build my
church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail agaist it!

Recognize that Jesus is God in the flesh. Recognize that bestowing
valuables upon him is appropriate. Recognize that he attached this
appropriate response to the preaching of the gospel. Recognize that
preachers of the gospel are justified in expecting that appropriate
response. Recognize that Jesus is building his church upon this rock.



It's like that.... a program ready to run whenever the
subject comes up whether internally or in discussion. Nobody puts
themselves between Jesus and anyone else, if they do they're building
a cult. It runs deep with the subject ranging from did he start out
doing this to when did he start doing this to what does someone mean
when they suggest he was a crook
Its not like that so all of this is moot....


because he was teaching Biblical
truths and taking pains to see it wasn't compromised in the area of
giving, that being closest to God's heart
yes :)
Weatherman
2009-12-08 12:15:24 UTC
Permalink
    Hey rp :)   lets break it down :)
Thing is Scott used that as
Post by rpbc
a vehicle to put himself through what he taught in the place of Jesus
in the story and transfered guilt to anyone who would not annoint him
similarly.  It's like that
Two wires have been crossed here in my opinion.
     When Dr.Scott prompted us to give in response to the "teaching"
he drew off of Gal.6:6-8  not the message of the alabaster box.
WM-Yes he did teach giving by the alabaster box.
    2) When Dr.Scott preached the gospel he also told what the woman
with the alabaster box did because Jesus said to do this. Jesus'  own
attachment of her act to the preaching of the gosple justifies the
preacher's expectancy of the same response from those that hear it!
WM-Thats really an interpretation. What some teach is that its the
same as putting money in their bag.
Furthermore, those that preach the gosple and recieve the same
adoration will also be challanged and betrayed by those with a Judas
mentality.  The Judas mentality considers the needs of the poor above
Jesus recieving what is valuable.
WM-What was said is not that Judas cared for the poor but wanted money
in his bag.

Anyway Mary could have poured out gold dust on Jesus if it was a
matter of value. But Mary was making ready the burnt offering here,
the lamb, the oil of the apothecary. Look it up know it all. A
perperation for sacrifce. Those who insist on ajusting the focas of
what Mary did are like Judas to some degree i.e. seeing only the
monetary value of what was poured put. The diffrence there is only
subtle to a moron or a con artist or a fat headed jackass.
     >   Recognize that Jesus is God in the flesh. Recognize that bestowing
valuables upon him is appropriate.  Recognize that he attached this
appropriate response to the preaching of the gospel. Recognize that
preachers of the gospel are justified in expecting that appropriate
response. >
WM-This is a Pauline idea the giving part. Not saying that its wrong.
Christ said not to even take a bag! Bag boy! Jesus didnt attache this
idea, the "appropriate responce" bullshit. Thats Gene Scott.
Post by rpbc
truths and taking pains to see it wasn't compromised in the area of
giving, that being closest to God's heart
WM-Closest to his heart? Really? If you will read your bible now and
again you will notice that giving in the OT had to do with some sort
of recognition of debt. God was trying to teach man that sin and
redemption have cost not becouse the silver was closest to His heart.
You dam stupid fool.

And now in Christ all this is paid out in full.

Here is something else for all to think about. Marys preperation was
PRE-RESURRECTION/Before death as was fitting acording to the law in
this case. To do the same after His resurrection would have no meaning
and no application no preperation seeing He died once for our sins. So
we see that this type of "giving" as some hold it was by the law. Not
that we should call it giving or a reason to give but it was by the
law even if you want to call it giving of some sort. But you would be
in error.

Jesus wanted us to remember what this woman did becouse she had a
profound understand of who and what Jesus was. It may be to deep for
your dumb ass.
Celestias
2009-12-08 13:08:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Weatherman
    Hey rp :)   lets break it down :)
Thing is Scott used that as
Post by rpbc
a vehicle to put himself through what he taught in the place of Jesus
in the story and transfered guilt to anyone who would not annoint him
similarly.  It's like that
Two wires have been crossed here in my opinion.
     When Dr.Scott prompted us to give in response to the "teaching"
he drew off of Gal.6:6-8  not the message of the alabaster box.
WM-Yes he did teach giving by the alabaster box.
    2) When Dr.Scott preached the gospel he also told what the woman
with the alabaster box did because Jesus said to do this. Jesus'  own
attachment of her act to the preaching of the gosple justifies the
preacher's expectancy of the same response from those that hear it!
WM-Thats really an interpretation. What some teach is that its the
same as putting money in their bag.
Furthermore, those that preach the gosple and recieve the same
adoration will also be challanged and betrayed by those with a Judas
mentality.  The Judas mentality considers the needs of the poor above
Jesus recieving what is valuable.
WM-What was said is not that Judas cared for the poor but wanted money
in his bag.
Anyway Mary could have poured out gold dust on Jesus if it was a
matter of value. But Mary was making ready the burnt offering here,
the lamb, the oil of the apothecary. Look it up know it all. A
perperation for sacrifce. Those who insist on ajusting the focas of
what Mary did are like Judas to some degree i.e. seeing only the
monetary value of what was poured put. The diffrence there is only
subtle to a moron or a con artist or a fat headed jackass.
     >   Recognize that Jesus is God in the flesh. Recognize that bestowing
valuables upon him is appropriate.  Recognize that he attached this
appropriate response to the preaching of the gospel. Recognize that
preachers of the gospel are justified in expecting that appropriate
response. >
WM-This is a Pauline idea the giving part. Not saying that its wrong.
Christ said not to even take a bag! Bag boy!  Jesus didnt attache this
idea, the "appropriate responce" bullshit. Thats Gene Scott.
Post by rpbc
truths and taking pains to see it wasn't compromised in the area of
giving, that being closest to God's heart
WM-Closest to his heart? Really? If you will read your bible now and
again you will notice that giving in the OT had to do with some sort
of recognition of debt. God was trying to teach man that sin and
redemption have cost not becouse the silver was closest to His heart.
You dam stupid fool.
And now in Christ all this is paid out in full.
Here is something else for all to think about. Marys preperation was
PRE-RESURRECTION/Before death as was fitting acording to the law in
this case. To do the same after His resurrection would have no meaning
and no application no preperation seeing He died once for our sins. So
we see that this type of "giving" as some hold it was by the law. Not
that we should call it giving or a reason to give but it was by the
law even if you want to call it giving of some sort. But you would be
in error.
Jesus wanted us to remember what this woman did becouse she had a
profound understand of who and what Jesus was. It may be to deep for
your dumb ass.
Why do you always become verbally abusive? It doesn't help your
argument one bit, it only makes you look like a jerk. And you say HE'S
talking like Scott
studio
2009-12-08 20:40:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Celestias
Post by Weatherman
    Hey rp :)   lets break it down :)
Thing is Scott used that as
Post by rpbc
a vehicle to put himself through what he taught in the place of Jesus
in the story and transfered guilt to anyone who would not annoint him
similarly.  It's like that
Two wires have been crossed here in my opinion.
     When Dr.Scott prompted us to give in response to the "teaching"
he drew off of Gal.6:6-8  not the message of the alabaster box.
WM-Yes he did teach giving by the alabaster box.
    2) When Dr.Scott preached the gospel he also told what the woman
with the alabaster box did because Jesus said to do this. Jesus'  own
attachment of her act to the preaching of the gosple justifies the
preacher's expectancy of the same response from those that hear it!
WM-Thats really an interpretation. What some teach is that its the
same as putting money in their bag.
Furthermore, those that preach the gosple and recieve the same
adoration will also be challanged and betrayed by those with a Judas
mentality.  The Judas mentality considers the needs of the poor above
Jesus recieving what is valuable.
WM-What was said is not that Judas cared for the poor but wanted money
in his bag.
Anyway Mary could have poured out gold dust on Jesus if it was a
matter of value. But Mary was making ready the burnt offering here,
the lamb, the oil of the apothecary. Look it up know it all. A
perperation for sacrifce. Those who insist on ajusting the focas of
what Mary did are like Judas to some degree i.e. seeing only the
monetary value of what was poured put. The diffrence there is only
subtle to a moron or a con artist or a fat headed jackass.
     >   Recognize that Jesus is God in the flesh. Recognize that bestowing
valuables upon him is appropriate.  Recognize that he attached this
appropriate response to the preaching of the gospel. Recognize that
preachers of the gospel are justified in expecting that appropriate
response. >
WM-This is a Pauline idea the giving part. Not saying that its wrong.
Christ said not to even take a bag! Bag boy!  Jesus didnt attache this
idea, the "appropriate responce" bullshit. Thats Gene Scott.
Post by rpbc
truths and taking pains to see it wasn't compromised in the area of
giving, that being closest to God's heart
WM-Closest to his heart? Really? If you will read your bible now and
again you will notice that giving in the OT had to do with some sort
of recognition of debt. God was trying to teach man that sin and
redemption have cost not becouse the silver was closest to His heart.
You dam stupid fool.
And now in Christ all this is paid out in full.
Here is something else for all to think about. Marys preperation was
PRE-RESURRECTION/Before death as was fitting acording to the law in
this case. To do the same after His resurrection would have no meaning
and no application no preperation seeing He died once for our sins. So
we see that this type of "giving" as some hold it was by the law. Not
that we should call it giving or a reason to give but it was by the
law even if you want to call it giving of some sort. But you would be
in error.
Jesus wanted us to remember what this woman did becouse she had a
profound understand of who and what Jesus was. It may be to deep for
your dumb ass.
Why do you always become verbally abusive? It doesn't help your
argument one bit, it only makes you look like a jerk. And you say HE'S
talking like Scott- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
WeatherMan is giving you a small dose of Gene Scott. Do you like it?
Weatherman
2009-12-08 23:10:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Celestias
Post by Weatherman
    Hey rp :)   lets break it down :)
Thing is Scott used that as
Post by rpbc
a vehicle to put himself through what he taught in the place of Jesus
in the story and transfered guilt to anyone who would not annoint him
similarly.  It's like that
Two wires have been crossed here in my opinion.
     When Dr.Scott prompted us to give in response to the "teaching"
he drew off of Gal.6:6-8  not the message of the alabaster box.
WM-Yes he did teach giving by the alabaster box.
    2) When Dr.Scott preached the gospel he also told what the woman
with the alabaster box did because Jesus said to do this. Jesus'  own
attachment of her act to the preaching of the gosple justifies the
preacher's expectancy of the same response from those that hear it!
WM-Thats really an interpretation. What some teach is that its the
same as putting money in their bag.
Furthermore, those that preach the gosple and recieve the same
adoration will also be challanged and betrayed by those with a Judas
mentality.  The Judas mentality considers the needs of the poor above
Jesus recieving what is valuable.
WM-What was said is not that Judas cared for the poor but wanted money
in his bag.
Anyway Mary could have poured out gold dust on Jesus if it was a
matter of value. But Mary was making ready the burnt offering here,
the lamb, the oil of the apothecary. Look it up know it all. A
perperation for sacrifce. Those who insist on ajusting the focas of
what Mary did are like Judas to some degree i.e. seeing only the
monetary value of what was poured put. The diffrence there is only
subtle to a moron or a con artist or a fat headed jackass.
     >   Recognize that Jesus is God in the flesh. Recognize that bestowing
valuables upon him is appropriate.  Recognize that he attached this
appropriate response to the preaching of the gospel. Recognize that
preachers of the gospel are justified in expecting that appropriate
response. >
WM-This is a Pauline idea the giving part. Not saying that its wrong.
Christ said not to even take a bag! Bag boy!  Jesus didnt attache this
idea, the "appropriate responce" bullshit. Thats Gene Scott.
Post by rpbc
truths and taking pains to see it wasn't compromised in the area of
giving, that being closest to God's heart
WM-Closest to his heart? Really? If you will read your bible now and
again you will notice that giving in the OT had to do with some sort
of recognition of debt. God was trying to teach man that sin and
redemption have cost not becouse the silver was closest to His heart.
You dam stupid fool.
And now in Christ all this is paid out in full.
Here is something else for all to think about. Marys preperation was
PRE-RESURRECTION/Before death as was fitting acording to the law in
this case. To do the same after His resurrection would have no meaning
and no application no preperation seeing He died once for our sins. So
we see that this type of "giving" as some hold it was by the law. Not
that we should call it giving or a reason to give but it was by the
law even if you want to call it giving of some sort. But you would be
in error.
Jesus wanted us to remember what this woman did becouse she had a
profound understand of who and what Jesus was. It may be to deep for
your dumb ass.
Why do you always become verbally abusive? It doesn't help your
argument one bit, it only makes you look like a jerk. And you say HE'S
talking like Scott- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
WeatherMan is giving you a small dose of Gene Scott. Do you like it?- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
WM-lao.
rpbc
2009-12-08 22:50:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Celestias
Post by Weatherman
    Hey rp :)   lets break it down :)
Thing is Scott used that as
Post by rpbc
a vehicle to put himself through what he taught in the place of Jesus
in the story and transfered guilt to anyone who would not annoint him
similarly.  It's like that
Two wires have been crossed here in my opinion.
     When Dr.Scott prompted us to give in response to the "teaching"
he drew off of Gal.6:6-8  not the message of the alabaster box.
WM-Yes he did teach giving by the alabaster box.
    2) When Dr.Scott preached the gospel he also told what the woman
with the alabaster box did because Jesus said to do this. Jesus'  own
attachment of her act to the preaching of the gosple justifies the
preacher's expectancy of the same response from those that hear it!
WM-Thats really an interpretation. What some teach is that its the
same as putting money in their bag.
Furthermore, those that preach the gosple and recieve the same
adoration will also be challanged and betrayed by those with a Judas
mentality.  The Judas mentality considers the needs of the poor above
Jesus recieving what is valuable.
WM-What was said is not that Judas cared for the poor but wanted money
in his bag.
Anyway Mary could have poured out gold dust on Jesus if it was a
matter of value. But Mary was making ready the burnt offering here,
the lamb, the oil of the apothecary. Look it up know it all. A
perperation for sacrifce. Those who insist on ajusting the focas of
what Mary did are like Judas to some degree i.e. seeing only the
monetary value of what was poured put. The diffrence there is only
subtle to a moron or a con artist or a fat headed jackass.
     >   Recognize that Jesus is God in the flesh. Recognize that bestowing
valuables upon him is appropriate.  Recognize that he attached this
appropriate response to the preaching of the gospel. Recognize that
preachers of the gospel are justified in expecting that appropriate
response. >
WM-This is a Pauline idea the giving part. Not saying that its wrong.
Christ said not to even take a bag! Bag boy!  Jesus didnt attache this
idea, the "appropriate responce" bullshit. Thats Gene Scott.
Post by rpbc
truths and taking pains to see it wasn't compromised in the area of
giving, that being closest to God's heart
WM-Closest to his heart? Really? If you will read your bible now and
again you will notice that giving in the OT had to do with some sort
of recognition of debt. God was trying to teach man that sin and
redemption have cost not becouse the silver was closest to His heart.
You dam stupid fool.
And now in Christ all this is paid out in full.
Here is something else for all to think about. Marys preperation was
PRE-RESURRECTION/Before death as was fitting acording to the law in
this case. To do the same after His resurrection would have no meaning
and no application no preperation seeing He died once for our sins. So
we see that this type of "giving" as some hold it was by the law. Not
that we should call it giving or a reason to give but it was by the
law even if you want to call it giving of some sort. But you would be
in error.
Jesus wanted us to remember what this woman did becouse she had a
profound understand of who and what Jesus was. It may be to deep for
your dumb ass.
Why do you always become verbally abusive? It doesn't help your
argument one bit, it only makes you look like a jerk. And you say HE'S
talking like Scott- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
rpbc:
If WM was only verballly abusive that would be one thing but he
provides text describing a term if used by itself would simply be
verbally abuse. Used in context such terms othewise simply abusive
become an attention getting way to summarize. Good post WM.
Gypsie
2009-12-08 20:45:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Weatherman
    Hey rp :)   lets break it down :)
Thing is Scott used that as
Post by rpbc
a vehicle to put himself through what he taught in the place of Jesus
in the story and transfered guilt to anyone who would not annoint him
similarly.  It's like that
Two wires have been crossed here in my opinion.
     When Dr.Scott prompted us to give in response to the "teaching"
he drew off of Gal.6:6-8  not the message of the alabaster box.
WM-Yes he did teach giving by the alabaster box.
    2) When Dr.Scott preached the gospel he also told what the woman
with the alabaster box did because Jesus said to do this. Jesus'  own
attachment of her act to the preaching of the gosple justifies the
preacher's expectancy of the same response from those that hear it!
WM-Thats really an interpretation. What some teach is that its the
same as putting money in their bag.
Furthermore, those that preach the gosple and recieve the same
adoration will also be challanged and betrayed by those with a Judas
mentality.  The Judas mentality considers the needs of the poor above
Jesus recieving what is valuable.
WM-What was said is not that Judas cared for the poor but wanted money
in his bag.
Anyway Mary could have poured out gold dust on Jesus if it was a
matter of value. But Mary was making ready the burnt offering here,
the lamb, the oil of the apothecary. Look it up know it all. A
perperation for sacrifce. Those who insist on ajusting the focas of
what Mary did are like Judas to some degree i.e. seeing only the
monetary value of what was poured put. The diffrence there is only
subtle to a moron or a con artist or a fat headed jackass.
     >   Recognize that Jesus is God in the flesh. Recognize that bestowing
valuables upon him is appropriate.  Recognize that he attached this
appropriate response to the preaching of the gospel. Recognize that
preachers of the gospel are justified in expecting that appropriate
response. >
WM-This is a Pauline idea the giving part. Not saying that its wrong.
Christ said not to even take a bag! Bag boy!  Jesus didnt attache this
idea, the "appropriate responce" bullshit. Thats Gene Scott.
Post by rpbc
truths and taking pains to see it wasn't compromised in the area of
giving, that being closest to God's heart
WM-Closest to his heart? Really? If you will read your bible now and
again you will notice that giving in the OT had to do with some sort
of recognition of debt. God was trying to teach man that sin and
redemption have cost not becouse the silver was closest to His heart.
You dam stupid fool.
And now in Christ all this is paid out in full.
Here is something else for all to think about. Marys preperation was
PRE-RESURRECTION/Before death as was fitting acording to the law in
this case. To do the same after His resurrection would have no meaning
and no application no preperation seeing He died once for our sins. So
we see that this type of "giving" as some hold it was by the law. Not
that we should call it giving or a reason to give but it was by the
law even if you want to call it giving of some sort. But you would be
in error.
Jesus wanted us to remember what this woman did becouse she had a
profound understand of who and what Jesus was. It may be to deep for
your dumb ass.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
RE: the Alabaster box

gypsie: As I recall, doc did call for and teach about the alabaster
box and the woman involved but he could not have been very sincere cuz
most of the alabaster boxes that were sent to doc were set to rot and
never even opened. 'shrug'
rpbc
2009-12-08 22:54:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gypsie
Post by Weatherman
    Hey rp :)   lets break it down :)
Thing is Scott used that as
Post by rpbc
a vehicle to put himself through what he taught in the place of Jesus
in the story and transfered guilt to anyone who would not annoint him
similarly.  It's like that
Two wires have been crossed here in my opinion.
     When Dr.Scott prompted us to give in response to the "teaching"
he drew off of Gal.6:6-8  not the message of the alabaster box.
WM-Yes he did teach giving by the alabaster box.
    2) When Dr.Scott preached the gospel he also told what the woman
with the alabaster box did because Jesus said to do this. Jesus'  own
attachment of her act to the preaching of the gosple justifies the
preacher's expectancy of the same response from those that hear it!
WM-Thats really an interpretation. What some teach is that its the
same as putting money in their bag.
Furthermore, those that preach the gosple and recieve the same
adoration will also be challanged and betrayed by those with a Judas
mentality.  The Judas mentality considers the needs of the poor above
Jesus recieving what is valuable.
WM-What was said is not that Judas cared for the poor but wanted money
in his bag.
Anyway Mary could have poured out gold dust on Jesus if it was a
matter of value. But Mary was making ready the burnt offering here,
the lamb, the oil of the apothecary. Look it up know it all. A
perperation for sacrifce. Those who insist on ajusting the focas of
what Mary did are like Judas to some degree i.e. seeing only the
monetary value of what was poured put. The diffrence there is only
subtle to a moron or a con artist or a fat headed jackass.
     >   Recognize that Jesus is God in the flesh. Recognize that bestowing
valuables upon him is appropriate.  Recognize that he attached this
appropriate response to the preaching of the gospel. Recognize that
preachers of the gospel are justified in expecting that appropriate
response. >
WM-This is a Pauline idea the giving part. Not saying that its wrong.
Christ said not to even take a bag! Bag boy!  Jesus didnt attache this
idea, the "appropriate responce" bullshit. Thats Gene Scott.
Post by rpbc
truths and taking pains to see it wasn't compromised in the area of
giving, that being closest to God's heart
WM-Closest to his heart? Really? If you will read your bible now and
again you will notice that giving in the OT had to do with some sort
of recognition of debt. God was trying to teach man that sin and
redemption have cost not becouse the silver was closest to His heart.
You dam stupid fool.
And now in Christ all this is paid out in full.
Here is something else for all to think about. Marys preperation was
PRE-RESURRECTION/Before death as was fitting acording to the law in
this case. To do the same after His resurrection would have no meaning
and no application no preperation seeing He died once for our sins. So
we see that this type of "giving" as some hold it was by the law. Not
that we should call it giving or a reason to give but it was by the
law even if you want to call it giving of some sort. But you would be
in error.
Jesus wanted us to remember what this woman did becouse she had a
profound understand of who and what Jesus was. It may be to deep for
your dumb ass.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
RE: the Alabaster box
gypsie: As I recall, doc did call for and teach about the alabaster
box and the woman involved but he could not have been very sincere cuz
most of the alabaster boxes that were sent to doc were set to rot and
never even opened. 'shrug'- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
rpbc:
And the others... those that could be converted to cash... what of
those? Some people sent alabaster boxes of inheritance from grandma's
life savings in the form of diamonds, jewerly and gold.
sososo
2009-12-09 00:21:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Weatherman
And now in Christ all this is paid out in full.
Here is something else for all to think about. Marys preperation was
PRE-RESURRECTION/Before death as was fitting acording to the law in
this case. To do the same after His resurrection would have no meaning
and no application no preperation seeing He died once for our sins. So
we see that this type of "giving" as some hold it was by the law. Not
that we should call it giving or a reason to give but it was by the
law even if you want to call it giving of some sort. But you would be
in error.
Jesus wanted us to remember what this woman did becouse she had a
profound understand of who and what Jesus was. It may be to deep for
your dumb ass.
Yep, it was that she understood what was going on at this point.

It is just like the Jesus wept verse that everyone uses at funerals
to show that Jesus was just like us and grieved.

I cringe every time I hear that; it isn't that He was grieving for
Lazarus it was that He was grieving the fact that they didn't
understand who He really was and able to raise him.
DFWJ
2019-11-06 02:22:38 UTC
Permalink
This is decent. There is a better one by studio. But this one is for CT

Bump
geraldkrug
2019-11-06 04:15:29 UTC
Permalink
When you had enough Gerald will drain you more.
p***@gmail.com
2019-11-10 21:23:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by DFWJ
This is decent. There is a better one by studio. But this one is for CT
Bump
We need to remember a good tree never produces bad fruit! Past leadership is what produced the stinking rotten fruit of today. I feel for a certain special someone here just not seeing that obvious fact in his mighty efforts to expose the stinky fruit.

Both Scotts are false teachers! She learned it all somewhere! It just isn't being said enough here anymore. Everything Melissa Scott IS and is accused of and produces today was borne of and encouraged by and taught by DR GENE SCOTT! BOTH STINK!
geraldkrug
2019-11-10 21:37:01 UTC
Permalink
You can't vote anymore and that's the endgame. Monarchy of anarchy is next unless we kill super rich enablers of jerkoffski
p***@gmail.com
2019-11-11 00:04:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by geraldkrug
You can't vote anymore and that's the endgame. Monarchy of anarchy is next unless we kill super rich enablers of jerkoffski
You need to seek employment as an undertaker...you have a way of burying.
rpbc
2009-12-08 22:29:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by PopeChumpo
Post by Celestias
The last guy on that first thread says....
"He plays on peoples' fears."
Well isn't that what religion is all about? People are afraid of going
to hell.
BTW, in 1993 wasn't the internet mostly just used by schools, etc?
Yes, very early pioneers. The internet was not well known until a few
years later. You would think these guys would check in now and then.
Unfortunately, religion does have alot to do with fear. Fear due to a
lack of knowledge. Scott almost made a difference here. On the one
hand he was teaching the liberty you have from the law through the
gospel of Jesus revealed in Paul's letters, but on the other hand was
creating his own requirements of faith works of giving by preaching
there was a necessary "Action" before God would recognize you indeed
had some faith. Thus, adding a requirement to have His life in us that
does not exist unless you can properly twist things before an
unlearned audience.
My question is did he know the truth
but chose the add-on tithe-
action BS in fear of not making it financially, or was he not capable
of comprehending what the gospels actually say?
      "tithe action BS"  is a misnomer.  You were expounding upon
giving not tithing and there is a difference. Tithing is an act of
stewardship and giving is an act of worship.  As for the "action BS"
God declares a promise to the faithfull THAT ACT on this matter.  In
Malachi 3:10 God says "Bring ye all the tithes into the storehouse,
that there may be meat in mine house and prove me now herewith, saith
the Lord of hosts, if i will not open you the windows of heaven and
pour you out a blessing that there will not be room enough to contain
it. I would'nt call Gods promise and our call to act upon it BS if I
were you. God may not like it very much...
      "Unfortunately, religion does have alot to do with fear. Fear
due to a lack of knowledge.  Scott almost made a difference here."
Dr. Scott did make a difference.  Of the many examples i could draw
from, his teachings on communion established the table of the lord as
a table of grace not guilt through passing on the knowledge that to
partake in an unworthily manner (not discerning the body of the lord
in that he paid the price of our sins) is different from false
teaching that mis-quotes scripture to read that we must examine
ourselves to see if we are to unworthy to partake of the lords body
which produces guilt and thus, fear of hell.  And guilt is the
primary source for fear of hell in the body of christ...
On the one
Post by PopeChumpo
hand he was teaching the liberty you have from the law through the
gospel of Jesus revealed in Paul's letters,
yes i agree...
but on the other hand was
Post by PopeChumpo
creating his own requirements of faith works of giving
       Again what are you talking about here giving or tithing? If
your talking about tithing than i already addressed the matter so NO
he did not create his own requirements for faith works because in the
context of the tithe it is God that prompts believers to ACT (in
faith) as a precondition to recieving the blessing.  If however, you
are refering to giving, which is an act of worship, then we will
continue with that premis.
Dr.Scott twisted the requirements for having Jesus' life in us by
creating his own requirements that faith works of giving (the action
of it) were neccessary as a pre-condition for God to aknowledge that
we had faith and therefor the deposit of his own life in us.
   Thats just another way of saying you could buy your way into
heaven!  Contrarily, Dr.Scott taught that you could buy your way
straight into hell if you thought that the act of faith giving
(alone)  would get you into heaven. Dr.Scott taught Gods word in its
proper context, Mat. 26:13 makes it clear that wherever the gospel is
preached you tell what the woman with the alabaster box did. Do you
know what she did?  she took the most precious thing she had  and
annointed him with it. Now ask youself a question. Why did Jesus want
her memorialized every time the good news of the Gospel is preached
(taught, whatever...) I am not going to answer that for you.
further more he taught on giving in the context of  Gal. 6:6-8  that
when giving is done for the right reasons (in response to having been
taught in the word)  than the act of giving is considered sowing to
the spirit and subsuquently "ye shall of the spirit reap life
everlasting.
    You ask  "My question is did Scott know the truth but choose the
add on tithe BS in fear of not making it financialy or was he not
capable of comprehending What the gospels actualy say."
Did he know the truth? In my opinion, Yes.  Did he choose the add on
tithe BS because he was afraid of not making it financialy. No, He
taught the add on tithe BS because it is sound biblical teaching and
he was a sound biblical teacher.  Was he capable of of comprehending
What the gospels actualy say? Yes...- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Yes... the woman with the alabaster box.  Thing is Scott used that as
a vehicle to put himself through what he taught in the place of Jesus
in the story and transfered guilt to anyone who would not annoint him
similarly.  It's like that.... a program ready to run whenever the
subject comes up whether internally or in discussion.   Nobody puts
themselves between Jesus and anyone else, if they do they're building
a cult.  It runs deep with the subject ranging from did he start out
doing this to when did he start doing this to what does someone mean
when they suggest he was a crook because he was teaching Biblical
truths and taking pains to see it wasn't compromised in the area of
giving, that being closest to God's heart.- Hide quoted text
    Hey rp :)   lets break it down :)
Thing is Scott used that as
a vehicle to put himself through what he taught in the place of Jesus
in the story and transfered guilt to anyone who would not annoint him
similarly.  It's like that
Two wires have been crossed here in my opinion.
     When Dr.Scott prompted us to give in response to the "teaching"
he drew off of Gal.6:6-8  not the message of the alabaster box.
Therefor he did not replace Jesus with himself through his teachings.
Therefor, he did not transfer guilt to any one who would not annoint
him similarly.  (in this context)
    2) When Dr.Scott preached the gospel he also told what the woman
with the alabaster box did because Jesus said to do this. Jesus'  own
attachment of her act to the preaching of the gosple justifies the
preacher's expectancy of the same response from those that hear it!
Furthermore, those that preach the gosple and recieve the same
adoration will also be challanged and betrayed by those with a Judas
mentality.  The Judas mentality considers the needs of the poor above
Jesus recieving what is valuable. I say "Jesus" and not God" because
Judas did not recognize that Jesus was God in the flesh at the time
that he betrayed him. When he did he hung himself.
     Jesus asks, “Who do people say that the Son of Man is?” The
disciples give various answers. When he asks, "Who do you say that I
am?" Simon Peter answers, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living
God." In turn, Jesus declares Peter to be "blessed" for having
recognized Jesus' true identity and attributes this recognition to a
divine revelation. Then Jesus addresses Simon by what seems to have
been the nickname "Peter" and says, "On this rock  I will build my
church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail agaist it!
  Recognize that Jesus is God in the flesh. Recognize that bestowing
valuables upon him is appropriate.  Recognize that he attached this
appropriate response to the preaching of the gospel. Recognize that
preachers of the gospel are justified in expecting that appropriate
response. Recognize that Jesus is building his church upon this rock.
It's like that.... a program ready to run whenever the
subject comes up whether internally or in discussion.   Nobody puts
themselves between Jesus and anyone else, if they do they're building
a cult.  It runs deep with the subject ranging from did he start out
doing this to when did he start doing this to what does someone mean
when they suggest he was a crook
Its not like that so all of this is moot....
 because he was teaching Biblical
truths and taking pains to see it wasn't compromised in the area of
giving, that being closest to God's heart
yes :)- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
rpbc:
Okay... this isn't going to work. You didn't break it down, rather
than examine, you eleminated Doc putting himself through his teaching
in the place of receiving gifts as Jesus in the story by stating that
'two wires have been crossed', then moving to an area unrelated to the
act of Doc's bait and switch. I agree that two wires have been
crossed, which is the point, only thing it was Gene Scott that crossed
them, not me. I simply described it.
Emmett
2009-12-07 07:22:18 UTC
Permalink
On 6 Dec, 14:21, surfkrow <***@yahoo.com> wrote:

snip
Post by surfkrow
"tithe action BS" is a misnomer. You were expounding upon
giving not tithing and there is a difference. Tithing is an act of
stewardship and giving is an act of worship.
Emmett writes:
Tithe was an old Testament "LAW" that you had to give 10% of all you
had.
Please show me in the N.T. where it tells Christians we have to
tithe???
Jesus freed us from the O.T. law.

"giving is an act of worship" You aren't going to give us that BS
about
"worth-ship" meaning "worship" that Dr. jean made up are you???



As for the "action BS"
Post by surfkrow
God declares a promise to the faithfull THAT ACT on this matter. In
Malachi 3:10 God says "Bring ye all the tithes into the storehouse,
that there may be meat in mine house and prove me now herewith, saith
the Lord of hosts, if i will not open you the windows of heaven and
pour you out a blessing that there will not be room enough to contain
it. I would'nt call Gods promise and our call to act upon it BS if I
were you. God may not like it very much...
Emmett writes:
That is O.T. law in Mal 3:10. We are free of the O.T. law
or maybe you didn't know it.
Post by surfkrow
"Unfortunately, religion does have alot to do with fear. Fear
due to a lack of knowledge. Scott almost made a difference here."
Dr. Scott did make a difference. Of the many examples i could draw
from, his teachings on communion established the table of the lord as
a table of grace not guilt through passing on the knowledge that to
partake in an unworthily manner (not discerning the body of the lord
in that he paid the price of our sins) is different from false
teaching that mis-quotes scripture to read that we must examine
ourselves to see if we are to unworthy to partake of the lords body
which produces guilt and thus, fear of hell. And guilt is the
primary source for fear of hell in the body of christ...
Emmett writes:
Here again Dr. jean made this stuff up. I've been a Christian for
many
years and have attended many churches and I have never came
across Dr. jean's allagations that we had some kind of fear when
receiving communion. Just plane crazy.
Post by surfkrow
On the one
Post by PopeChumpo
hand he was teaching the liberty you have from the law through the
gospel of Jesus revealed in Paul's letters,
yes i agree...
but on the other hand was
Post by PopeChumpo
creating his own requirements of faith works of giving
Again what are you talking about here giving or tithing? If
your talking about tithing than i already addressed the matter so NO
he did not create his own requirements for faith works because in the
context of the tithe it is God that prompts believers to ACT (in
faith) as a precondition to recieving the blessing. If however, you
are refering to giving, which is an act of worship, then we will
continue with that premis.
Dr.Scott twisted the requirements for having Jesus' life in us by
creating his own requirements that faith works of giving (the action
of it) were neccessary as a pre-condition for God to aknowledge that
we had faith and therefor the deposit of his own life in us.
Emmett writes:
More Dr. jean BS. We don't give in order to receive a blessing.
We give because we have already received a blessing.
Post by surfkrow
Thats just another way of saying you could buy your way into
heaven! Contrarily, Dr.Scott taught that you could buy your way
straight into hell if you thought that the act of faith giving
(alone) would get you into heaven. Dr.Scott taught Gods word in its
proper context, Mat. 26:13 makes it clear that wherever the gospel is
preached you tell what the woman with the alabaster box did. Do you
know what she did? she took the most precious thing she had and
annointed him with it. Now ask youself a question. Why did Jesus want
her memorialized every time the good news of the Gospel is preached
(taught, whatever...) I am not going to answer that for you.
further more he taught on giving in the context of Gal. 6:6-8 that
when giving is done for the right reasons (in response to having been
taught in the word) than the act of giving is considered sowing to
the spirit and subsuquently "ye shall of the spirit reap life
everlasting.
Emmett writes:
Gal 6:6-8 is not talking about giving money as Dr. jean said.
It says "good things". Money in the Bible is not considered a good
thing.
Sharing the word of God is a good thing. Sharing the faith is a good
thing.
Post by surfkrow
You ask "My question is did Scott know the truth but choose the
add on tithe BS in fear of not making it financialy or was he not
capable of comprehending What the gospels actualy say."
Did he know the truth? In my opinion, Yes. Did he choose the add on
tithe BS because he was afraid of not making it financialy. No, He
taught the add on tithe BS because it is sound biblical teaching and
he was a sound biblical teacher. Was he capable of of comprehending
What the gospels actualy say? Yes...
Emmett writes:
The tithe is not a N.T. biblical teaching.
Dr. jean was able to make someone like you a believer in his
BS because you are ignorant of the Bible and it's teachings.
Simple as that.
surfkrow
2009-12-08 00:42:51 UTC
Permalink
                                snip
      "tithe action BS"  is a misnomer.  You were expounding upon
giving not tithing and there is a difference. Tithing is an act of
stewardship and giving is an act of worship.
Tithe was an old Testament "LAW" that you had to give 10% of all you
had.
Please show me in the N.T. where it tells Christians we have to
tithe???
Jesus freed us from the O.T. law.
"giving is an act of worship"  You aren't going to give us that BS
about
"worth-ship" meaning "worship" that Dr. jean made up are you???
 As for the "action BS"
God declares a promise to the faithfull THAT ACT on this matter.  In
Malachi 3:10 God says "Bring ye all the tithes into the storehouse,
that there may be meat in mine house and prove me now herewith, saith
the Lord of hosts, if i will not open you the windows of heaven and
pour you out a blessing that there will not be room enough to contain
it. I would'nt call Gods promise and our call to act upon it BS if I
were you. God may not like it very much...
That is O.T. law in Mal 3:10. We are free of the O.T. law
or maybe you didn't know it.
      "Unfortunately, religion does have alot to do with fear. Fear
due to a lack of knowledge.  Scott almost made a difference here."
Dr. Scott did make a difference.  Of the many examples i could draw
from, his teachings on communion established the table of the lord as
a table of grace not guilt through passing on the knowledge that to
partake in an unworthily manner (not discerning the body of the lord
in that he paid the price of our sins) is different from false
teaching that mis-quotes scripture to read that we must examine
ourselves to see if we are to unworthy to partake of the lords body
which produces guilt and thus, fear of hell.  And guilt is the
primary source for fear of hell in the body of christ...
Here again Dr. jean made this stuff up. I've been a Christian for
many
years and have attended many churches and I have never came
across Dr. jean's allagations that we had some kind of fear when
receiving communion. Just plane crazy.
On the one
Post by PopeChumpo
hand he was teaching the liberty you have from the law through the
gospel of Jesus revealed in Paul's letters,
yes i agree...
but on the other hand was
Post by PopeChumpo
creating his own requirements of faith works of giving
       Again what are you talking about here giving or tithing? If
your talking about tithing than i already addressed the matter so NO
he did not create his own requirements for faith works because in the
context of the tithe it is God that prompts believers to ACT (in
faith) as a precondition to recieving the blessing.  If however, you
are refering to giving, which is an act of worship, then we will
continue with that premis.
Dr.Scott twisted the requirements for having Jesus' life in us by
creating his own requirements that faith works of giving (the action
of it) were neccessary as a pre-condition for God to aknowledge that
we had faith and therefor the deposit of his own life in us.
More Dr. jean BS. We don't give in order to receive a blessing.
We give because we have already received a blessing.
   Thats just another way of saying you could buy your way into
heaven!  Contrarily, Dr.Scott taught that you could buy your way
straight into hell if you thought that the act of faith giving
(alone)  would get you into heaven. Dr.Scott taught Gods word in its
proper context, Mat. 26:13 makes it clear that wherever the gospel is
preached you tell what the woman with the alabaster box did. Do you
know what she did?  she took the most precious thing she had  and
annointed him with it. Now ask youself a question. Why did Jesus want
her memorialized every time the good news of the Gospel is preached
(taught, whatever...) I am not going to answer that for you.
further more he taught on giving in the context of  Gal. 6:6-8  that
when giving is done for the right reasons (in response to having been
taught in the word)  than the act of giving is considered sowing to
the spirit and subsuquently "ye shall of the spirit reap life
everlasting.
Gal 6:6-8 is not talking about giving money as Dr. jean said.
It says "good things". Money in the Bible is not considered a good
thing.
Sharing the word of God is a good thing. Sharing the faith is a good
thing.
    You ask  "My question is did Scott know the truth but choose the
add on tithe BS in fear of not making it financialy or was he not
capable of comprehending What the gospels actualy say."
Did he know the truth? In my opinion, Yes.  Did he choose the add on
tithe BS because he was afraid of not making it financialy. No, He
taught the add on tithe BS because it is sound biblical teaching and
he was a sound biblical teacher.  Was he capable of of comprehending
What the gospels actualy say? Yes...
The tithe is not a N.T. biblical teaching.
Dr. jean was able to make someone like you a believer in his
BS because you are ignorant of the Bible and it's teachings.
Simple as that.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Dr. jean was able to make someone like you a believer in his
BS because you are ignorant of the Bible and it's teachings.
Simple as that.
That will be for the readers of this thread to decide.

As for me all u proved is that you had to resort to vague
accusation :)
studio
2009-12-08 00:58:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Emmett
                                snip
      "tithe action BS"  is a misnomer.  You were expounding upon
giving not tithing and there is a difference. Tithing is an act of
stewardship and giving is an act of worship.
Tithe was an old Testament "LAW" that you had to give 10% of all you
had.
Please show me in the N.T. where it tells Christians we have to
tithe???
Jesus freed us from the O.T. law.
"giving is an act of worship"  You aren't going to give us that BS
about
"worth-ship" meaning "worship" that Dr. jean made up are you???
 As for the "action BS"
God declares a promise to the faithfull THAT ACT on this matter.  In
Malachi 3:10 God says "Bring ye all the tithes into the storehouse,
that there may be meat in mine house and prove me now herewith, saith
the Lord of hosts, if i will not open you the windows of heaven and
pour you out a blessing that there will not be room enough to contain
it. I would'nt call Gods promise and our call to act upon it BS if I
were you. God may not like it very much...
That is O.T. law in Mal 3:10. We are free of the O.T. law
or maybe you didn't know it.
      "Unfortunately, religion does have alot to do with fear. Fear
due to a lack of knowledge.  Scott almost made a difference here."
Dr. Scott did make a difference.  Of the many examples i could draw
from, his teachings on communion established the table of the lord as
a table of grace not guilt through passing on the knowledge that to
partake in an unworthily manner (not discerning the body of the lord
in that he paid the price of our sins) is different from false
teaching that mis-quotes scripture to read that we must examine
ourselves to see if we are to unworthy to partake of the lords body
which produces guilt and thus, fear of hell.  And guilt is the
primary source for fear of hell in the body of christ...
Here again Dr. jean made this stuff up. I've been a Christian for
many
years and have attended many churches and I have never came
across Dr. jean's allagations that we had some kind of fear when
receiving communion. Just plane crazy.
On the one
Post by PopeChumpo
hand he was teaching the liberty you have from the law through the
gospel of Jesus revealed in Paul's letters,
yes i agree...
but on the other hand was
Post by PopeChumpo
creating his own requirements of faith works of giving
       Again what are you talking about here giving or tithing? If
your talking about tithing than i already addressed the matter so NO
he did not create his own requirements for faith works because in the
context of the tithe it is God that prompts believers to ACT (in
faith) as a precondition to recieving the blessing.  If however, you
are refering to giving, which is an act of worship, then we will
continue with that premis.
Dr.Scott twisted the requirements for having Jesus' life in us by
creating his own requirements that faith works of giving (the action
of it) were neccessary as a pre-condition for God to aknowledge that
we had faith and therefor the deposit of his own life in us.
More Dr. jean BS. We don't give in order to receive a blessing.
We give because we have already received a blessing.
   Thats just another way of saying you could buy your way into
heaven!  Contrarily, Dr.Scott taught that you could buy your way
straight into hell if you thought that the act of faith giving
(alone)  would get you into heaven. Dr.Scott taught Gods word in its
proper context, Mat. 26:13 makes it clear that wherever the gospel is
preached you tell what the woman with the alabaster box did. Do you
know what she did?  she took the most precious thing she had  and
annointed him with it. Now ask youself a question. Why did Jesus want
her memorialized every time the good news of the Gospel is preached
(taught, whatever...) I am not going to answer that for you.
further more he taught on giving in the context of  Gal. 6:6-8  that
when giving is done for the right reasons (in response to having been
taught in the word)  than the act of giving is considered sowing to
the spirit and subsuquently "ye shall of the spirit reap life
everlasting.
Gal 6:6-8 is not talking about giving money as Dr. jean said.
It says "good things". Money in the Bible is not considered a good
thing.
Sharing the word of God is a good thing. Sharing the faith is a good
thing.
    You ask  "My question is did Scott know the truth but choose the
add on tithe BS in fear of not making it financialy or was he not
capable of comprehending What the gospels actualy say."
Did he know the truth? In my opinion, Yes.  Did he choose the add on
tithe BS because he was afraid of not making it financialy. No, He
taught the add on tithe BS because it is sound biblical teaching and
he was a sound biblical teacher.  Was he capable of of comprehending
What the gospels actualy say? Yes...
The tithe is not a N.T. biblical teaching.
Dr. jean was able to make someone like you a believer in his
BS because you are ignorant of the Bible and it's teachings.
Simple as that.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Dr. jean was able to make someone like you a believer in his
BS because you are ignorant of the Bible and it's teachings.
Simple as that.
That will be for the readers of this thread to decide.
 As for me all u proved is that you had to resort to vague
accusation :)- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
I don't agree with Emmett on that stance.
(shocking huh!)
No, rather you got caught up with The Scott Cult
because you truly love God and wanted to follow
HIM and learn something that just might take you to
a new level of understanding.

But like The Bible says, there's nothing new under
the sun and the ancient manuscripts prove it don't they!
Melissa tries to uncover some new truths, but alas
they might only be new to you because you never
heard them before.

Sometimes I am shocked when reading your sincerity
in all this LAUC mess. I see a God loving individual
who happens to be trying to convince those in a forum
who have been in his shoes and have left for numerous
abusive reasons why surfkrow is still "faithing" his way
to the promised land.

Dude, we've all been there.......the report is it's not good.

Question: what do we have to do to convince you
that you've been trapped by a Christian cult that has
more heresy than time tested textual critical doctrine?
Gypsie
2009-12-08 03:58:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by studio
Post by Emmett
                                snip
      "tithe action BS"  is a misnomer.  You were expounding upon
giving not tithing and there is a difference. Tithing is an act of
stewardship and giving is an act of worship.
Tithe was an old Testament "LAW" that you had to give 10% of all you
had.
Please show me in the N.T. where it tells Christians we have to
tithe???
Jesus freed us from the O.T. law.
"giving is an act of worship"  You aren't going to give us that BS
about
"worth-ship" meaning "worship" that Dr. jean made up are you???
 As for the "action BS"
God declares a promise to the faithfull THAT ACT on this matter.  In
Malachi 3:10 God says "Bring ye all the tithes into the storehouse,
that there may be meat in mine house and prove me now herewith, saith
the Lord of hosts, if i will not open you the windows of heaven and
pour you out a blessing that there will not be room enough to contain
it. I would'nt call Gods promise and our call to act upon it BS if I
were you. God may not like it very much...
That is O.T. law in Mal 3:10. We are free of the O.T. law
or maybe you didn't know it.
      "Unfortunately, religion does have alot to do with fear. Fear
due to a lack of knowledge.  Scott almost made a difference here."
Dr. Scott did make a difference.  Of the many examples i could draw
from, his teachings on communion established the table of the lord as
a table of grace not guilt through passing on the knowledge that to
partake in an unworthily manner (not discerning the body of the lord
in that he paid the price of our sins) is different from false
teaching that mis-quotes scripture to read that we must examine
ourselves to see if we are to unworthy to partake of the lords body
which produces guilt and thus, fear of hell.  And guilt is the
primary source for fear of hell in the body of christ...
Here again Dr. jean made this stuff up. I've been a Christian for
many
years and have attended many churches and I have never came
across Dr. jean's allagations that we had some kind of fear when
receiving communion. Just plane crazy.
On the one
Post by PopeChumpo
hand he was teaching the liberty you have from the law through the
gospel of Jesus revealed in Paul's letters,
yes i agree...
but on the other hand was
Post by PopeChumpo
creating his own requirements of faith works of giving
       Again what are you talking about here giving or tithing? If
your talking about tithing than i already addressed the matter so NO
he did not create his own requirements for faith works because in the
context of the tithe it is God that prompts believers to ACT (in
faith) as a precondition to recieving the blessing.  If however, you
are refering to giving, which is an act of worship, then we will
continue with that premis.
Dr.Scott twisted the requirements for having Jesus' life in us by
creating his own requirements that faith works of giving (the action
of it) were neccessary as a pre-condition for God to aknowledge that
we had faith and therefor the deposit of his own life in us.
More Dr. jean BS. We don't give in order to receive a blessing.
We give because we have already received a blessing.
   Thats just another way of saying you could buy your way into
heaven!  Contrarily, Dr.Scott taught that you could buy your way
straight into hell if you thought that the act of faith giving
(alone)  would get you into heaven. Dr.Scott taught Gods word in its
proper context, Mat. 26:13 makes it clear that wherever the gospel is
preached you tell what the woman with the alabaster box did. Do you
know what she did?  she took the most precious thing she had  and
annointed him with it. Now ask youself a question. Why did Jesus want
her memorialized every time the good news of the Gospel is preached
(taught, whatever...) I am not going to answer that for you.
further more he taught on giving in the context of  Gal. 6:6-8  that
when giving is done for the right reasons (in response to having been
taught in the word)  than the act of giving is considered sowing to
the spirit and subsuquently "ye shall of the spirit reap life
everlasting.
Gal 6:6-8 is not talking about giving money as Dr. jean said.
It says "good things". Money in the Bible is not considered a good
thing.
Sharing the word of God is a good thing. Sharing the faith is a good
thing.
    You ask  "My question is did Scott know the truth but choose the
add on tithe BS in fear of not making it financialy or was he not
capable of comprehending What the gospels actualy say."
Did he know the truth? In my opinion, Yes.  Did he choose the add on
tithe BS because he was afraid of not making it financialy. No, He
taught the add on tithe BS because it is sound biblical teaching and
he was a sound biblical teacher.  Was he capable of of comprehending
What the gospels actualy say? Yes...
The tithe is not a N.T. biblical teaching.
Dr. jean was able to make someone like you a believer in his
BS because you are ignorant of the Bible and it's teachings.
Simple as that.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Dr. jean was able to make someone like you a believer in his
BS because you are ignorant of the Bible and it's teachings.
Simple as that.
That will be for the readers of this thread to decide.
 As for me all u proved is that you had to resort to vague
accusation :)- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
I don't agree with Emmett on that stance.
(shocking huh!)
No, rather you got caught up with The Scott Cult
because you truly love God and wanted to follow
HIM and learn something that just might take you to
a new level of understanding.
But like The Bible says, there's nothing new under
the sun and the ancient manuscripts prove it don't they!
Melissa tries to uncover some new truths, but alas
they might only be new to you because you never
heard them before.
Sometimes I am shocked when reading your sincerity
in all this LAUC mess. I see a God loving individual
who happens to be trying to convince those in a forum
who have been in his shoes and have left for numerous
abusive reasons why surfkrow is still  "faithing" his way
to the promised land.
Dude, we've all been there.......the report is it's not good.
Question: what do we have to do to convince you
that you've been trapped by a Christian cult that has
more heresy than time tested textual critical doctrine?- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
RE: "Question: what do we have to do to convince you that you've been
trapped by a Christian cult that has more heresy than time tested
textual critical doctrine?"

gypsie: Is this a first? an intervention at afgs?do ya want some of us
to hold him down ;)
surfkrow
2009-12-08 05:07:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gypsie
Post by studio
Post by Emmett
                                snip
      "tithe action BS"  is a misnomer.  You were expounding upon
giving not tithing and there is a difference. Tithing is an act of
stewardship and giving is an act of worship.
Tithe was an old Testament "LAW" that you had to give 10% of all you
had.
Please show me in the N.T. where it tells Christians we have to
tithe???
Jesus freed us from the O.T. law.
"giving is an act of worship"  You aren't going to give us that BS
about
"worth-ship" meaning "worship" that Dr. jean made up are you???
 As for the "action BS"
God declares a promise to the faithfull THAT ACT on this matter.  In
Malachi 3:10 God says "Bring ye all the tithes into the storehouse,
that there may be meat in mine house and prove me now herewith, saith
the Lord of hosts, if i will not open you the windows of heaven and
pour you out a blessing that there will not be room enough to contain
it. I would'nt call Gods promise and our call to act upon it BS if I
were you. God may not like it very much...
That is O.T. law in Mal 3:10. We are free of the O.T. law
or maybe you didn't know it.
      "Unfortunately, religion does have alot to do with fear. Fear
due to a lack of knowledge.  Scott almost made a difference here."
Dr. Scott did make a difference.  Of the many examples i could draw
from, his teachings on communion established the table of the lord as
a table of grace not guilt through passing on the knowledge that to
partake in an unworthily manner (not discerning the body of the lord
in that he paid the price of our sins) is different from false
teaching that mis-quotes scripture to read that we must examine
ourselves to see if we are to unworthy to partake of the lords body
which produces guilt and thus, fear of hell.  And guilt is the
primary source for fear of hell in the body of christ...
Here again Dr. jean made this stuff up. I've been a Christian for
many
years and have attended many churches and I have never came
across Dr. jean's allagations that we had some kind of fear when
receiving communion. Just plane crazy.
On the one
Post by PopeChumpo
hand he was teaching the liberty you have from the law through the
gospel of Jesus revealed in Paul's letters,
yes i agree...
but on the other hand was
Post by PopeChumpo
creating his own requirements of faith works of giving
       Again what are you talking about here giving or tithing? If
your talking about tithing than i already addressed the matter so NO
he did not create his own requirements for faith works because in the
context of the tithe it is God that prompts believers to ACT (in
faith) as a precondition to recieving the blessing.  If however, you
are refering to giving, which is an act of worship, then we will
continue with that premis.
Dr.Scott twisted the requirements for having Jesus' life in us by
creating his own requirements that faith works of giving (the action
of it) were neccessary as a pre-condition for God to aknowledge that
we had faith and therefor the deposit of his own life in us.
More Dr. jean BS. We don't give in order to receive a blessing.
We give because we have already received a blessing.
   Thats just another way of saying you could buy your way into
heaven!  Contrarily, Dr.Scott taught that you could buy your way
straight into hell if you thought that the act of faith giving
(alone)  would get you into heaven. Dr.Scott taught Gods word in its
proper context, Mat. 26:13 makes it clear that wherever the gospel is
preached you tell what the woman with the alabaster box did. Do you
know what she did?  she took the most precious thing she had  and
annointed him with it. Now ask youself a question. Why did Jesus want
her memorialized every time the good news of the Gospel is preached
(taught, whatever...) I am not going to answer that for you.
further more he taught on giving in the context of  Gal. 6:6-8  that
when giving is done for the right reasons (in response to having been
taught in the word)  than the act of giving is considered sowing to
the spirit and subsuquently "ye shall of the spirit reap life
everlasting.
Gal 6:6-8 is not talking about giving money as Dr. jean said.
It says "good things". Money in the Bible is not considered a good
thing.
Sharing the word of God is a good thing. Sharing the faith is a good
thing.
    You ask  "My question is did Scott know the truth but choose the
add on tithe BS in fear of not making it financialy or was he not
capable of comprehending What the gospels actualy say."
Did he know the truth? In my opinion, Yes.  Did he choose the add on
tithe BS because he was afraid of not making it financialy. No, He
taught the add on tithe BS because it is sound biblical teaching and
he was a sound biblical teacher.  Was he capable of of comprehending
What the gospels actualy say? Yes...
The tithe is not a N.T. biblical teaching.
Dr. jean was able to make someone like you a believer in his
BS because you are ignorant of the Bible and it's teachings.
Simple as that.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Dr. jean was able to make someone like you a believer in his
BS because you are ignorant of the Bible and it's teachings.
Simple as that.
That will be for the readers of this thread to decide.
 As for me all u proved is that you had to resort to vague
accusation :)- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
I don't agree with Emmett on that stance.
(shocking huh!)
No, rather you got caught up with The Scott Cult
because you truly love God and wanted to follow
HIM and learn something that just might take you to
a new level of understanding.
But like The Bible says, there's nothing new under
the sun and the ancient manuscripts prove it don't they!
Melissa tries to uncover some new truths, but alas
they might only be new to you because you never
heard them before.
Sometimes I am shocked when reading your sincerity
in all this LAUC mess. I see a God loving individual
who happens to be trying to convince those in a forum
who have been in his shoes and have left for numerous
abusive reasons why surfkrow is still  "faithing" his way
to the promised land.
Dude, we've all been there.......the report is it's not good.
Question: what do we have to do to convince you
that you've been trapped by a Christian cult that has
more heresy than time tested textual critical doctrine?- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
RE: "Question: what do we have to do to convince you that you've been
trapped by a Christian cult that has  more heresy than time tested
textual critical doctrine?"
gypsie: Is this a first? an intervention at afgs?do ya want some of us
to hold him down ;)- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
SAVE ME lol
Celestias
2009-12-08 05:18:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by surfkrow
Post by Gypsie
Post by studio
Post by Emmett
                                snip
      "tithe action BS"  is a misnomer.  You were expounding upon
giving not tithing and there is a difference. Tithing is an act of
stewardship and giving is an act of worship.
Tithe was an old Testament "LAW" that you had to give 10% of all you
had.
Please show me in the N.T. where it tells Christians we have to
tithe???
Jesus freed us from the O.T. law.
"giving is an act of worship"  You aren't going to give us that BS
about
"worth-ship" meaning "worship" that Dr. jean made up are you???
 As for the "action BS"
God declares a promise to the faithfull THAT ACT on this matter.  In
Malachi 3:10 God says "Bring ye all the tithes into the storehouse,
that there may be meat in mine house and prove me now herewith, saith
the Lord of hosts, if i will not open you the windows of heaven and
pour you out a blessing that there will not be room enough to contain
it. I would'nt call Gods promise and our call to act upon it BS if I
were you. God may not like it very much...
That is O.T. law in Mal 3:10. We are free of the O.T. law
or maybe you didn't know it.
      "Unfortunately, religion does have alot to do with fear. Fear
due to a lack of knowledge.  Scott almost made a difference here."
Dr. Scott did make a difference.  Of the many examples i could draw
from, his teachings on communion established the table of the lord as
a table of grace not guilt through passing on the knowledge that to
partake in an unworthily manner (not discerning the body of the lord
in that he paid the price of our sins) is different from false
teaching that mis-quotes scripture to read that we must examine
ourselves to see if we are to unworthy to partake of the lords body
which produces guilt and thus, fear of hell.  And guilt is the
primary source for fear of hell in the body of christ...
Here again Dr. jean made this stuff up. I've been a Christian for
many
years and have attended many churches and I have never came
across Dr. jean's allagations that we had some kind of fear when
receiving communion. Just plane crazy.
On the one
Post by PopeChumpo
hand he was teaching the liberty you have from the law through the
gospel of Jesus revealed in Paul's letters,
yes i agree...
but on the other hand was
Post by PopeChumpo
creating his own requirements of faith works of giving
       Again what are you talking about here giving or tithing? If
your talking about tithing than i already addressed the matter so NO
he did not create his own requirements for faith works because in the
context of the tithe it is God that prompts believers to ACT (in
faith) as a precondition to recieving the blessing.  If however, you
are refering to giving, which is an act of worship, then we will
continue with that premis.
Dr.Scott twisted the requirements for having Jesus' life in us by
creating his own requirements that faith works of giving (the action
of it) were neccessary as a pre-condition for God to aknowledge that
we had faith and therefor the deposit of his own life in us.
More Dr. jean BS. We don't give in order to receive a blessing.
We give because we have already received a blessing.
   Thats just another way of saying you could buy your way into
heaven!  Contrarily, Dr.Scott taught that you could buy your way
straight into hell if you thought that the act of faith giving
(alone)  would get you into heaven. Dr.Scott taught Gods word in its
proper context, Mat. 26:13 makes it clear that wherever the gospel is
preached you tell what the woman with the alabaster box did. Do you
know what she did?  she took the most precious thing she had  and
annointed him with it. Now ask youself a question. Why did Jesus want
her memorialized every time the good news of the Gospel is preached
(taught, whatever...) I am not going to answer that for you.
further more he taught on giving in the context of  Gal. 6:6-8  that
when giving is done for the right reasons (in response to having been
taught in the word)  than the act of giving is considered sowing to
the spirit and subsuquently "ye shall of the spirit reap life
everlasting.
Gal 6:6-8 is not talking about giving money as Dr. jean said.
It says "good things". Money in the Bible is not considered a good
thing.
Sharing the word of God is a good thing. Sharing the faith is a good
thing.
    You ask  "My question is did Scott know the truth but choose the
add on tithe BS in fear of not making it financialy or was he not
capable of comprehending What the gospels actualy say."
Did he know the truth? In my opinion, Yes.  Did he choose the add on
tithe BS because he was afraid of not making it financialy. No, He
taught the add on tithe BS because it is sound biblical teaching and
he was a sound biblical teacher.  Was he capable of of comprehending
What the gospels actualy say? Yes...
The tithe is not a N.T. biblical teaching.
Dr. jean was able to make someone like you a believer in his
BS because you are ignorant of the Bible and it's teachings.
Simple as that.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Dr. jean was able to make someone like you a believer in his
BS because you are ignorant of the Bible and it's teachings.
Simple as that.
That will be for the readers of this thread to decide.
 As for me all u proved is that you had to resort to vague
accusation :)- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
I don't agree with Emmett on that stance.
(shocking huh!)
No, rather you got caught up with The Scott Cult
because you truly love God and wanted to follow
HIM and learn something that just might take you to
a new level of understanding.
But like The Bible says, there's nothing new under
the sun and the ancient manuscripts prove it don't they!
Melissa tries to uncover some new truths, but alas
they might only be new to you because you never
heard them before.
Sometimes I am shocked when reading your sincerity
in all this LAUC mess. I see a God loving individual
who happens to be trying to convince those in a forum
who have been in his shoes and have left for numerous
abusive reasons why surfkrow is still  "faithing" his way
to the promised land.
Dude, we've all been there.......the report is it's not good.
Question: what do we have to do to convince you
that you've been trapped by a Christian cult that has
more heresy than time tested textual critical doctrine?- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
RE: "Question: what do we have to do to convince you that you've been
trapped by a Christian cult that has  more heresy than time tested
textual critical doctrine?"
gypsie: Is this a first? an intervention at afgs?do ya want some of us
to hold him down ;)- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
SAVE ME lol
This is all very well put Surf, much better than I could. You should
put all these together, in easy to read sections of course, and repost
them regularly for the benefit of those who didn't read it the first
time. Since there will be future discussions, these will be lost as
others pilr up on top of them, so you should paste them on again after
awhile. Give readers something rational to think about Doc when they
come here.
surfkrow
2009-12-08 05:28:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Celestias
Post by surfkrow
Post by Gypsie
Post by studio
Post by Emmett
                                snip
      "tithe action BS"  is a misnomer.  You were expounding upon
giving not tithing and there is a difference. Tithing is an act of
stewardship and giving is an act of worship.
Tithe was an old Testament "LAW" that you had to give 10% of all you
had.
Please show me in the N.T. where it tells Christians we have to
tithe???
Jesus freed us from the O.T. law.
"giving is an act of worship"  You aren't going to give us that BS
about
"worth-ship" meaning "worship" that Dr. jean made up are you???
 As for the "action BS"
God declares a promise to the faithfull THAT ACT on this matter.  In
Malachi 3:10 God says "Bring ye all the tithes into the storehouse,
that there may be meat in mine house and prove me now herewith, saith
the Lord of hosts, if i will not open you the windows of heaven and
pour you out a blessing that there will not be room enough to contain
it. I would'nt call Gods promise and our call to act upon it BS if I
were you. God may not like it very much...
That is O.T. law in Mal 3:10. We are free of the O.T. law
or maybe you didn't know it.
      "Unfortunately, religion does have alot to do with fear. Fear
due to a lack of knowledge.  Scott almost made a difference here."
Dr. Scott did make a difference.  Of the many examples i could draw
from, his teachings on communion established the table of the lord as
a table of grace not guilt through passing on the knowledge that to
partake in an unworthily manner (not discerning the body of the lord
in that he paid the price of our sins) is different from false
teaching that mis-quotes scripture to read that we must examine
ourselves to see if we are to unworthy to partake of the lords body
which produces guilt and thus, fear of hell.  And guilt is the
primary source for fear of hell in the body of christ...
Here again Dr. jean made this stuff up. I've been a Christian for
many
years and have attended many churches and I have never came
across Dr. jean's allagations that we had some kind of fear when
receiving communion. Just plane crazy.
On the one
Post by PopeChumpo
hand he was teaching the liberty you have from the law through the
gospel of Jesus revealed in Paul's letters,
yes i agree...
but on the other hand was
Post by PopeChumpo
creating his own requirements of faith works of giving
       Again what are you talking about here giving or tithing? If
your talking about tithing than i already addressed the matter so NO
he did not create his own requirements for faith works because in the
context of the tithe it is God that prompts believers to ACT (in
faith) as a precondition to recieving the blessing.  If however, you
are refering to giving, which is an act of worship, then we will
continue with that premis.
Dr.Scott twisted the requirements for having Jesus' life in us by
creating his own requirements that faith works of giving (the action
of it) were neccessary as a pre-condition for God to aknowledge that
we had faith and therefor the deposit of his own life in us.
More Dr. jean BS. We don't give in order to receive a blessing.
We give because we have already received a blessing.
   Thats just another way of saying you could buy your way into
heaven!  Contrarily, Dr.Scott taught that you could buy your way
straight into hell if you thought that the act of faith giving
(alone)  would get you into heaven. Dr.Scott taught Gods word in its
proper context, Mat. 26:13 makes it clear that wherever the gospel is
preached you tell what the woman with the alabaster box did. Do you
know what she did?  she took the most precious thing she had  and
annointed him with it. Now ask youself a question. Why did Jesus want
her memorialized every time the good news of the Gospel is preached
(taught, whatever...) I am not going to answer that for you.
further more he taught on giving in the context of  Gal. 6:6-8  that
when giving is done for the right reasons (in response to having been
taught in the word)  than the act of giving is considered sowing to
the spirit and subsuquently "ye shall of the spirit reap life
everlasting.
Gal 6:6-8 is not talking about giving money as Dr. jean said.
It says "good things". Money in the Bible is not considered a good
thing.
Sharing the word of God is a good thing. Sharing the faith is a good
thing.
    You ask  "My question is did Scott know the truth but choose the
add on tithe BS in fear of not making it financialy or was he not
capable of comprehending What the gospels actualy say."
Did he know the truth? In my opinion, Yes.  Did he choose the add on
tithe BS because he was afraid of not making it financialy. No, He
taught the add on tithe BS because it is sound biblical teaching and
he was a sound biblical teacher.  Was he capable of of comprehending
What the gospels actualy say? Yes...
The tithe is not a N.T. biblical teaching.
Dr. jean was able to make someone like you a believer in his
BS because you are ignorant of the Bible and it's teachings.
Simple as that.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Dr. jean was able to make someone like you a believer in his
BS because you are ignorant of the Bible and it's teachings.
Simple as that.
That will be for the readers of this thread to decide.
 As for me all u proved is that you had to resort to vague
accusation :)- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
I don't agree with Emmett on that stance.
(shocking huh!)
No, rather you got caught up with The Scott Cult
because you truly love God and wanted to follow
HIM and learn something that just might take you to
a new level of understanding.
But like The Bible says, there's nothing new under
the sun and the ancient manuscripts prove it don't they!
Melissa tries to uncover some new truths, but alas
they might only be new to you because you never
heard them before.
Sometimes I am shocked when reading your sincerity
in all this LAUC mess. I see a God loving individual
who happens to be trying to convince those in a forum
who have been in his shoes and have left for numerous
abusive reasons why surfkrow is still  "faithing" his way
to the promised land.
Dude, we've all been there.......the report is it's not good.
Question: what do we have to do to convince you
that you've been trapped by a Christian cult that has
more heresy than time tested textual critical doctrine?- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
RE: "Question: what do we have to do to convince you that you've been
trapped by a Christian cult that has  more heresy than time tested
textual critical doctrine?"
gypsie: Is this a first? an intervention at afgs?do ya want some of us
to hold him down ;)- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
SAVE ME lol
This is all very well put Surf, much better than I could. You should
put all these together, in easy to read sections of course, and repost
them regularly for the benefit of those who didn't read it the first
time. Since there will be future discussions, these will be lost as
others pilr up on top of them, so you should paste them on again after
awhile. Give readers something rational to think about Doc when they
come here.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
celestias will you e-mail me with a walk through so i can follow your
advice plz:) I know how to copy and paste now but howdo i store them
on my computer so i can recall them ??? thanks for your advice :)
Celestias
2009-12-08 05:35:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by surfkrow
Post by Celestias
Post by surfkrow
Post by Gypsie
Post by studio
Post by Emmett
                                snip
      "tithe action BS"  is a misnomer.  You were expounding upon
giving not tithing and there is a difference. Tithing is an act of
stewardship and giving is an act of worship.
Tithe was an old Testament "LAW" that you had to give 10% of all you
had.
Please show me in the N.T. where it tells Christians we have to
tithe???
Jesus freed us from the O.T. law.
"giving is an act of worship"  You aren't going to give us that BS
about
"worth-ship" meaning "worship" that Dr. jean made up are you???
 As for the "action BS"
God declares a promise to the faithfull THAT ACT on this matter.  In
Malachi 3:10 God says "Bring ye all the tithes into the storehouse,
that there may be meat in mine house and prove me now herewith, saith
the Lord of hosts, if i will not open you the windows of heaven and
pour you out a blessing that there will not be room enough to contain
it. I would'nt call Gods promise and our call to act upon it BS if I
were you. God may not like it very much...
That is O.T. law in Mal 3:10. We are free of the O.T. law
or maybe you didn't know it.
      "Unfortunately, religion does have alot to do with fear. Fear
due to a lack of knowledge.  Scott almost made a difference here."
Dr. Scott did make a difference.  Of the many examples i could draw
from, his teachings on communion established the table of the lord as
a table of grace not guilt through passing on the knowledge that to
partake in an unworthily manner (not discerning the body of the lord
in that he paid the price of our sins) is different from false
teaching that mis-quotes scripture to read that we must examine
ourselves to see if we are to unworthy to partake of the lords body
which produces guilt and thus, fear of hell.  And guilt is the
primary source for fear of hell in the body of christ...
Here again Dr. jean made this stuff up. I've been a Christian for
many
years and have attended many churches and I have never came
across Dr. jean's allagations that we had some kind of fear when
receiving communion. Just plane crazy.
On the one
Post by PopeChumpo
hand he was teaching the liberty you have from the law through the
gospel of Jesus revealed in Paul's letters,
yes i agree...
but on the other hand was
Post by PopeChumpo
creating his own requirements of faith works of giving
       Again what are you talking about here giving or tithing? If
your talking about tithing than i already addressed the matter so NO
he did not create his own requirements for faith works because in the
context of the tithe it is God that prompts believers to ACT (in
faith) as a precondition to recieving the blessing.  If however, you
are refering to giving, which is an act of worship, then we will
continue with that premis.
Dr.Scott twisted the requirements for having Jesus' life in us by
creating his own requirements that faith works of giving (the action
of it) were neccessary as a pre-condition for God to aknowledge that
we had faith and therefor the deposit of his own life in us.
More Dr. jean BS. We don't give in order to receive a blessing.
We give because we have already received a blessing.
   Thats just another way of saying you could buy your way into
heaven!  Contrarily, Dr.Scott taught that you could buy your way
straight into hell if you thought that the act of faith giving
(alone)  would get you into heaven. Dr.Scott taught Gods word in its
proper context, Mat. 26:13 makes it clear that wherever the gospel is
preached you tell what the woman with the alabaster box did. Do you
know what she did?  she took the most precious thing she had  and
annointed him with it. Now ask youself a question. Why did Jesus want
her memorialized every time the good news of the Gospel is preached
(taught, whatever...) I am not going to answer that for you.
further more he taught on giving in the context of  Gal. 6:6-8  that
when giving is done for the right reasons (in response to having been
taught in the word)  than the act of giving is considered sowing to
the spirit and subsuquently "ye shall of the spirit reap life
everlasting.
Gal 6:6-8 is not talking about giving money as Dr. jean said.
It says "good things". Money in the Bible is not considered a good
thing.
Sharing the word of God is a good thing. Sharing the faith is a good
thing.
    You ask  "My question is did Scott know the truth but choose the
add on tithe BS in fear of not making it financialy or was he not
capable of comprehending What the gospels actualy say."
Did he know the truth? In my opinion, Yes.  Did he choose the add on
tithe BS because he was afraid of not making it financialy. No, He
taught the add on tithe BS because it is sound biblical teaching and
he was a sound biblical teacher.  Was he capable of of comprehending
What the gospels actualy say? Yes...
The tithe is not a N.T. biblical teaching.
Dr. jean was able to make someone like you a believer in his
BS because you are ignorant of the Bible and it's teachings.
Simple as that.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Dr. jean was able to make someone like you a believer in his
BS because you are ignorant of the Bible and it's teachings.
Simple as that.
That will be for the readers of this thread to decide.
 As for me all u proved is that you had to resort to vague
accusation :)- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
I don't agree with Emmett on that stance.
(shocking huh!)
No, rather you got caught up with The Scott Cult
because you truly love God and wanted to follow
HIM and learn something that just might take you to
a new level of understanding.
But like The Bible says, there's nothing new under
the sun and the ancient manuscripts prove it don't they!
Melissa tries to uncover some new truths, but alas
they might only be new to you because you never
heard them before.
Sometimes I am shocked when reading your sincerity
in all this LAUC mess. I see a God loving individual
who happens to be trying to convince those in a forum
who have been in his shoes and have left for numerous
abusive reasons why surfkrow is still  "faithing" his way
to the promised land.
Dude, we've all been there.......the report is it's not good.
Question: what do we have to do to convince you
that you've been trapped by a Christian cult that has
more heresy than time tested textual critical doctrine?- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
RE: "Question: what do we have to do to convince you that you've been
trapped by a Christian cult that has  more heresy than time tested
textual critical doctrine?"
gypsie: Is this a first? an intervention at afgs?do ya want some of us
to hold him down ;)- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
SAVE ME lol
This is all very well put Surf, much better than I could. You should
put all these together, in easy to read sections of course, and repost
them regularly for the benefit of those who didn't read it the first
time. Since there will be future discussions, these will be lost as
others pilr up on top of them, so you should paste them on again after
awhile. Give readers something rational to think about Doc when they
come here.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
celestias will you e-mail me with a walk through so i can follow your
advice plz:)   I know how to copy and paste now but howdo i store them
on my computer so i can recall them ???    thanks for your advice :)
It might be best to copy them from the site originals. Sometimes it
messes up the word wrap when you copy/paste text from another source.
But yeah I'll help, we can figure something out.
Gypsie
2009-12-08 06:42:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by surfkrow
Post by Celestias
Post by surfkrow
Post by Gypsie
Post by studio
Post by Emmett
                                snip
      "tithe action BS"  is a misnomer.  You were expounding upon
giving not tithing and there is a difference. Tithing is an act of
stewardship and giving is an act of worship.
Tithe was an old Testament "LAW" that you had to give 10% of all you
had.
Please show me in the N.T. where it tells Christians we have to
tithe???
Jesus freed us from the O.T. law.
"giving is an act of worship"  You aren't going to give us that BS
about
"worth-ship" meaning "worship" that Dr. jean made up are you???
 As for the "action BS"
God declares a promise to the faithfull THAT ACT on this matter.  In
Malachi 3:10 God says "Bring ye all the tithes into the storehouse,
that there may be meat in mine house and prove me now herewith, saith
the Lord of hosts, if i will not open you the windows of heaven and
pour you out a blessing that there will not be room enough to contain
it. I would'nt call Gods promise and our call to act upon it BS if I
were you. God may not like it very much...
That is O.T. law in Mal 3:10. We are free of the O.T. law
or maybe you didn't know it.
      "Unfortunately, religion does have alot to do with fear. Fear
due to a lack of knowledge.  Scott almost made a difference here."
Dr. Scott did make a difference.  Of the many examples i could draw
from, his teachings on communion established the table of the lord as
a table of grace not guilt through passing on the knowledge that to
partake in an unworthily manner (not discerning the body of the lord
in that he paid the price of our sins) is different from false
teaching that mis-quotes scripture to read that we must examine
ourselves to see if we are to unworthy to partake of the lords body
which produces guilt and thus, fear of hell.  And guilt is the
primary source for fear of hell in the body of christ...
Here again Dr. jean made this stuff up. I've been a Christian for
many
years and have attended many churches and I have never came
across Dr. jean's allagations that we had some kind of fear when
receiving communion. Just plane crazy.
On the one
Post by PopeChumpo
hand he was teaching the liberty you have from the law through the
gospel of Jesus revealed in Paul's letters,
yes i agree...
but on the other hand was
Post by PopeChumpo
creating his own requirements of faith works of giving
       Again what are you talking about here giving or tithing? If
your talking about tithing than i already addressed the matter so NO
he did not create his own requirements for faith works because in the
context of the tithe it is God that prompts believers to ACT (in
faith) as a precondition to recieving the blessing.  If however, you
are refering to giving, which is an act of worship, then we will
continue with that premis.
Dr.Scott twisted the requirements for having Jesus' life in us by
creating his own requirements that faith works of giving (the action
of it) were neccessary as a pre-condition for God to aknowledge that
we had faith and therefor the deposit of his own life in us.
More Dr. jean BS. We don't give in order to receive a blessing.
We give because we have already received a blessing.
   Thats just another way of saying you could buy your way into
heaven!  Contrarily, Dr.Scott taught that you could buy your way
straight into hell if you thought that the act of faith giving
(alone)  would get you into heaven. Dr.Scott taught Gods word in its
proper context, Mat. 26:13 makes it clear that wherever the gospel is
preached you tell what the woman with the alabaster box did. Do you
know what she did?  she took the most precious thing she had  and
annointed him with it. Now ask youself a question. Why did Jesus want
her memorialized every time the good news of the Gospel is preached
(taught, whatever...) I am not going to answer that for you.
further more he taught on giving in the context of  Gal. 6:6-8  that
when giving is done for the right reasons (in response to having been
taught in the word)  than the act of giving is considered sowing to
the spirit and subsuquently "ye shall of the spirit reap life
everlasting.
Gal 6:6-8 is not talking about giving money as Dr. jean said.
It says "good things". Money in the Bible is not considered a good
thing.
Sharing the word of God is a good thing. Sharing the faith is a good
thing.
    You ask  "My question is did Scott know the truth but choose the
add on tithe BS in fear of not making it financialy or was he not
capable of comprehending What the gospels actualy say."
Did he know the truth? In my opinion, Yes.  Did he choose the add on
tithe BS because he was afraid of not making it financialy. No, He
taught the add on tithe BS because it is sound biblical teaching and
he was a sound biblical teacher.  Was he capable of of comprehending
What the gospels actualy say? Yes...
The tithe is not a N.T. biblical teaching.
Dr. jean was able to make someone like you a believer in his
BS because you are ignorant of the Bible and it's teachings.
Simple as that.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Dr. jean was able to make someone like you a believer in his
BS because you are ignorant of the Bible and it's teachings.
Simple as that.
That will be for the readers of this thread to decide.
 As for me all u proved is that you had to resort to vague
accusation :)- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
I don't agree with Emmett on that stance.
(shocking huh!)
No, rather you got caught up with The Scott Cult
because you truly love God and wanted to follow
HIM and learn something that just might take you to
a new level of understanding.
But like The Bible says, there's nothing new under
the sun and the ancient manuscripts prove it don't they!
Melissa tries to uncover some new truths, but alas
they might only be new to you because you never
heard them before.
Sometimes I am shocked when reading your sincerity
in all this LAUC mess. I see a God loving individual
who happens to be trying to convince those in a forum
who have been in his shoes and have left for numerous
abusive reasons why surfkrow is still  "faithing" his way
to the promised land.
Dude, we've all been there.......the report is it's not good.
Question: what do we have to do to convince you
that you've been trapped by a Christian cult that has
more heresy than time tested textual critical doctrine?- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
RE: "Question: what do we have to do to convince you that you've been
trapped by a Christian cult that has  more heresy than time tested
textual critical doctrine?"
gypsie: Is this a first? an intervention at afgs?do ya want some of us
to hold him down ;)- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
SAVE ME lol
This is all very well put Surf, much better than I could. You should
put all these together, in easy to read sections of course, and repost
them regularly for the benefit of those who didn't read it the first
time. Since there will be future discussions, these will be lost as
others pilr up on top of them, so you should paste them on again after
awhile. Give readers something rational to think about Doc when they
come here.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
celestias will you e-mail me with a walk through so i can follow your
advice plz:)   I know how to copy and paste now but howdo i store them
on my computer so i can recall them ???    thanks for your advice :)- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
gypsie: matt is a great one to ask!
Gypsie
2009-12-08 05:18:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gypsie
Post by studio
Post by Emmett
                                snip
      "tithe action BS"  is a misnomer.  You were expounding upon
giving not tithing and there is a difference. Tithing is an act of
stewardship and giving is an act of worship.
Tithe was an old Testament "LAW" that you had to give 10% of all you
had.
Please show me in the N.T. where it tells Christians we have to
tithe???
Jesus freed us from the O.T. law.
"giving is an act of worship"  You aren't going to give us that BS
about
"worth-ship" meaning "worship" that Dr. jean made up are you???
 As for the "action BS"
God declares a promise to the faithfull THAT ACT on this matter.  In
Malachi 3:10 God says "Bring ye all the tithes into the storehouse,
that there may be meat in mine house and prove me now herewith, saith
the Lord of hosts, if i will not open you the windows of heaven and
pour you out a blessing that there will not be room enough to contain
it. I would'nt call Gods promise and our call to act upon it BS if I
were you. God may not like it very much...
That is O.T. law in Mal 3:10. We are free of the O.T. law
or maybe you didn't know it.
      "Unfortunately, religion does have alot to do with fear. Fear
due to a lack of knowledge.  Scott almost made a difference here."
Dr. Scott did make a difference.  Of the many examples i could draw
from, his teachings on communion established the table of the lord as
a table of grace not guilt through passing on the knowledge that to
partake in an unworthily manner (not discerning the body of the lord
in that he paid the price of our sins) is different from false
teaching that mis-quotes scripture to read that we must examine
ourselves to see if we are to unworthy to partake of the lords body
which produces guilt and thus, fear of hell.  And guilt is the
primary source for fear of hell in the body of christ...
Here again Dr. jean made this stuff up. I've been a Christian for
many
years and have attended many churches and I have never came
across Dr. jean's allagations that we had some kind of fear when
receiving communion. Just plane crazy.
On the one
Post by PopeChumpo
hand he was teaching the liberty you have from the law through the
gospel of Jesus revealed in Paul's letters,
yes i agree...
but on the other hand was
Post by PopeChumpo
creating his own requirements of faith works of giving
       Again what are you talking about here giving or tithing? If
your talking about tithing than i already addressed the matter so NO
he did not create his own requirements for faith works because in the
context of the tithe it is God that prompts believers to ACT (in
faith) as a precondition to recieving the blessing.  If however, you
are refering to giving, which is an act of worship, then we will
continue with that premis.
Dr.Scott twisted the requirements for having Jesus' life in us by
creating his own requirements that faith works of giving (the action
of it) were neccessary as a pre-condition for God to aknowledge that
we had faith and therefor the deposit of his own life in us.
More Dr. jean BS. We don't give in order to receive a blessing.
We give because we have already received a blessing.
   Thats just another way of saying you could buy your way into
heaven!  Contrarily, Dr.Scott taught that you could buy your way
straight into hell if you thought that the act of faith giving
(alone)  would get you into heaven. Dr.Scott taught Gods word in its
proper context, Mat. 26:13 makes it clear that wherever the gospel is
preached you tell what the woman with the alabaster box did. Do you
know what she did?  she took the most precious thing she had  and
annointed him with it. Now ask youself a question. Why did Jesus want
her memorialized every time the good news of the Gospel is preached
(taught, whatever...) I am not going to answer that for you.
further more he taught on giving in the context of  Gal. 6:6-8  that
when giving is done for the right reasons (in response to having been
taught in the word)  than the act of giving is considered sowing to
the spirit and subsuquently "ye shall of the spirit reap life
everlasting.
Gal 6:6-8 is not talking about giving money as Dr. jean said.
It says "good things". Money in the Bible is not considered a good
thing.
Sharing the word of God is a good thing. Sharing the faith is a good
thing.
    You ask  "My question is did Scott know the truth but choose the
add on tithe BS in fear of not making it financialy or was he not
capable of comprehending What the gospels actualy say."
Did he know the truth? In my opinion, Yes.  Did he choose the add on
tithe BS because he was afraid of not making it financialy. No, He
taught the add on tithe BS because it is sound biblical teaching and
he was a sound biblical teacher.  Was he capable of of comprehending
What the gospels actualy say? Yes...
The tithe is not a N.T. biblical teaching.
Dr. jean was able to make someone like you a believer in his
BS because you are ignorant of the Bible and it's teachings.
Simple as that.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Dr. jean was able to make someone like you a believer in his
BS because you are ignorant of the Bible and it's teachings.
Simple as that.
That will be for the readers of this thread to decide.
 As for me all u proved is that you had to resort to vague
accusation :)- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
I don't agree with Emmett on that stance.
(shocking huh!)
No, rather you got caught up with The Scott Cult
because you truly love God and wanted to follow
HIM and learn something that just might take you to
a new level of understanding.
But like The Bible says, there's nothing new under
the sun and the ancient manuscripts prove it don't they!
Melissa tries to uncover some new truths, but alas
they might only be new to you because you never
heard them before.
Sometimes I am shocked when reading your sincerity
in all this LAUC mess. I see a God loving individual
who happens to be trying to convince those in a forum
who have been in his shoes and have left for numerous
abusive reasons why surfkrow is still  "faithing" his way
to the promised land.
Dude, we've all been there.......the report is it's not good.
Question: what do we have to do to convince you
that you've been trapped by a Christian cult that has
more heresy than time tested textual critical doctrine?- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
RE: "Question: what do we have to do to convince you that you've been
trapped by a Christian cult that has  more heresy than time tested
textual critical doctrine?"
gypsie: Is this a first? an intervention at afgs?do ya want some of us
to hold him down ;)- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
SAVE ME lol- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
gypsie: Right behind ya surf. Studio, I've got his legs (teehee)
surfkrow
2009-12-08 05:30:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gypsie
Post by studio
Post by Emmett
                                snip
      "tithe action BS"  is a misnomer.  You were expounding upon
giving not tithing and there is a difference. Tithing is an act of
stewardship and giving is an act of worship.
Tithe was an old Testament "LAW" that you had to give 10% of all you
had.
Please show me in the N.T. where it tells Christians we have to
tithe???
Jesus freed us from the O.T. law.
"giving is an act of worship"  You aren't going to give us that BS
about
"worth-ship" meaning "worship" that Dr. jean made up are you???
 As for the "action BS"
God declares a promise to the faithfull THAT ACT on this matter.  In
Malachi 3:10 God says "Bring ye all the tithes into the storehouse,
that there may be meat in mine house and prove me now herewith, saith
the Lord of hosts, if i will not open you the windows of heaven and
pour you out a blessing that there will not be room enough to contain
it. I would'nt call Gods promise and our call to act upon it BS if I
were you. God may not like it very much...
That is O.T. law in Mal 3:10. We are free of the O.T. law
or maybe you didn't know it.
      "Unfortunately, religion does have alot to do with fear. Fear
due to a lack of knowledge.  Scott almost made a difference here."
Dr. Scott did make a difference.  Of the many examples i could draw
from, his teachings on communion established the table of the lord as
a table of grace not guilt through passing on the knowledge that to
partake in an unworthily manner (not discerning the body of the lord
in that he paid the price of our sins) is different from false
teaching that mis-quotes scripture to read that we must examine
ourselves to see if we are to unworthy to partake of the lords body
which produces guilt and thus, fear of hell.  And guilt is the
primary source for fear of hell in the body of christ...
Here again Dr. jean made this stuff up. I've been a Christian for
many
years and have attended many churches and I have never came
across Dr. jean's allagations that we had some kind of fear when
receiving communion. Just plane crazy.
On the one
Post by PopeChumpo
hand he was teaching the liberty you have from the law through the
gospel of Jesus revealed in Paul's letters,
yes i agree...
but on the other hand was
Post by PopeChumpo
creating his own requirements of faith works of giving
       Again what are you talking about here giving or tithing? If
your talking about tithing than i already addressed the matter so NO
he did not create his own requirements for faith works because in the
context of the tithe it is God that prompts believers to ACT (in
faith) as a precondition to recieving the blessing.  If however, you
are refering to giving, which is an act of worship, then we will
continue with that premis.
Dr.Scott twisted the requirements for having Jesus' life in us by
creating his own requirements that faith works of giving (the action
of it) were neccessary as a pre-condition for God to aknowledge that
we had faith and therefor the deposit of his own life in us.
More Dr. jean BS. We don't give in order to receive a blessing.
We give because we have already received a blessing.
   Thats just another way of saying you could buy your way into
heaven!  Contrarily, Dr.Scott taught that you could buy your way
straight into hell if you thought that the act of faith giving
(alone)  would get you into heaven. Dr.Scott taught Gods word in its
proper context, Mat. 26:13 makes it clear that wherever the gospel is
preached you tell what the woman with the alabaster box did. Do you
know what she did?  she took the most precious thing she had  and
annointed him with it. Now ask youself a question. Why did Jesus want
her memorialized every time the good news of the Gospel is preached
(taught, whatever...) I am not going to answer that for you.
further more he taught on giving in the context of  Gal. 6:6-8  that
when giving is done for the right reasons (in response to having been
taught in the word)  than the act of giving is considered sowing to
the spirit and subsuquently "ye shall of the spirit reap life
everlasting.
Gal 6:6-8 is not talking about giving money as Dr. jean said.
It says "good things". Money in the Bible is not considered a good
thing.
Sharing the word of God is a good thing. Sharing the faith is a good
thing.
    You ask  "My question is did Scott know the truth but choose the
add on tithe BS in fear of not making it financialy or was he not
capable of comprehending What the gospels actualy say."
Did he know the truth? In my opinion, Yes.  Did he choose the add on
tithe BS because he was afraid of not making it financialy. No, He
taught the add on tithe BS because it is sound biblical teaching and
he was a sound biblical teacher.  Was he capable of of comprehending
What the gospels actualy say? Yes...
The tithe is not a N.T. biblical teaching.
Dr. jean was able to make someone like you a believer in his
BS because you are ignorant of the Bible and it's teachings.
Simple as that.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Dr. jean was able to make someone like you a believer in his
BS because you are ignorant of the Bible and it's teachings.
Simple as that.
That will be for the readers of this thread to decide.
 As for me all u proved is that you had to resort to vague
accusation :)- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
I don't agree with Emmett on that stance.
(shocking huh!)
No, rather you got caught up with The Scott Cult
because you truly love God and wanted to follow
HIM and learn something that just might take you to
a new level of understanding.
But like The Bible says, there's nothing new under
the sun and the ancient manuscripts prove it don't they!
Melissa tries to uncover some new truths, but alas
they might only be new to you because you never
heard them before.
Sometimes I am shocked when reading your sincerity
in all this LAUC mess. I see a God loving individual
who happens to be trying to convince those in a forum
who have been in his shoes and have left for numerous
abusive reasons why surfkrow is still  "faithing" his way
to the promised land.
Dude, we've all been there.......the report is it's not good.
Question: what do we have to do to convince you
that you've been trapped by a Christian cult that has
more heresy than time tested textual critical doctrine?- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
RE: "Question: what do we have to do to convince you that you've been
trapped by a Christian cult that has  more heresy than time tested
textual critical doctrine?"
gypsie: Is this a first? an intervention at afgs?do ya want some of us
to hold him down ;)- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
SAVE ME lol- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
gypsie: Right behind ya surf.  Studio, I've got his legs (teehee)- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
IM gonna start spittin geen pea soup better duck lol
surfkrow
2009-12-08 05:16:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gypsie
Post by studio
Post by Emmett
                                snip
      "tithe action BS"  is a misnomer.  You were expounding upon
giving not tithing and there is a difference. Tithing is an act of
stewardship and giving is an act of worship.
Tithe was an old Testament "LAW" that you had to give 10% of all you
had.
Please show me in the N.T. where it tells Christians we have to
tithe???
Jesus freed us from the O.T. law.
"giving is an act of worship"  You aren't going to give us that BS
about
"worth-ship" meaning "worship" that Dr. jean made up are you???
 As for the "action BS"
God declares a promise to the faithfull THAT ACT on this matter.  In
Malachi 3:10 God says "Bring ye all the tithes into the storehouse,
that there may be meat in mine house and prove me now herewith, saith
the Lord of hosts, if i will not open you the windows of heaven and
pour you out a blessing that there will not be room enough to contain
it. I would'nt call Gods promise and our call to act upon it BS if I
were you. God may not like it very much...
That is O.T. law in Mal 3:10. We are free of the O.T. law
or maybe you didn't know it.
      "Unfortunately, religion does have alot to do with fear. Fear
due to a lack of knowledge.  Scott almost made a difference here."
Dr. Scott did make a difference.  Of the many examples i could draw
from, his teachings on communion established the table of the lord as
a table of grace not guilt through passing on the knowledge that to
partake in an unworthily manner (not discerning the body of the lord
in that he paid the price of our sins) is different from false
teaching that mis-quotes scripture to read that we must examine
ourselves to see if we are to unworthy to partake of the lords body
which produces guilt and thus, fear of hell.  And guilt is the
primary source for fear of hell in the body of christ...
Here again Dr. jean made this stuff up. I've been a Christian for
many
years and have attended many churches and I have never came
across Dr. jean's allagations that we had some kind of fear when
receiving communion. Just plane crazy.
On the one
Post by PopeChumpo
hand he was teaching the liberty you have from the law through the
gospel of Jesus revealed in Paul's letters,
yes i agree...
but on the other hand was
Post by PopeChumpo
creating his own requirements of faith works of giving
       Again what are you talking about here giving or tithing? If
your talking about tithing than i already addressed the matter so NO
he did not create his own requirements for faith works because in the
context of the tithe it is God that prompts believers to ACT (in
faith) as a precondition to recieving the blessing.  If however, you
are refering to giving, which is an act of worship, then we will
continue with that premis.
Dr.Scott twisted the requirements for having Jesus' life in us by
creating his own requirements that faith works of giving (the action
of it) were neccessary as a pre-condition for God to aknowledge that
we had faith and therefor the deposit of his own life in us.
More Dr. jean BS. We don't give in order to receive a blessing.
We give because we have already received a blessing.
   Thats just another way of saying you could buy your way into
heaven!  Contrarily, Dr.Scott taught that you could buy your way
straight into hell if you thought that the act of faith giving
(alone)  would get you into heaven. Dr.Scott taught Gods word in its
proper context, Mat. 26:13 makes it clear that wherever the gospel is
preached you tell what the woman with the alabaster box did. Do you
know what she did?  she took the most precious thing she had  and
annointed him with it. Now ask youself a question. Why did Jesus want
her memorialized every time the good news of the Gospel is preached
(taught, whatever...) I am not going to answer that for you.
further more he taught on giving in the context of  Gal. 6:6-8  that
when giving is done for the right reasons (in response to having been
taught in the word)  than the act of giving is considered sowing to
the spirit and subsuquently "ye shall of the spirit reap life
everlasting.
Gal 6:6-8 is not talking about giving money as Dr. jean said.
It says "good things". Money in the Bible is not considered a good
thing.
Sharing the word of God is a good thing. Sharing the faith is a good
thing.
    You ask  "My question is did Scott know the truth but choose the
add on tithe BS in fear of not making it financialy or was he not
capable of comprehending What the gospels actualy say."
Did he know the truth? In my opinion, Yes.  Did he choose the add on
tithe BS because he was afraid of not making it financialy. No, He
taught the add on tithe BS because it is sound biblical teaching and
he was a sound biblical teacher.  Was he capable of of comprehending
What the gospels actualy say? Yes...
The tithe is not a N.T. biblical teaching.
Dr. jean was able to make someone like you a believer in his
BS because you are ignorant of the Bible and it's teachings.
Simple as that.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Dr. jean was able to make someone like you a believer in his
BS because you are ignorant of the Bible and it's teachings.
Simple as that.
That will be for the readers of this thread to decide.
 As for me all u proved is that you had to resort to vague
accusation :)- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
I don't agree with Emmett on that stance.
(shocking huh!)
No, rather you got caught up with The Scott Cult
because you truly love God and wanted to follow
HIM and learn something that just might take you to
a new level of understanding.
But like The Bible says, there's nothing new under
the sun and the ancient manuscripts prove it don't they!
Melissa tries to uncover some new truths, but alas
they might only be new to you because you never
heard them before.
Sometimes I am shocked when reading your sincerity
in all this LAUC mess. I see a God loving individual
who happens to be trying to convince those in a forum
who have been in his shoes and have left for numerous
abusive reasons why surfkrow is still  "faithing" his way
to the promised land.
Dude, we've all been there.......the report is it's not good.
Question: what do we have to do to convince you
that you've been trapped by a Christian cult that has
more heresy than time tested textual critical doctrine?- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
RE: "Question: what do we have to do to convince you that you've been
trapped by a Christian cult that has  more heresy than time tested
textual critical doctrine?"
gypsie: Is this a first? an intervention at afgs?do ya want some of us
to hold him down ;)- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
What do I have to do to convince you that your time tesred textual
critical doctrine is for the most part "traditions that that make void
the word of God? And don't be callin gypsie ain't gonna help you i'll
take him to im a freakin ninja lol :)
PopeChumpo
2009-12-08 05:33:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gypsie
Post by studio
Post by Emmett
                                snip
      "tithe action BS"  is a misnomer.  You were expounding upon
giving not tithing and there is a difference. Tithing is an act of
stewardship and giving is an act of worship.
Tithe was an old Testament "LAW" that you had to give 10% of all you
had.
Please show me in the N.T. where it tells Christians we have to
tithe???
Jesus freed us from the O.T. law.
"giving is an act of worship"  You aren't going to give us that BS
about
"worth-ship" meaning "worship" that Dr. jean made up are you???
 As for the "action BS"
God declares a promise to the faithfull THAT ACT on this matter.  In
Malachi 3:10 God says "Bring ye all the tithes into the storehouse,
that there may be meat in mine house and prove me now herewith, saith
the Lord of hosts, if i will not open you the windows of heaven and
pour you out a blessing that there will not be room enough to contain
it. I would'nt call Gods promise and our call to act upon it BS if I
were you. God may not like it very much...
That is O.T. law in Mal 3:10. We are free of the O.T. law
or maybe you didn't know it.
      "Unfortunately, religion does have alot to do with fear. Fear
due to a lack of knowledge.  Scott almost made a difference here."
Dr. Scott did make a difference.  Of the many examples i could draw
from, his teachings on communion established the table of the lord as
a table of grace not guilt through passing on the knowledge that to
partake in an unworthily manner (not discerning the body of the lord
in that he paid the price of our sins) is different from false
teaching that mis-quotes scripture to read that we must examine
ourselves to see if we are to unworthy to partake of the lords body
which produces guilt and thus, fear of hell.  And guilt is the
primary source for fear of hell in the body of christ...
Here again Dr. jean made this stuff up. I've been a Christian for
many
years and have attended many churches and I have never came
across Dr. jean's allagations that we had some kind of fear when
receiving communion. Just plane crazy.
On the one
Post by PopeChumpo
hand he was teaching the liberty you have from the law through the
gospel of Jesus revealed in Paul's letters,
yes i agree...
but on the other hand was
Post by PopeChumpo
creating his own requirements of faith works of giving
       Again what are you talking about here giving or tithing? If
your talking about tithing than i already addressed the matter so NO
he did not create his own requirements for faith works because in the
context of the tithe it is God that prompts believers to ACT (in
faith) as a precondition to recieving the blessing.  If however, you
are refering to giving, which is an act of worship, then we will
continue with that premis.
Dr.Scott twisted the requirements for having Jesus' life in us by
creating his own requirements that faith works of giving (the action
of it) were neccessary as a pre-condition for God to aknowledge that
we had faith and therefor the deposit of his own life in us.
More Dr. jean BS. We don't give in order to receive a blessing.
We give because we have already received a blessing.
   Thats just another way of saying you could buy your way into
heaven!  Contrarily, Dr.Scott taught that you could buy your way
straight into hell if you thought that the act of faith giving
(alone)  would get you into heaven. Dr.Scott taught Gods word in its
proper context, Mat. 26:13 makes it clear that wherever the gospel is
preached you tell what the woman with the alabaster box did. Do you
know what she did?  she took the most precious thing she had  and
annointed him with it. Now ask youself a question. Why did Jesus want
her memorialized every time the good news of the Gospel is preached
(taught, whatever...) I am not going to answer that for you.
further more he taught on giving in the context of  Gal. 6:6-8  that
when giving is done for the right reasons (in response to having been
taught in the word)  than the act of giving is considered sowing to
the spirit and subsuquently "ye shall of the spirit reap life
everlasting.
Gal 6:6-8 is not talking about giving money as Dr. jean said.
It says "good things". Money in the Bible is not considered a good
thing.
Sharing the word of God is a good thing. Sharing the faith is a good
thing.
    You ask  "My question is did Scott know the truth but choose the
add on tithe BS in fear of not making it financialy or was he not
capable of comprehending What the gospels actualy say."
Did he know the truth? In my opinion, Yes.  Did he choose the add on
tithe BS because he was afraid of not making it financialy. No, He
taught the add on tithe BS because it is sound biblical teaching and
he was a sound biblical teacher.  Was he capable of of comprehending
What the gospels actualy say? Yes...
The tithe is not a N.T. biblical teaching.
Dr. jean was able to make someone like you a believer in his
BS because you are ignorant of the Bible and it's teachings.
Simple as that.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Dr. jean was able to make someone like you a believer in his
BS because you are ignorant of the Bible and it's teachings.
Simple as that.
That will be for the readers of this thread to decide.
 As for me all u proved is that you had to resort to vague
accusation :)- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
I don't agree with Emmett on that stance.
(shocking huh!)
No, rather you got caught up with The Scott Cult
because you truly love God and wanted to follow
HIM and learn something that just might take you to
a new level of understanding.
But like The Bible says, there's nothing new under
the sun and the ancient manuscripts prove it don't they!
Melissa tries to uncover some new truths, but alas
they might only be new to you because you never
heard them before.
Sometimes I am shocked when reading your sincerity
in all this LAUC mess. I see a God loving individual
who happens to be trying to convince those in a forum
who have been in his shoes and have left for numerous
abusive reasons why surfkrow is still  "faithing" his way
to the promised land.
Dude, we've all been there.......the report is it's not good.
Question: what do we have to do to convince you
that you've been trapped by a Christian cult that has
more heresy than time tested textual critical doctrine?- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
RE: "Question: what do we have to do to convince you that you've been
trapped by a Christian cult that has  more heresy than time tested
textual critical doctrine?"
gypsie: Is this a first? an intervention at afgs?do ya want some of us
to hold him down ;)- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
PS: Surfcrow, your game is starting to unravel. You first put on
this act of a kind of uncultered type through your grammer and
mispelling. Now we see more of a focused individual with an agenda. As
pointed out here, you could not be disconnecting that fast from LAUC,
and at the same time defend Scott to the level you do. So you instead
created a persona that was out of character for you, and launch it
here to see if it would fly.

Now your lucky you are in good hands here and I would like to see your
success with your spiritual endeavors. For your own sake, you need to
take Scott's teaching to the challenge. Remember he always said to
check-him in an area of teaching at times. So take him up on it. For
instance, find the word Domata, or a word with similar meaning and
where it grants him the level of authority he felt went with it. And
what would be even more impressive is if you could find new
information not used by Scott to defend this or one of his other
arguements.

You said Scott was a father figure to you, everthing you wanted to be
and everthing you did not want to be. Well, I think you lied about
that and you are afraid you might hurt your brain if you think
anything contrary to what Scott said. Am I right?
Celestias
2009-12-08 05:50:39 UTC
Permalink
PS:   Surfcrow, your game is starting to unravel. You first put on
this act of a kind of uncultered type through your grammer and
mispelling. Now we see more of a focused individual with an agenda. As
pointed out here, you could not be disconnecting that fast from LAUC,
and at the same time defend Scott to the level you do. So you instead
created a persona that was out of character for you, and launch it
here to see if it would fly.
Now your lucky you are in good hands here and I would like to see your
success with your spiritual endeavors. For your own sake, you need to
take Scott's teaching to the challenge. Remember he always said to
check-him in an area of teaching at times. So take him up on it. For
instance, find the word Domata, or a word with similar meaning and
where it grants him the level of authority he felt went with it. And
what would be even more impressive is if you could find new
information not used by Scott to defend this or one of his other
arguements.
You said Scott was a father figure to you, everthing you wanted to be
and everthing you did not want to be. Well, I think you lied about
that and you are afraid you might hurt your brain if you think
anything contrary to what Scott said. Am I right?
Pope you say that like its a no-no to have an agenda here. This site
IS an agenda!!! And accuracy is not necessarily the order of the day.
I noticed how everyone dropped my discussion about money like a hot
potato.
Celestias
2009-12-08 06:01:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Celestias
PS:   Surfcrow, your game is starting to unravel. You first put on
this act of a kind of uncultered type through your grammer and
mispelling. Now we see more of a focused individual with an agenda. As
pointed out here, you could not be disconnecting that fast from LAUC,
and at the same time defend Scott to the level you do. So you instead
created a persona that was out of character for you, and launch it
here to see if it would fly.
Now your lucky you are in good hands here and I would like to see your
success with your spiritual endeavors. For your own sake, you need to
take Scott's teaching to the challenge. Remember he always said to
check-him in an area of teaching at times. So take him up on it. For
instance, find the word Domata, or a word with similar meaning and
where it grants him the level of authority he felt went with it. And
what would be even more impressive is if you could find new
information not used by Scott to defend this or one of his other
arguements.
You said Scott was a father figure to you, everthing you wanted to be
and everthing you did not want to be. Well, I think you lied about
that and you are afraid you might hurt your brain if you think
anything contrary to what Scott said. Am I right?
Pope you say that like its a no-no to have an agenda here. This site
IS an agenda!!! And accuracy is not necessarily the order of the day.
I noticed how everyone dropped my discussion about money like a hot
potato.
Surf wouldn't be the first one around here to feign grammar and
spelling weaknesses.
surfkrow
2009-12-08 07:01:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Celestias
Post by Celestias
PS:   Surfcrow, your game is starting to unravel. You first put on
this act of a kind of uncultered type through your grammer and
mispelling. Now we see more of a focused individual with an agenda. As
pointed out here, you could not be disconnecting that fast from LAUC,
and at the same time defend Scott to the level you do. So you instead
created a persona that was out of character for you, and launch it
here to see if it would fly.
Now your lucky you are in good hands here and I would like to see your
success with your spiritual endeavors. For your own sake, you need to
take Scott's teaching to the challenge. Remember he always said to
check-him in an area of teaching at times. So take him up on it. For
instance, find the word Domata, or a word with similar meaning and
where it grants him the level of authority he felt went with it. And
what would be even more impressive is if you could find new
information not used by Scott to defend this or one of his other
arguements.
You said Scott was a father figure to you, everthing you wanted to be
and everthing you did not want to be. Well, I think you lied about
that and you are afraid you might hurt your brain if you think
anything contrary to what Scott said. Am I right?
Pope you say that like its a no-no to have an agenda here. This site
IS an agenda!!! And accuracy is not necessarily the order of the day.
I noticed how everyone dropped my discussion about money like a hot
potato.
Surf wouldn't be the first one around here to feign grammar and
spelling weaknesses.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Im not pretending anything you guys i got some advice on how to
post and some ribbing on posting like i was on a phone texting so i
cleaned my act up. I have left lauc My pastor is now leslie hale
Dr.Scott was important to my spiritual growth. posting here has helped
me assess what i belive and why.

In one of my posts i said thank you dr.Scott for giving me the
push i needed to run to Jesus. And in another post I said that
Dr.Scott hurt me. I have thought about these two statements and put
them in better perspective. As for thanking him for giving me the
push i needed to run to Jesus. I was wrong. The more i think about
what i have learned from him the more i realize that he was always
pushing me toward Jesus. Mellissa pushed me out the door because I
Have come to belive that she should be maintaining Docs legacy as
administrative pastor not pushing her own agenda. It should be
Dr.scott reruns on every thing that is taught when it comes to his
internet site And shortwave and any tv time purchased. If she
belives she has an anction she should do it on her own time. and with
moneys collected for her teaching. If she truly belives that she is
capable of teaching pastors with deep bible language exegesis then go
do it at that level somewhere else. But in my opinion her method is
not reaching the ordinary sinner or layperson with the gospel. There
was only one Dr.Scott!


As for saying that he hurt me, I realize that I was blaming
the freedom that was set loose in my life by the message of grace
which i recieved from Dr.Scotts teachings. Dr.Scott used to say that
flesh turned loose will always turn it into liscence and he was
right. He also said that the price of freedom is association with
nuts, He was right about that as well. For twenty years Jesus has
been wrestling with me over issues of what my love is really all about
and being single minded in my walk with him. The message of grace
didn'nt hurt me it freed me and yes through the process my real carnal
self came to the surface so that Jesus could deal with it
appropriatly


I did'nt know what i was getting into when i first came here you
guys. But i figured while I was here maybe mellissa would hear me?
its not like they answer mail at lauc ya know?
Emmett
2009-12-08 07:07:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by surfkrow
Post by Celestias
Post by Celestias
Post by PopeChumpo
PS: Surfcrow, your game is starting to unravel. You first put on
this act of a kind of uncultered type through your grammer and
mispelling. Now we see more of a focused individual with an agenda. As
pointed out here, you could not be disconnecting that fast from LAUC,
and at the same time defend Scott to the level you do. So you instead
created a persona that was out of character for you, and launch it
here to see if it would fly.
Now your lucky you are in good hands here and I would like to see your
success with your spiritual endeavors. For your own sake, you need to
take Scott's teaching to the challenge. Remember he always said to
check-him in an area of teaching at times. So take him up on it. For
instance, find the word Domata, or a word with similar meaning and
where it grants him the level of authority he felt went with it. And
what would be even more impressive is if you could find new
information not used by Scott to defend this or one of his other
arguements.
You said Scott was a father figure to you, everthing you wanted to be
and everthing you did not want to be. Well, I think you lied about
that and you are afraid you might hurt your brain if you think
anything contrary to what Scott said. Am I right?
Pope you say that like its a no-no to have an agenda here. This site
IS an agenda!!! And accuracy is not necessarily the order of the day.
I noticed how everyone dropped my discussion about money like a hot
potato.
Surf wouldn't be the first one around here to feign grammar and
spelling weaknesses.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Im not pretending anything you guys i got some advice on how to
post and some ribbing on posting like i was on a phone texting so i
cleaned my act up. I have left lauc My pastor is now leslie hale
Dr.Scott was important to my spiritual growth. posting here has helped
me assess what i belive and why.
In one of my posts i said thank you dr.Scott for giving me the
push i needed to run to Jesus. And in another post I said that
Dr.Scott hurt me. I have thought about these two statements and put
them in better perspective. As for thanking him for giving me the
push i needed to run to Jesus. I was wrong. The more i think about
what i have learned from him the more i realize that he was always
pushing me toward Jesus. Mellissa pushed me out the door because I
Have come to belive that she should be maintaining Docs legacy as
administrative pastor not pushing her own agenda. It should be
Dr.scott reruns on every thing that is taught when it comes to his
internet site And shortwave and any tv time purchased. If she
belives she has an anction she should do it on her own time. and with
moneys collected for her teaching. If she truly belives that she is
capable of teaching pastors with deep bible language exegesis then go
do it at that level somewhere else. But in my opinion her method is
not reaching the ordinary sinner or layperson with the gospel. There
was only one Dr.Scott!
As for saying that he hurt me, I realize that I was blaming
the freedom that was set loose in my life by the message of grace
which i recieved from Dr.Scotts teachings. Dr.Scott used to say that
flesh turned loose will always turn it into liscence and he was
right. He also said that the price of freedom is association with
nuts, He was right about that as well. For twenty years Jesus has
been wrestling with me over issues of what my love is really all about
and being single minded in my walk with him. The message of grace
didn'nt hurt me it freed me and yes through the process my real carnal
self came to the surface so that Jesus could deal with it
appropriatly
I did'nt know what i was getting into when i first came here you
guys. But i figured while I was here maybe mellissa would hear me?
its not like they answer mail at lauc ya know?
Emmett writes:
You really are a die hard scotbot. Walking around with a blindfold
on so you can't see or accept the truth that Dr. jean was a charlatan
and scam artist.
Celestias
2009-12-08 07:14:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Emmett
You really are a die hard scotbot. Walking around with a blindfold
on so you can't see or accept the truth that Dr. jean was a charlatan
and scam artist.
So Emmett do you feel that he cheated you out of your money?
Emmett
2009-12-09 00:03:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Celestias
Post by Emmett
You really are a die hard scotbot. Walking around with a blindfold
on so you can't see or accept the truth that Dr. jean was a charlatan
and scam artist.
So Emmett do you feel that he cheated you out of your money?
Emmett writes:
Not one penny.
Celestias
2009-12-09 00:08:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Emmett
Post by Celestias
Post by Emmett
You really are a die hard scotbot. Walking around with a blindfold
on so you can't see or accept the truth that Dr. jean was a charlatan
and scam artist.
So Emmett do you feel that he cheated you out of your money?
Not one penny.
So you don't mind having given money to a scam artist? That's insane.
Jim Spinosa
2009-12-09 00:11:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Celestias
Post by Emmett
Post by Celestias
Post by Emmett
You really are a die hard scotbot. Walking around with a blindfold
on so you can't see or accept the truth that Dr. jean was a charlatan
and scam artist.
So Emmett do you feel that he cheated you out of your money?
Not one penny.
So you don't mind having given money to a scam artist? That's insane.
Emmett never gave one penny to Gene Scott.
Emmett
2009-12-09 00:14:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Celestias
Post by Emmett
Post by Celestias
Post by Emmett
You really are a die hard scotbot. Walking around with a blindfold
on so you can't see or accept the truth that Dr. jean was a charlatan
and scam artist.
So Emmett do you feel that he cheated you out of your money?
Not one penny.
So you don't mind having given money to a scam artist? That's insane.
Emmett writes:
I never gave Dr. jean any money. I hope that
is clear.
Gypsie
2009-12-08 07:21:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Emmett
Post by Celestias
Post by Celestias
PS:   Surfcrow, your game is starting to unravel. You first put on
this act of a kind of uncultered type through your grammer and
mispelling. Now we see more of a focused individual with an agenda. As
pointed out here, you could not be disconnecting that fast from LAUC,
and at the same time defend Scott to the level you do. So you instead
created a persona that was out of character for you, and launch it
here to see if it would fly.
Now your lucky you are in good hands here and I would like to see your
success with your spiritual endeavors. For your own sake, you need to
take Scott's teaching to the challenge. Remember he always said to
check-him in an area of teaching at times. So take him up on it. For
instance, find the word Domata, or a word with similar meaning and
where it grants him the level of authority he felt went with it. And
what would be even more impressive is if you could find new
information not used by Scott to defend this or one of his other
arguements.
You said Scott was a father figure to you, everthing you wanted to be
and everthing you did not want to be. Well, I think you lied about
that and you are afraid you might hurt your brain if you think
anything contrary to what Scott said. Am I right?
Pope you say that like its a no-no to have an agenda here. This site
IS an agenda!!! And accuracy is not necessarily the order of the day.
I noticed how everyone dropped my discussion about money like a hot
potato.
Surf wouldn't be the first one around here to feign grammar and
spelling weaknesses.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
   Im not pretending anything you guys   i got some advice on how to
post and some ribbing on posting like i was on a phone texting so i
cleaned my act up.   I have left lauc  My pastor is now leslie hale
Dr.Scott was important to my spiritual growth. posting here has helped
me assess what i belive and why.
        In one of my posts i said thank you dr.Scott for giving me the
push i needed to run to Jesus.    And in another post  I said that
Dr.Scott hurt me.   I have thought about these two statements and put
them in better perspective.  As for thanking him for giving me the
push i needed to run to Jesus.  I was wrong.  The more i think about
what i have learned from him the more i realize that he was always
pushing me toward Jesus.   Mellissa pushed me out the door because  I
Have come to belive that she should be maintaining Docs legacy as
administrative pastor   not pushing her own agenda.  It should be
Dr.scott reruns on every thing that is taught when it comes to his
internet site And shortwave and any tv time purchased.   If she
belives she has an anction she should do it on her own time. and with
moneys collected for her teaching.   If she truly belives that she is
capable of teaching pastors with deep bible language exegesis  then go
do it at that level somewhere else.  But in my opinion her method is
not reaching the ordinary sinner or layperson with the gospel.  There
was only one Dr.Scott!
         As for saying that he hurt me, I realize that I was blaming
the freedom that was set loose in my life by the message of grace
which i recieved from Dr.Scotts teachings.  Dr.Scott used to say that
flesh turned loose  will always turn it into liscence and he was
right. He also said that the price of freedom is association with
nuts,  He was right about that as well.  For twenty years Jesus has
been wrestling with me over issues of what my love is really all about
and being single minded in my walk with him. The message of grace
didn'nt hurt me it freed me and yes through the process my real carnal
self came to the surface so that Jesus could deal with it
appropriatly
 I did'nt know what i was getting into when i first came here you
guys. But i figured while I was here maybe mellissa would hear me?
its not like they answer mail at lauc ya know?
You really are a die hard scotbot. Walking around with a blindfold
on so you can't see or accept the truth that Dr. jean was a charlatan
and scam artist.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
gypsie: Come on Em, surf is definitely getting clarity in his thinking
and this reflects in his posts. If you go to my first posts here, I
was alot more scattered, and, all I knew was docisms (guess when you
grow up with this atmosphere exclusively for so long, there is not
much of anyone else you can communicate with on their level). How
else can surf or anyone else post here without coming off as using
afgs as a sounding board....... we all have done it.

btw, this is not, I repeat, NOT a suggestion for anyone else to stop
posting, change their manner of posting or change their ideas here,
Gawd wouldn't it be a boring source of amusement if it all came off
like church in here? Besides, I don't know how to be 'good';

;)))
studio
2009-12-08 07:46:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gypsie
Post by Emmett
Post by Celestias
Post by Celestias
PS:   Surfcrow, your game is starting to unravel. You first put on
this act of a kind of uncultered type through your grammer and
mispelling. Now we see more of a focused individual with an agenda. As
pointed out here, you could not be disconnecting that fast from LAUC,
and at the same time defend Scott to the level you do. So you instead
created a persona that was out of character for you, and launch it
here to see if it would fly.
Now your lucky you are in good hands here and I would like to see your
success with your spiritual endeavors. For your own sake, you need to
take Scott's teaching to the challenge. Remember he always said to
check-him in an area of teaching at times. So take him up on it. For
instance, find the word Domata, or a word with similar meaning and
where it grants him the level of authority he felt went with it. And
what would be even more impressive is if you could find new
information not used by Scott to defend this or one of his other
arguements.
You said Scott was a father figure to you, everthing you wanted to be
and everthing you did not want to be. Well, I think you lied about
that and you are afraid you might hurt your brain if you think
anything contrary to what Scott said. Am I right?
Pope you say that like its a no-no to have an agenda here. This site
IS an agenda!!! And accuracy is not necessarily the order of the day.
I noticed how everyone dropped my discussion about money like a hot
potato.
Surf wouldn't be the first one around here to feign grammar and
spelling weaknesses.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
   Im not pretending anything you guys   i got some advice on how to
post and some ribbing on posting like i was on a phone texting so i
cleaned my act up.   I have left lauc  My pastor is now leslie hale
Dr.Scott was important to my spiritual growth. posting here has helped
me assess what i belive and why.
        In one of my posts i said thank you dr.Scott for giving me the
push i needed to run to Jesus.    And in another post  I said that
Dr.Scott hurt me.   I have thought about these two statements and put
them in better perspective.  As for thanking him for giving me the
push i needed to run to Jesus.  I was wrong.  The more i think about
what i have learned from him the more i realize that he was always
pushing me toward Jesus.   Mellissa pushed me out the door because  I
Have come to belive that she should be maintaining Docs legacy as
administrative pastor   not pushing her own agenda.  It should be
Dr.scott reruns on every thing that is taught when it comes to his
internet site And shortwave and any tv time purchased.   If she
belives she has an anction she should do it on her own time. and with
moneys collected for her teaching.   If she truly belives that she is
capable of teaching pastors with deep bible language exegesis  then go
do it at that level somewhere else.  But in my opinion her method is
not reaching the ordinary sinner or layperson with the gospel.  There
was only one Dr.Scott!
         As for saying that he hurt me, I realize that I was blaming
the freedom that was set loose in my life by the message of grace
which i recieved from Dr.Scotts teachings.  Dr.Scott used to say that
flesh turned loose  will always turn it into liscence and he was
right. He also said that the price of freedom is association with
nuts,  He was right about that as well.  For twenty years Jesus has
been wrestling with me over issues of what my love is really all about
and being single minded in my walk with him. The message of grace
didn'nt hurt me it freed me and yes through the process my real carnal
self came to the surface so that Jesus could deal with it
appropriatly
 I did'nt know what i was getting into when i first came here you
guys. But i figured while I was here maybe mellissa would hear me?
its not like they answer mail at lauc ya know?
You really are a die hard scotbot. Walking around with a blindfold
on so you can't see or accept the truth that Dr. jean was a charlatan
and scam artist.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
gypsie: Come on Em, surf is definitely getting clarity in his thinking
and this reflects in his posts. If you go to my first posts here, I
was alot more scattered, and, all I knew was docisms (guess when you
grow up with this atmosphere exclusively for so long, there is not
much of anyone else you can communicate with on their level).  How
else can surf or anyone else post here without coming off as using
afgs as a sounding board....... we all have done it.
btw, this is not, I repeat, NOT a suggestion for anyone else to stop
posting, change their manner of posting or change their ideas here,
Gawd wouldn't it be a boring source of amusement if it all came off
like church in here?  Besides, I don't know how to be 'good';
;)))- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
gypsie, read surfkrow's last post up above. This guy is in deep
for never stepping foot in The Cathedral or any other property!
I don't think I ever met a scottbot like this guy, so it leads me
to believe he was this manic high guy even without brainwashing
from Gene Scott.

Funny how Celestias ran to his apron strings when he started
spouting off radical Scottisms. Docamentalism like this can
be dangerous if he doesn't realize his brain has been hotwired
and stolen, taken for a joyride.

I've been there scottbot n' all since I was 15/16 years old but
never did I suspend my own thoughts and spew pure
docamentalist bullshit like this guy! Oye vey!

Honey, I think Junior swallowed your IUD.
Celestias
2009-12-08 08:01:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by studio
Post by Gypsie
Post by Emmett
Post by Celestias
Post by Celestias
PS:   Surfcrow, your game is starting to unravel. You first put on
this act of a kind of uncultered type through your grammer and
mispelling. Now we see more of a focused individual with an agenda. As
pointed out here, you could not be disconnecting that fast from LAUC,
and at the same time defend Scott to the level you do. So you instead
created a persona that was out of character for you, and launch it
here to see if it would fly.
Now your lucky you are in good hands here and I would like to see your
success with your spiritual endeavors. For your own sake, you need to
take Scott's teaching to the challenge. Remember he always said to
check-him in an area of teaching at times. So take him up on it. For
instance, find the word Domata, or a word with similar meaning and
where it grants him the level of authority he felt went with it. And
what would be even more impressive is if you could find new
information not used by Scott to defend this or one of his other
arguements.
You said Scott was a father figure to you, everthing you wanted to be
and everthing you did not want to be. Well, I think you lied about
that and you are afraid you might hurt your brain if you think
anything contrary to what Scott said. Am I right?
Pope you say that like its a no-no to have an agenda here. This site
IS an agenda!!! And accuracy is not necessarily the order of the day.
I noticed how everyone dropped my discussion about money like a hot
potato.
Surf wouldn't be the first one around here to feign grammar and
spelling weaknesses.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
   Im not pretending anything you guys   i got some advice on how to
post and some ribbing on posting like i was on a phone texting so i
cleaned my act up.   I have left lauc  My pastor is now leslie hale
Dr.Scott was important to my spiritual growth. posting here has helped
me assess what i belive and why.
        In one of my posts i said thank you dr.Scott for giving me the
push i needed to run to Jesus.    And in another post  I said that
Dr.Scott hurt me.   I have thought about these two statements and put
them in better perspective.  As for thanking him for giving me the
push i needed to run to Jesus.  I was wrong.  The more i think about
what i have learned from him the more i realize that he was always
pushing me toward Jesus.   Mellissa pushed me out the door because  I
Have come to belive that she should be maintaining Docs legacy as
administrative pastor   not pushing her own agenda.  It should be
Dr.scott reruns on every thing that is taught when it comes to his
internet site And shortwave and any tv time purchased.   If she
belives she has an anction she should do it on her own time. and with
moneys collected for her teaching.   If she truly belives that she is
capable of teaching pastors with deep bible language exegesis  then go
do it at that level somewhere else.  But in my opinion her method is
not reaching the ordinary sinner or layperson with the gospel.  There
was only one Dr.Scott!
         As for saying that he hurt me, I realize that I was blaming
the freedom that was set loose in my life by the message of grace
which i recieved from Dr.Scotts teachings.  Dr.Scott used to say that
flesh turned loose  will always turn it into liscence and he was
right. He also said that the price of freedom is association with
nuts,  He was right about that as well.  For twenty years Jesus has
been wrestling with me over issues of what my love is really all about
and being single minded in my walk with him. The message of grace
didn'nt hurt me it freed me and yes through the process my real carnal
self came to the surface so that Jesus could deal with it
appropriatly
 I did'nt know what i was getting into when i first came here you
guys. But i figured while I was here maybe mellissa would hear me?
its not like they answer mail at lauc ya know?
You really are a die hard scotbot. Walking around with a blindfold
on so you can't see or accept the truth that Dr. jean was a charlatan
and scam artist.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
gypsie: Come on Em, surf is definitely getting clarity in his thinking
and this reflects in his posts. If you go to my first posts here, I
was alot more scattered, and, all I knew was docisms (guess when you
grow up with this atmosphere exclusively for so long, there is not
much of anyone else you can communicate with on their level).  How
else can surf or anyone else post here without coming off as using
afgs as a sounding board....... we all have done it.
btw, this is not, I repeat, NOT a suggestion for anyone else to stop
posting, change their manner of posting or change their ideas here,
Gawd wouldn't it be a boring source of amusement if it all came off
like church in here?  Besides, I don't know how to be 'good';
;)))- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
gypsie, read surfkrow's last post up above. This guy is in deep
for never stepping foot in The Cathedral or any other property!
I don't think I ever met a scottbot like this guy, so it leads me
to believe he was this manic high guy even without brainwashing
from Gene Scott.
Funny how Celestias ran to his apron strings when he started
spouting off radical Scottisms. Docamentalism like this can
be dangerous if he doesn't realize his brain has been hotwired
and stolen, taken for a joyride.
I've been there scottbot n' all since I was 15/16 years old but
never did I suspend my own thoughts and spew pure
docamentalist bullshit like this guy!  Oye vey!
Honey, I think Junior swallowed your IUD.
How is it dangerous, and to whom?
Gypsie
2009-12-08 08:08:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by studio
Post by Gypsie
Post by Emmett
Post by Celestias
Post by Celestias
PS:   Surfcrow, your game is starting to unravel. You first put on
this act of a kind of uncultered type through your grammer and
mispelling. Now we see more of a focused individual with an agenda. As
pointed out here, you could not be disconnecting that fast from LAUC,
and at the same time defend Scott to the level you do. So you instead
created a persona that was out of character for you, and launch it
here to see if it would fly.
Now your lucky you are in good hands here and I would like to see your
success with your spiritual endeavors. For your own sake, you need to
take Scott's teaching to the challenge. Remember he always said to
check-him in an area of teaching at times. So take him up on it. For
instance, find the word Domata, or a word with similar meaning and
where it grants him the level of authority he felt went with it. And
what would be even more impressive is if you could find new
information not used by Scott to defend this or one of his other
arguements.
You said Scott was a father figure to you, everthing you wanted to be
and everthing you did not want to be. Well, I think you lied about
that and you are afraid you might hurt your brain if you think
anything contrary to what Scott said. Am I right?
Pope you say that like its a no-no to have an agenda here. This site
IS an agenda!!! And accuracy is not necessarily the order of the day.
I noticed how everyone dropped my discussion about money like a hot
potato.
Surf wouldn't be the first one around here to feign grammar and
spelling weaknesses.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
   Im not pretending anything you guys   i got some advice on how to
post and some ribbing on posting like i was on a phone texting so i
cleaned my act up.   I have left lauc  My pastor is now leslie hale
Dr.Scott was important to my spiritual growth. posting here has helped
me assess what i belive and why.
        In one of my posts i said thank you dr.Scott for giving me the
push i needed to run to Jesus.    And in another post  I said that
Dr.Scott hurt me.   I have thought about these two statements and put
them in better perspective.  As for thanking him for giving me the
push i needed to run to Jesus.  I was wrong.  The more i think about
what i have learned from him the more i realize that he was always
pushing me toward Jesus.   Mellissa pushed me out the door because  I
Have come to belive that she should be maintaining Docs legacy as
administrative pastor   not pushing her own agenda.  It should be
Dr.scott reruns on every thing that is taught when it comes to his
internet site And shortwave and any tv time purchased.   If she
belives she has an anction she should do it on her own time. and with
moneys collected for her teaching.   If she truly belives that she is
capable of teaching pastors with deep bible language exegesis  then go
do it at that level somewhere else.  But in my opinion her method is
not reaching the ordinary sinner or layperson with the gospel.  There
was only one Dr.Scott!
         As for saying that he hurt me, I realize that I was blaming
the freedom that was set loose in my life by the message of grace
which i recieved from Dr.Scotts teachings.  Dr.Scott used to say that
flesh turned loose  will always turn it into liscence and he was
right. He also said that the price of freedom is association with
nuts,  He was right about that as well.  For twenty years Jesus has
been wrestling with me over issues of what my love is really all about
and being single minded in my walk with him. The message of grace
didn'nt hurt me it freed me and yes through the process my real carnal
self came to the surface so that Jesus could deal with it
appropriatly
 I did'nt know what i was getting into when i first came here you
guys. But i figured while I was here maybe mellissa would hear me?
its not like they answer mail at lauc ya know?
You really are a die hard scotbot. Walking around with a blindfold
on so you can't see or accept the truth that Dr. jean was a charlatan
and scam artist.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
gypsie: Come on Em, surf is definitely getting clarity in his thinking
and this reflects in his posts. If you go to my first posts here, I
was alot more scattered, and, all I knew was docisms (guess when you
grow up with this atmosphere exclusively for so long, there is not
much of anyone else you can communicate with on their level).  How
else can surf or anyone else post here without coming off as using
afgs as a sounding board....... we all have done it.
btw, this is not, I repeat, NOT a suggestion for anyone else to stop
posting, change their manner of posting or change their ideas here,
Gawd wouldn't it be a boring source of amusement if it all came off
like church in here?  Besides, I don't know how to be 'good';
;)))- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
gypsie, read surfkrow's last post up above. This guy is in deep
for never stepping foot in The Cathedral or any other property!
I don't think I ever met a scottbot like this guy, so it leads me
to believe he was this manic high guy even without brainwashing
from Gene Scott.
Funny how Celestias ran to his apron strings when he started
spouting off radical Scottisms. Docamentalism like this can
be dangerous if he doesn't realize his brain has been hotwired
and stolen, taken for a joyride.
I've been there scottbot n' all since I was 15/16 years old but
never did I suspend my own thoughts and spew pure
docamentalist bullshit like this guy!  Oye vey!
Honey, I think Junior swallowed your IUD.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
gypsie: no studio, I am in agreement and am not so certain that he did
not have an up close and personal relationship with planet scott. All
I'm suggesting is that surf be given some slack, for neow, and he does
seem to be organizing his thoughts (which is more than I can say for
other flying monkeys). Plus he is actually taking the time to read
some of the archives which is something most will not do.

Yes I did notice that TOS jumped on him like a duck on a june bug but,
this may actually be the first time either one of them have had
someone to share their docisms with (like does attract like).

My guess is that once we get past the surly stage with surf that he
will probably be a good poster heree??
Celestias
2009-12-08 08:16:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gypsie
Post by studio
Post by Gypsie
Post by Emmett
Post by Celestias
Post by Celestias
PS:   Surfcrow, your game is starting to unravel. You first put on
this act of a kind of uncultered type through your grammer and
mispelling. Now we see more of a focused individual with an agenda. As
pointed out here, you could not be disconnecting that fast from LAUC,
and at the same time defend Scott to the level you do. So you instead
created a persona that was out of character for you, and launch it
here to see if it would fly.
Now your lucky you are in good hands here and I would like to see your
success with your spiritual endeavors. For your own sake, you need to
take Scott's teaching to the challenge. Remember he always said to
check-him in an area of teaching at times. So take him up on it. For
instance, find the word Domata, or a word with similar meaning and
where it grants him the level of authority he felt went with it. And
what would be even more impressive is if you could find new
information not used by Scott to defend this or one of his other
arguements.
You said Scott was a father figure to you, everthing you wanted to be
and everthing you did not want to be. Well, I think you lied about
that and you are afraid you might hurt your brain if you think
anything contrary to what Scott said. Am I right?
Pope you say that like its a no-no to have an agenda here. This site
IS an agenda!!! And accuracy is not necessarily the order of the day.
I noticed how everyone dropped my discussion about money like a hot
potato.
Surf wouldn't be the first one around here to feign grammar and
spelling weaknesses.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
   Im not pretending anything you guys   i got some advice on how to
post and some ribbing on posting like i was on a phone texting so i
cleaned my act up.   I have left lauc  My pastor is now leslie hale
Dr.Scott was important to my spiritual growth. posting here has helped
me assess what i belive and why.
        In one of my posts i said thank you dr.Scott for giving me the
push i needed to run to Jesus.    And in another post  I said that
Dr.Scott hurt me.   I have thought about these two statements and put
them in better perspective.  As for thanking him for giving me the
push i needed to run to Jesus.  I was wrong.  The more i think about
what i have learned from him the more i realize that he was always
pushing me toward Jesus.   Mellissa pushed me out the door because  I
Have come to belive that she should be maintaining Docs legacy as
administrative pastor   not pushing her own agenda.  It should be
Dr.scott reruns on every thing that is taught when it comes to his
internet site And shortwave and any tv time purchased.   If she
belives she has an anction she should do it on her own time. and with
moneys collected for her teaching.   If she truly belives that she is
capable of teaching pastors with deep bible language exegesis  then go
do it at that level somewhere else.  But in my opinion her method is
not reaching the ordinary sinner or layperson with the gospel.  There
was only one Dr.Scott!
         As for saying that he hurt me, I realize that I was blaming
the freedom that was set loose in my life by the message of grace
which i recieved from Dr.Scotts teachings.  Dr.Scott used to say that
flesh turned loose  will always turn it into liscence and he was
right. He also said that the price of freedom is association with
nuts,  He was right about that as well.  For twenty years Jesus has
been wrestling with me over issues of what my love is really all about
and being single minded in my walk with him. The message of grace
didn'nt hurt me it freed me and yes through the process my real carnal
self came to the surface so that Jesus could deal with it
appropriatly
 I did'nt know what i was getting into when i first came here you
guys. But i figured while I was here maybe mellissa would hear me?
its not like they answer mail at lauc ya know?
You really are a die hard scotbot. Walking around with a blindfold
on so you can't see or accept the truth that Dr. jean was a charlatan
and scam artist.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
gypsie: Come on Em, surf is definitely getting clarity in his thinking
and this reflects in his posts. If you go to my first posts here, I
was alot more scattered, and, all I knew was docisms (guess when you
grow up with this atmosphere exclusively for so long, there is not
much of anyone else you can communicate with on their level).  How
else can surf or anyone else post here without coming off as using
afgs as a sounding board....... we all have done it.
btw, this is not, I repeat, NOT a suggestion for anyone else to stop
posting, change their manner of posting or change their ideas here,
Gawd wouldn't it be a boring source of amusement if it all came off
like church in here?  Besides, I don't know how to be 'good';
;)))- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
gypsie, read surfkrow's last post up above. This guy is in deep
for never stepping foot in The Cathedral or any other property!
I don't think I ever met a scottbot like this guy, so it leads me
to believe he was this manic high guy even without brainwashing
from Gene Scott.
Funny how Celestias ran to his apron strings when he started
spouting off radical Scottisms. Docamentalism like this can
be dangerous if he doesn't realize his brain has been hotwired
and stolen, taken for a joyride.
I've been there scottbot n' all since I was 15/16 years old but
never did I suspend my own thoughts and spew pure
docamentalist bullshit like this guy!  Oye vey!
Honey, I think Junior swallowed your IUD.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
gypsie: no studio, I am in agreement and am not so certain that he did
not have an up close and personal relationship with planet scott. All
I'm suggesting is that surf be given some slack, for neow, and he does
seem to be organizing his thoughts (which is more than I can say for
other flying monkeys). Plus he is actually taking the time to read
some of the archives which is something most will not do.
Yes I did notice that TOS jumped on him like a duck on a june bug but,
this may actually be the first time either one of them have had
someone to share their docisms with (like does attract like).
My guess is that once we get past the surly stage with surf that he
will probably be a good poster heree??
So this is like the churches Doc criticized. Welcome the newbie
warmly, then proceed to shape them into your idea of what a christian
ought to be.
Gypsie
2009-12-08 08:22:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Celestias
Post by Gypsie
Post by studio
Post by Gypsie
Post by Emmett
Post by Celestias
Post by Celestias
PS:   Surfcrow, your game is starting to unravel. You first put on
this act of a kind of uncultered type through your grammer and
mispelling. Now we see more of a focused individual with an agenda. As
pointed out here, you could not be disconnecting that fast from LAUC,
and at the same time defend Scott to the level you do. So you instead
created a persona that was out of character for you, and launch it
here to see if it would fly.
Now your lucky you are in good hands here and I would like to see your
success with your spiritual endeavors. For your own sake, you need to
take Scott's teaching to the challenge. Remember he always said to
check-him in an area of teaching at times. So take him up on it. For
instance, find the word Domata, or a word with similar meaning and
where it grants him the level of authority he felt went with it. And
what would be even more impressive is if you could find new
information not used by Scott to defend this or one of his other
arguements.
You said Scott was a father figure to you, everthing you wanted to be
and everthing you did not want to be. Well, I think you lied about
that and you are afraid you might hurt your brain if you think
anything contrary to what Scott said. Am I right?
Pope you say that like its a no-no to have an agenda here. This site
IS an agenda!!! And accuracy is not necessarily the order of the day.
I noticed how everyone dropped my discussion about money like a hot
potato.
Surf wouldn't be the first one around here to feign grammar and
spelling weaknesses.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
   Im not pretending anything you guys   i got some advice on how to
post and some ribbing on posting like i was on a phone texting so i
cleaned my act up.   I have left lauc  My pastor is now leslie hale
Dr.Scott was important to my spiritual growth. posting here has helped
me assess what i belive and why.
        In one of my posts i said thank you dr.Scott for giving me the
push i needed to run to Jesus.    And in another post  I said that
Dr.Scott hurt me.   I have thought about these two statements and put
them in better perspective.  As for thanking him for giving me the
push i needed to run to Jesus.  I was wrong.  The more i think about
what i have learned from him the more i realize that he was always
pushing me toward Jesus.   Mellissa pushed me out the door because  I
Have come to belive that she should be maintaining Docs legacy as
administrative pastor   not pushing her own agenda.  It should be
Dr.scott reruns on every thing that is taught when it comes to his
internet site And shortwave and any tv time purchased.   If she
belives she has an anction she should do it on her own time. and with
moneys collected for her teaching.   If she truly belives that she is
capable of teaching pastors with deep bible language exegesis  then go
do it at that level somewhere else.  But in my opinion her method is
not reaching the ordinary sinner or layperson with the gospel.  There
was only one Dr.Scott!
         As for saying that he hurt me, I realize that I was blaming
the freedom that was set loose in my life by the message of grace
which i recieved from Dr.Scotts teachings.  Dr.Scott used to say that
flesh turned loose  will always turn it into liscence and he was
right. He also said that the price of freedom is association with
nuts,  He was right about that as well.  For twenty years Jesus has
been wrestling with me over issues of what my love is really all about
and being single minded in my walk with him. The message of grace
didn'nt hurt me it freed me and yes through the process my real carnal
self came to the surface so that Jesus could deal with it
appropriatly
 I did'nt know what i was getting into when i first came here you
guys. But i figured while I was here maybe mellissa would hear me?
its not like they answer mail at lauc ya know?
You really are a die hard scotbot. Walking around with a blindfold
on so you can't see or accept the truth that Dr. jean was a charlatan
and scam artist.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
gypsie: Come on Em, surf is definitely getting clarity in his thinking
and this reflects in his posts. If you go to my first posts here, I
was alot more scattered, and, all I knew was docisms (guess when you
grow up with this atmosphere exclusively for so long, there is not
much of anyone else you can communicate with on their level).  How
else can surf or anyone else post here without coming off as using
afgs as a sounding board....... we all have done it.
btw, this is not, I repeat, NOT a suggestion for anyone else to stop
posting, change their manner of posting or change their ideas here,
Gawd wouldn't it be a boring source of amusement if it all came off
like church in here?  Besides, I don't know how to be 'good';
;)))- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
gypsie, read surfkrow's last post up above. This guy is in deep
for never stepping foot in The Cathedral or any other property!
I don't think I ever met a scottbot like this guy, so it leads me
to believe he was this manic high guy even without brainwashing
from Gene Scott.
Funny how Celestias ran to his apron strings when he started
spouting off radical Scottisms. Docamentalism like this can
be dangerous if he doesn't realize his brain has been hotwired
and stolen, taken for a joyride.
I've been there scottbot n' all since I was 15/16 years old but
never did I suspend my own thoughts and spew pure
docamentalist bullshit like this guy!  Oye vey!
Honey, I think Junior swallowed your IUD.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
gypsie: no studio, I am in agreement and am not so certain that he did
not have an up close and personal relationship with planet scott. All
I'm suggesting is that surf be given some slack, for neow, and he does
seem to be organizing his thoughts (which is more than I can say for
other flying monkeys). Plus he is actually taking the time to read
some of the archives which is something most will not do.
Yes I did notice that TOS jumped on him like a duck on a june bug but,
this may actually be the first time either one of them have had
someone to share their docisms with (like does attract like).
My guess is that once we get past the surly stage with surf that he
will probably be a good poster heree??
So this is like the churches Doc criticized. Welcome the newbie
warmly, then proceed to shape them into your idea of what a christian
ought to be.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
RE: "So this is like the churches Doc criticized. Welcome the newbie
warmly, then proceed to shape them into your idea of what a christian
ought to be."

gypsie: don't understand, please elaborate?
Celestias
2009-12-08 10:56:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gypsie
Post by Celestias
Post by Gypsie
Post by studio
Post by Gypsie
Post by Emmett
Post by Celestias
Post by Celestias
PS:   Surfcrow, your game is starting to unravel. You first put on
this act of a kind of uncultered type through your grammer and
mispelling. Now we see more of a focused individual with an agenda. As
pointed out here, you could not be disconnecting that fast from LAUC,
and at the same time defend Scott to the level you do. So you instead
created a persona that was out of character for you, and launch it
here to see if it would fly.
Now your lucky you are in good hands here and I would like to see your
success with your spiritual endeavors. For your own sake, you need to
take Scott's teaching to the challenge. Remember he always said to
check-him in an area of teaching at times. So take him up on it. For
instance, find the word Domata, or a word with similar meaning and
where it grants him the level of authority he felt went with it. And
what would be even more impressive is if you could find new
information not used by Scott to defend this or one of his other
arguements.
You said Scott was a father figure to you, everthing you wanted to be
and everthing you did not want to be. Well, I think you lied about
that and you are afraid you might hurt your brain if you think
anything contrary to what Scott said. Am I right?
Pope you say that like its a no-no to have an agenda here. This site
IS an agenda!!! And accuracy is not necessarily the order of the day.
I noticed how everyone dropped my discussion about money like a hot
potato.
Surf wouldn't be the first one around here to feign grammar and
spelling weaknesses.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
   Im not pretending anything you guys   i got some advice on how to
post and some ribbing on posting like i was on a phone texting so i
cleaned my act up.   I have left lauc  My pastor is now leslie hale
Dr.Scott was important to my spiritual growth. posting here has helped
me assess what i belive and why.
        In one of my posts i said thank you dr.Scott for giving me the
push i needed to run to Jesus.    And in another post  I said that
Dr.Scott hurt me.   I have thought about these two statements and put
them in better perspective.  As for thanking him for giving me the
push i needed to run to Jesus.  I was wrong.  The more i think about
what i have learned from him the more i realize that he was always
pushing me toward Jesus.   Mellissa pushed me out the door because  I
Have come to belive that she should be maintaining Docs legacy as
administrative pastor   not pushing her own agenda.  It should be
Dr.scott reruns on every thing that is taught when it comes to his
internet site And shortwave and any tv time purchased.   If she
belives she has an anction she should do it on her own time. and with
moneys collected for her teaching.   If she truly belives that she is
capable of teaching pastors with deep bible language exegesis  then go
do it at that level somewhere else.  But in my opinion her method is
not reaching the ordinary sinner or layperson with the gospel.  There
was only one Dr.Scott!
         As for saying that he hurt me, I realize that I was blaming
the freedom that was set loose in my life by the message of grace
which i recieved from Dr.Scotts teachings.  Dr.Scott used to say that
flesh turned loose  will always turn it into liscence and he was
right. He also said that the price of freedom is association with
nuts,  He was right about that as well.  For twenty years Jesus has
been wrestling with me over issues of what my love is really all about
and being single minded in my walk with him. The message of grace
didn'nt hurt me it freed me and yes through the process my real carnal
self came to the surface so that Jesus could deal with it
appropriatly
 I did'nt know what i was getting into when i first came here you
guys. But i figured while I was here maybe mellissa would hear me?
its not like they answer mail at lauc ya know?
You really are a die hard scotbot. Walking around with a blindfold
on so you can't see or accept the truth that Dr. jean was a charlatan
and scam artist.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
gypsie: Come on Em, surf is definitely getting clarity in his thinking
and this reflects in his posts. If you go to my first posts here, I
was alot more scattered, and, all I knew was docisms (guess when you
grow up with this atmosphere exclusively for so long, there is not
much of anyone else you can communicate with on their level).  How
else can surf or anyone else post here without coming off as using
afgs as a sounding board....... we all have done it.
btw, this is not, I repeat, NOT a suggestion for anyone else to stop
posting, change their manner of posting or change their ideas here,
Gawd wouldn't it be a boring source of amusement if it all came off
like church in here?  Besides, I don't know how to be 'good';
;)))- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
gypsie, read surfkrow's last post up above. This guy is in deep
for never stepping foot in The Cathedral or any other property!
I don't think I ever met a scottbot like this guy, so it leads me
to believe he was this manic high guy even without brainwashing
from Gene Scott.
Funny how Celestias ran to his apron strings when he started
spouting off radical Scottisms. Docamentalism like this can
be dangerous if he doesn't realize his brain has been hotwired
and stolen, taken for a joyride.
I've been there scottbot n' all since I was 15/16 years old but
never did I suspend my own thoughts and spew pure
docamentalist bullshit like this guy!  Oye vey!
Honey, I think Junior swallowed your IUD.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
gypsie: no studio, I am in agreement and am not so certain that he did
not have an up close and personal relationship with planet scott. All
I'm suggesting is that surf be given some slack, for neow, and he does
seem to be organizing his thoughts (which is more than I can say for
other flying monkeys). Plus he is actually taking the time to read
some of the archives which is something most will not do.
Yes I did notice that TOS jumped on him like a duck on a june bug but,
this may actually be the first time either one of them have had
someone to share their docisms with (like does attract like).
My guess is that once we get past the surly stage with surf that he
will probably be a good poster heree??
So this is like the churches Doc criticized. Welcome the newbie
warmly, then proceed to shape them into your idea of what a christian
ought to be.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
RE: "So this is like the churches Doc criticized. Welcome the newbie
warmly, then proceed to shape them into your idea of what a christian
ought to be."
gypsie: don't understand, please elaborate?
Reduced to begging? How pathetic.
Post by Gypsie
Post by Celestias
Post by Gypsie
My guess is that once we get past the surly stage with surf that he
will probably be a good poster heree??
Understand?
Gypsie
2009-12-08 20:47:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Celestias
Post by Gypsie
Post by Celestias
Post by Gypsie
Post by studio
Post by Gypsie
Post by Emmett
Post by Celestias
Post by Celestias
PS:   Surfcrow, your game is starting to unravel. You first put on
this act of a kind of uncultered type through your grammer and
mispelling. Now we see more of a focused individual with an agenda. As
pointed out here, you could not be disconnecting that fast from LAUC,
and at the same time defend Scott to the level you do. So you instead
created a persona that was out of character for you, and launch it
here to see if it would fly.
Now your lucky you are in good hands here and I would like to see your
success with your spiritual endeavors. For your own sake, you need to
take Scott's teaching to the challenge. Remember he always said to
check-him in an area of teaching at times. So take him up on it. For
instance, find the word Domata, or a word with similar meaning and
where it grants him the level of authority he felt went with it. And
what would be even more impressive is if you could find new
information not used by Scott to defend this or one of his other
arguements.
You said Scott was a father figure to you, everthing you wanted to be
and everthing you did not want to be. Well, I think you lied about
that and you are afraid you might hurt your brain if you think
anything contrary to what Scott said. Am I right?
Pope you say that like its a no-no to have an agenda here. This site
IS an agenda!!! And accuracy is not necessarily the order of the day.
I noticed how everyone dropped my discussion about money like a hot
potato.
Surf wouldn't be the first one around here to feign grammar and
spelling weaknesses.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
   Im not pretending anything you guys   i got some advice on how to
post and some ribbing on posting like i was on a phone texting so i
cleaned my act up.   I have left lauc  My pastor is now leslie hale
Dr.Scott was important to my spiritual growth. posting here has helped
me assess what i belive and why.
        In one of my posts i said thank you dr.Scott for giving me the
push i needed to run to Jesus.    And in another post  I said that
Dr.Scott hurt me.   I have thought about these two statements and put
them in better perspective.  As for thanking him for giving me the
push i needed to run to Jesus.  I was wrong.  The more i think about
what i have learned from him the more i realize that he was always
pushing me toward Jesus.   Mellissa pushed me out the door because  I
Have come to belive that she should be maintaining Docs legacy as
administrative pastor   not pushing her own agenda.  It should be
Dr.scott reruns on every thing that is taught when it comes to his
internet site And shortwave and any tv time purchased.   If she
belives she has an anction she should do it on her own time. and with
moneys collected for her teaching.   If she truly belives that she is
capable of teaching pastors with deep bible language exegesis  then go
do it at that level somewhere else.  But in my opinion her method is
not reaching the ordinary sinner or layperson with the gospel.  There
was only one Dr.Scott!
         As for saying that he hurt me, I realize that I was blaming
the freedom that was set loose in my life by the message of grace
which i recieved from Dr.Scotts teachings.  Dr.Scott used to say that
flesh turned loose  will always turn it into liscence and he was
right. He also said that the price of freedom is association with
nuts,  He was right about that as well.  For twenty years Jesus has
been wrestling with me over issues of what my love is really all about
and being single minded in my walk with him. The message of grace
didn'nt hurt me it freed me and yes through the process my real carnal
self came to the surface so that Jesus could deal with it
appropriatly
 I did'nt know what i was getting into when i first came here you
guys. But i figured while I was here maybe mellissa would hear me?
its not like they answer mail at lauc ya know?
You really are a die hard scotbot. Walking around with a blindfold
on so you can't see or accept the truth that Dr. jean was a charlatan
and scam artist.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
gypsie: Come on Em, surf is definitely getting clarity in his thinking
and this reflects in his posts. If you go to my first posts here, I
was alot more scattered, and, all I knew was docisms (guess when you
grow up with this atmosphere exclusively for so long, there is not
much of anyone else you can communicate with on their level).  How
else can surf or anyone else post here without coming off as using
afgs as a sounding board....... we all have done it.
btw, this is not, I repeat, NOT a suggestion for anyone else to stop
posting, change their manner of posting or change their ideas here,
Gawd wouldn't it be a boring source of amusement if it all came off
like church in here?  Besides, I don't know how to be 'good';
;)))- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
gypsie, read surfkrow's last post up above. This guy is in deep
for never stepping foot in The Cathedral or any other property!
I don't think I ever met a scottbot like this guy, so it leads me
to believe he was this manic high guy even without brainwashing
from Gene Scott.
Funny how Celestias ran to his apron strings when he started
spouting off radical Scottisms. Docamentalism like this can
be dangerous if he doesn't realize his brain has been hotwired
and stolen, taken for a joyride.
I've been there scottbot n' all since I was 15/16 years old but
never did I suspend my own thoughts and spew pure
docamentalist bullshit like this guy!  Oye vey!
Honey, I think Junior swallowed your IUD.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
gypsie: no studio, I am in agreement and am not so certain that he did
not have an up close and personal relationship with planet scott. All
I'm suggesting is that surf be given some slack, for neow, and he does
seem to be organizing his thoughts (which is more than I can say for
other flying monkeys). Plus he is actually taking the time to read
some of the archives which is something most will not do.
Yes I did notice that TOS jumped on him like a duck on a june bug but,
this may actually be the first time either one of them have had
someone to share their docisms with (like does attract like).
My guess is that once we get past the surly stage with surf that he
will probably be a good poster heree??
So this is like the churches Doc criticized. Welcome the newbie
warmly, then proceed to shape them into your idea of what a christian
ought to be.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
RE: "So this is like the churches Doc criticized. Welcome the newbie
warmly, then proceed to shape them into your idea of what a christian
ought to be."
gypsie: don't understand, please elaborate?
Reduced to begging? How pathetic.
Post by Gypsie
Post by Celestias
Post by Gypsie
My guess is that once we get past the surly stage with surf that he
will probably be a good poster heree??
Understand?- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
re:"Understand?"

gypsie: apparently you don't. most newbie escapees from planet scott
go thru a surly, mean spirited stage accompanied with know-it-all,
I've got THE word attitude. My reference was when surf gets past his.

you shadow, will probably take aot longer, to be expected as you need
to release all the 'others' too
rpbc
2009-12-08 22:56:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gypsie
Post by Celestias
Post by Gypsie
Post by Celestias
Post by Gypsie
Post by studio
Post by Gypsie
Post by Emmett
Post by Celestias
Post by Celestias
PS:   Surfcrow, your game is starting to unravel. You first put on
this act of a kind of uncultered type through your grammer and
mispelling. Now we see more of a focused individual with an agenda. As
pointed out here, you could not be disconnecting that fast from LAUC,
and at the same time defend Scott to the level you do. So you instead
created a persona that was out of character for you, and launch it
here to see if it would fly.
Now your lucky you are in good hands here and I would like to see your
success with your spiritual endeavors. For your own sake, you need to
take Scott's teaching to the challenge. Remember he always said to
check-him in an area of teaching at times. So take him up on it. For
instance, find the word Domata, or a word with similar meaning and
where it grants him the level of authority he felt went with it. And
what would be even more impressive is if you could find new
information not used by Scott to defend this or one of his other
arguements.
You said Scott was a father figure to you, everthing you wanted to be
and everthing you did not want to be. Well, I think you lied about
that and you are afraid you might hurt your brain if you think
anything contrary to what Scott said. Am I right?
Pope you say that like its a no-no to have an agenda here. This site
IS an agenda!!! And accuracy is not necessarily the order of the day.
I noticed how everyone dropped my discussion about money like a hot
potato.
Surf wouldn't be the first one around here to feign grammar and
spelling weaknesses.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
   Im not pretending anything you guys   i got some advice on how to
post and some ribbing on posting like i was on a phone texting so i
cleaned my act up.   I have left lauc  My pastor is now leslie hale
Dr.Scott was important to my spiritual growth. posting here has helped
me assess what i belive and why.
        In one of my posts i said thank you dr.Scott for giving me the
push i needed to run to Jesus.    And in another post  I said that
Dr.Scott hurt me.   I have thought about these two statements and put
them in better perspective.  As for thanking him for giving me the
push i needed to run to Jesus.  I was wrong.  The more i think about
what i have learned from him the more i realize that he was always
pushing me toward Jesus.   Mellissa pushed me out the door because  I
Have come to belive that she should be maintaining Docs legacy as
administrative pastor   not pushing her own agenda.  It should be
Dr.scott reruns on every thing that is taught when it comes to his
internet site And shortwave and any tv time purchased.   If she
belives she has an anction she should do it on her own time. and with
moneys collected for her teaching.   If she truly belives that she is
capable of teaching pastors with deep bible language exegesis  then go
do it at that level somewhere else.  But in my opinion her method is
not reaching the ordinary sinner or layperson with the gospel.  There
was only one Dr.Scott!
         As for saying that he hurt me, I realize that I was blaming
the freedom that was set loose in my life by the message of grace
which i recieved from Dr.Scotts teachings.  Dr.Scott used to say that
flesh turned loose  will always turn it into liscence and he was
right. He also said that the price of freedom is association with
nuts,  He was right about that as well.  For twenty years Jesus has
been wrestling with me over issues of what my love is really all about
and being single minded in my walk with him. The message of grace
didn'nt hurt me it freed me and yes through the process my real carnal
self came to the surface so that Jesus could deal with it
appropriatly
 I did'nt know what i was getting into when i first came here you
guys. But i figured while I was here maybe mellissa would hear me?
its not like they answer mail at lauc ya know?
You really are a die hard scotbot. Walking around with a blindfold
on so you can't see or accept the truth that Dr. jean was a charlatan
and scam artist.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
gypsie: Come on Em, surf is definitely getting clarity in his thinking
and this reflects in his posts. If you go to my first posts here, I
was alot more scattered, and, all I knew was docisms (guess when you
grow up with this atmosphere exclusively for so long, there is not
much of anyone else you can communicate with on their level).  How
else can surf or anyone else post here without coming off as using
afgs as a sounding board....... we all have done it.
btw, this is not, I repeat, NOT a suggestion for anyone else to stop
posting, change their manner of posting or change their ideas here,
Gawd wouldn't it be a boring source of amusement if it all came off
like church in here?  Besides, I don't know how to be 'good';
;)))- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
gypsie, read surfkrow's last post up above. This guy is in deep
for never stepping foot in The Cathedral or any other property!
I don't think I ever met a scottbot like this guy, so it leads me
to believe he was this manic high guy even without brainwashing
from Gene Scott.
Funny how Celestias ran to his apron strings when he started
spouting off radical Scottisms. Docamentalism like this can
be dangerous if he doesn't realize his brain has been hotwired
and stolen, taken for a joyride.
I've been there scottbot n' all since I was 15/16 years old but
never did I suspend my own thoughts and spew pure
docamentalist bullshit like this guy!  Oye vey!
Honey, I think Junior swallowed your IUD.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
gypsie: no studio, I am in agreement and am not so certain that he did
not have an up close and personal relationship with planet scott. All
I'm suggesting is that surf be given some slack, for neow, and he does
seem to be organizing his thoughts (which is more than I can say for
other flying monkeys). Plus he is actually taking the time to read
some of the archives which is something most will not do.
Yes I did notice that TOS jumped on him like a duck on a june bug but,
this may actually be the first time either one of them have had
someone to share their docisms with (like does attract like).
My guess is that once we get past the surly stage with surf that he
will probably be a good poster heree??
So this is like the churches Doc criticized. Welcome the newbie
warmly, then proceed to shape them into your idea of what a christian
ought to be.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
RE: "So this is like the churches Doc criticized. Welcome the newbie
warmly, then proceed to shape them into your idea of what a christian
ought to be."
gypsie: don't understand, please elaborate?
Reduced to begging? How pathetic.
Post by Gypsie
Post by Celestias
Post by Gypsie
My guess is that once we get past the surly stage with surf that he
will probably be a good poster heree??
Understand?- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
re:"Understand?"
gypsie: apparently you don't. most newbie escapees from planet scott
go thru a surly, mean spirited stage accompanied with know-it-all,
I've got THE word attitude. My reference was when surf gets past his.
you shadow, will probably take aot longer, to be expected as you need
to release all the 'others' too- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
rpbc:
Yes Gypsie, and as I perceive it there are personality differences
here too that affect it.. Celestias seems to take pleasure feeling
one up on someone, as though he has a mean streak while I don't sense
that in Surf.
Celestias
2009-12-09 00:01:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gypsie
Post by Celestias
Post by Gypsie
Post by Celestias
Post by Gypsie
Post by studio
Post by Gypsie
Post by Emmett
Post by Celestias
Post by Celestias
PS:   Surfcrow, your game is starting to unravel. You first put on
this act of a kind of uncultered type through your grammer and
mispelling. Now we see more of a focused individual with an agenda. As
pointed out here, you could not be disconnecting that fast from LAUC,
and at the same time defend Scott to the level you do. So you instead
created a persona that was out of character for you, and launch it
here to see if it would fly.
Now your lucky you are in good hands here and I would like to see your
success with your spiritual endeavors. For your own sake, you need to
take Scott's teaching to the challenge. Remember he always said to
check-him in an area of teaching at times. So take him up on it. For
instance, find the word Domata, or a word with similar meaning and
where it grants him the level of authority he felt went with it. And
what would be even more impressive is if you could find new
information not used by Scott to defend this or one of his other
arguements.
You said Scott was a father figure to you, everthing you wanted to be
and everthing you did not want to be. Well, I think you lied about
that and you are afraid you might hurt your brain if you think
anything contrary to what Scott said. Am I right?
Pope you say that like its a no-no to have an agenda here. This site
IS an agenda!!! And accuracy is not necessarily the order of the day.
I noticed how everyone dropped my discussion about money like a hot
potato.
Surf wouldn't be the first one around here to feign grammar and
spelling weaknesses.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
   Im not pretending anything you guys   i got some advice on how to
post and some ribbing on posting like i was on a phone texting so i
cleaned my act up.   I have left lauc  My pastor is now leslie hale
Dr.Scott was important to my spiritual growth. posting here has helped
me assess what i belive and why.
        In one of my posts i said thank you dr.Scott for giving me the
push i needed to run to Jesus.    And in another post  I said that
Dr.Scott hurt me.   I have thought about these two statements and put
them in better perspective.  As for thanking him for giving me the
push i needed to run to Jesus.  I was wrong.  The more i think about
what i have learned from him the more i realize that he was always
pushing me toward Jesus.   Mellissa pushed me out the door because  I
Have come to belive that she should be maintaining Docs legacy as
administrative pastor   not pushing her own agenda.  It should be
Dr.scott reruns on every thing that is taught when it comes to his
internet site And shortwave and any tv time purchased.   If she
belives she has an anction she should do it on her own time. and with
moneys collected for her teaching.   If she truly belives that she is
capable of teaching pastors with deep bible language exegesis  then go
do it at that level somewhere else.  But in my opinion her method is
not reaching the ordinary sinner or layperson with the gospel.  There
was only one Dr.Scott!
         As for saying that he hurt me, I realize that I was blaming
the freedom that was set loose in my life by the message of grace
which i recieved from Dr.Scotts teachings.  Dr.Scott used to say that
flesh turned loose  will always turn it into liscence and he was
right. He also said that the price of freedom is association with
nuts,  He was right about that as well.  For twenty years Jesus has
been wrestling with me over issues of what my love is really all about
and being single minded in my walk with him. The message of grace
didn'nt hurt me it freed me and yes through the process my real carnal
self came to the surface so that Jesus could deal with it
appropriatly
 I did'nt know what i was getting into when i first came here you
guys. But i figured while I was here maybe mellissa would hear me?
its not like they answer mail at lauc ya know?
You really are a die hard scotbot. Walking around with a blindfold
on so you can't see or accept the truth that Dr. jean was a charlatan
and scam artist.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
gypsie: Come on Em, surf is definitely getting clarity in his thinking
and this reflects in his posts. If you go to my first posts here, I
was alot more scattered, and, all I knew was docisms (guess when you
grow up with this atmosphere exclusively for so long, there is not
much of anyone else you can communicate with on their level).  How
else can surf or anyone else post here without coming off as using
afgs as a sounding board....... we all have done it.
btw, this is not, I repeat, NOT a suggestion for anyone else to stop
posting, change their manner of posting or change their ideas here,
Gawd wouldn't it be a boring source of amusement if it all came off
like church in here?  Besides, I don't know how to be 'good';
;)))- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
gypsie, read surfkrow's last post up above. This guy is in deep
for never stepping foot in The Cathedral or any other property!
I don't think I ever met a scottbot like this guy, so it leads me
to believe he was this manic high guy even without brainwashing
from Gene Scott.
Funny how Celestias ran to his apron strings when he started
spouting off radical Scottisms. Docamentalism like this can
be dangerous if he doesn't realize his brain has been hotwired
and stolen, taken for a joyride.
I've been there scottbot n' all since I was 15/16 years old but
never did I suspend my own thoughts and spew pure
docamentalist bullshit like this guy!  Oye vey!
Honey, I think Junior swallowed your IUD.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
gypsie: no studio, I am in agreement and am not so certain that he did
not have an up close and personal relationship with planet scott. All
I'm suggesting is that surf be given some slack, for neow, and he does
seem to be organizing his thoughts (which is more than I can say for
other flying monkeys). Plus he is actually taking the time to read
some of the archives which is something most will not do.
Yes I did notice that TOS jumped on him like a duck on a june bug but,
this may actually be the first time either one of them have had
someone to share their docisms with (like does attract like).
My guess is that once we get past the surly stage with surf that he
will probably be a good poster heree??
So this is like the churches Doc criticized. Welcome the newbie
warmly, then proceed to shape them into your idea of what a christian
ought to be.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
RE: "So this is like the churches Doc criticized. Welcome the newbie
warmly, then proceed to shape them into your idea of what a christian
ought to be."
gypsie: don't understand, please elaborate?
Reduced to begging? How pathetic.
Post by Gypsie
Post by Celestias
Post by Gypsie
My guess is that once we get past the surly stage with surf that he
will probably be a good poster heree??
Understand?- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
re:"Understand?"
gypsie: apparently you don't. most newbie escapees from planet scott
go thru a surly, mean spirited stage accompanied with know-it-all,
I've got THE word attitude. My reference was when surf gets past his.
you shadow, will probably take aot longer, to be expected as you need
to release all the 'others'
...
read more »
Didn't I tell you I'm a devil?


BOOOOO
studio
2009-12-08 20:45:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Celestias
So this is like the churches Doc criticized. Welcome the newbie
warmly, then proceed to shape them into your idea of what a christian
ought to be.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
No, much like the church doc ran for years. Tell them your special
while cleaning out their minds....and their wallets.

This is not a church. Why don't you get that?

If anything we might be trying to reshape them back into normal
human beings instead of ranting lunatics for Docamentalism.

I swear, this smurfkow is in deep.
Gypsie
2009-12-08 23:00:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by studio
Post by Celestias
So this is like the churches Doc criticized. Welcome the newbie
warmly, then proceed to shape them into your idea of what a christian
ought to be.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
No, much like the church doc ran for years. Tell them your special
while cleaning out their minds....and their wallets.
This is not  a church. Why don't you get that?
If anything we might be trying to reshape them back into normal
human beings instead of ranting lunatics for Docamentalism.
I swear, this smurfkow is in deep.
gypsie: yup studio. I too look forward to the ending of planet scott
rantings. It is very sad and annoying to have non-communications with
these poor folk (kinda of like trying to communicate with a Jehovah's
Witness).

my brother has been with JW for about 30 years and was well taught how
to talk in circles and say abolsolutely say nothing. He has bragged
and demonstrated it to me. Lots of planet scott rantings are based on
the same training.
Weatherman
2009-12-08 23:16:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gypsie
Post by studio
Post by Celestias
So this is like the churches Doc criticized. Welcome the newbie
warmly, then proceed to shape them into your idea of what a christian
ought to be.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
No, much like the church doc ran for years. Tell them your special
while cleaning out their minds....and their wallets.
This is not  a church. Why don't you get that?
If anything we might be trying to reshape them back into normal
human beings instead of ranting lunatics for Docamentalism.
I swear, this smurfkow is in deep.
gypsie: yup studio. I too look forward to the ending of planet scott
rantings. It is very sad and annoying to have non-communications with
these poor folk (kinda of like trying to communicate with a Jehovah's
Witness).
my brother has been with JW for about 30 years and was well taught how
to talk in circles and say abolsolutely say nothing. He has bragged
and demonstrated it to me. Lots of planet scott rantings are based on
the same training.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
WM-Parrots.
Gypsie
2009-12-08 07:25:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Celestias
Post by Celestias
PS:   Surfcrow, your game is starting to unravel. You first put on
this act of a kind of uncultered type through your grammer and
mispelling. Now we see more of a focused individual with an agenda. As
pointed out here, you could not be disconnecting that fast from LAUC,
and at the same time defend Scott to the level you do. So you instead
created a persona that was out of character for you, and launch it
here to see if it would fly.
Now your lucky you are in good hands here and I would like to see your
success with your spiritual endeavors. For your own sake, you need to
take Scott's teaching to the challenge. Remember he always said to
check-him in an area of teaching at times. So take him up on it. For
instance, find the word Domata, or a word with similar meaning and
where it grants him the level of authority he felt went with it. And
what would be even more impressive is if you could find new
information not used by Scott to defend this or one of his other
arguements.
You said Scott was a father figure to you, everthing you wanted to be
and everthing you did not want to be. Well, I think you lied about
that and you are afraid you might hurt your brain if you think
anything contrary to what Scott said. Am I right?
Pope you say that like its a no-no to have an agenda here. This site
IS an agenda!!! And accuracy is not necessarily the order of the day.
I noticed how everyone dropped my discussion about money like a hot
potato.
Surf wouldn't be the first one around here to feign grammar and
spelling weaknesses.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
   Im not pretending anything you guys   i got some advice on how to
post and some ribbing on posting like i was on a phone texting so i
cleaned my act up.   I have left lauc  My pastor is now leslie hale
Dr.Scott was important to my spiritual growth. posting here has helped
me assess what i belive and why.
        In one of my posts i said thank you dr.Scott for giving me the
push i needed to run to Jesus.    And in another post  I said that
Dr.Scott hurt me.   I have thought about these two statements and put
them in better perspective.  As for thanking him for giving me the
push i needed to run to Jesus.  I was wrong.  The more i think about
what i have learned from him the more i realize that he was always
pushing me toward Jesus.   Mellissa pushed me out the door because  I
Have come to belive that she should be maintaining Docs legacy as
administrative pastor   not pushing her own agenda.  It should be
Dr.scott reruns on every thing that is taught when it comes to his
internet site And shortwave and any tv time purchased.   If she
belives she has an anction she should do it on her own time. and with
moneys collected for her teaching.   If she truly belives that she is
capable of teaching pastors with deep bible language exegesis  then go
do it at that level somewhere else.  But in my opinion her method is
not reaching the ordinary sinner or layperson with the gospel.  There
was only one Dr.Scott!
         As for saying that he hurt me, I realize that I was blaming
the freedom that was set loose in my life by the message of grace
which i recieved from Dr.Scotts teachings.  Dr.Scott used to say that
flesh turned loose  will always turn it into liscence and he was
right. He also said that the price of freedom is association with
nuts,  He was right about that as well.  For twenty years Jesus has
been wrestling with me over issues of what my love is really all about
and being single minded in my walk with him. The message of grace
didn'nt hurt me it freed me and yes through the process my real carnal
self came to the surface so that Jesus could deal with it
appropriatly
 I did'nt know what i was getting into when i first came here you
guys. But i figured while I was here maybe mellissa would hear me?
its not like they answer mail at lauc ya know?- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
gypsie: the fastest way for missy to hear you is to put a message on
You Tube or some such thing like that!! Her attorneys luv these sites
and will send you a courtesy letter but, it will also get the message
across. jest an idea
Celestias
2009-12-08 07:31:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gypsie
gypsie: the fastest way for missy to hear you is to put a message on
You Tube or some such thing like that!! Her attorneys luv these sites
and will send you a courtesy letter but, it will also get the message
across. jest an idea
What sort of courtesy letter? Would you have to make a video, or just
comment on one?
Gypsie
2009-12-08 07:34:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Celestias
Post by Gypsie
gypsie: the fastest way for missy to hear you is to put a message on
You Tube or some such thing like that!! Her attorneys luv these sites
and will send you a courtesy letter but, it will also get the message
across. jest an idea
What sort of courtesy letter? Would you have to make a video, or just
comment on one?
gypsie: re how to and what to upload check with afgs productions here
in this ng. your message is your own. courtesy letter? much like the
initial one you got from the attorneys.... cease and desist.
Celestias
2009-12-08 07:40:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gypsie
Post by Celestias
Post by Gypsie
gypsie: the fastest way for missy to hear you is to put a message on
You Tube or some such thing like that!! Her attorneys luv these sites
and will send you a courtesy letter but, it will also get the message
across. jest an idea
What sort of courtesy letter? Would you have to make a video, or just
comment on one?
gypsie: re how to and what to upload check with afgs productions here
in this ng. your message is your own. courtesy letter? much like the
initial one you got from the attorneys.... cease and desist.
Would it include any kind of legal threat?
Gypsie
2009-12-08 08:10:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Celestias
Post by Gypsie
Post by Celestias
Post by Gypsie
gypsie: the fastest way for missy to hear you is to put a message on
You Tube or some such thing like that!! Her attorneys luv these sites
and will send you a courtesy letter but, it will also get the message
across. jest an idea
What sort of courtesy letter? Would you have to make a video, or just
comment on one?
gypsie: re how to and what to upload check with afgs productions here
in this ng. your message is your own. courtesy letter? much like the
initial one you got from the attorneys.... cease and desist.
Would it include any kind of legal threat?
gypsie: omit copyright infringement and take it down when asked. Some
one (incl her attys) will keep it as will you? You can always put up
another one. afgs productions can relate some of their experiences to
make this more clear. I haven not personally posted anything there so
I probably am not the best one to give more advice.
Celestias
2009-12-08 08:17:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gypsie
Post by Celestias
Post by Gypsie
Post by Celestias
Post by Gypsie
gypsie: the fastest way for missy to hear you is to put a message on
You Tube or some such thing like that!! Her attorneys luv these sites
and will send you a courtesy letter but, it will also get the message
across. jest an idea
What sort of courtesy letter? Would you have to make a video, or just
comment on one?
gypsie: re how to and what to upload check with afgs productions here
in this ng. your message is your own. courtesy letter? much like the
initial one you got from the attorneys.... cease and desist.
Would it include any kind of legal threat?
gypsie: omit copyright infringement and take it down when asked. Some
one (incl her attys) will keep it as will you? You can always put up
another one. afgs productions can relate some of their experiences to
make this more clear. I haven not personally posted anything there so
I probably am not the best one to give more advice.
What is afgs productions?
Gypsie
2009-12-08 08:23:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gypsie
Post by Celestias
Post by Gypsie
Post by Celestias
Post by Gypsie
gypsie: the fastest way for missy to hear you is to put a message on
You Tube or some such thing like that!! Her attorneys luv these sites
and will send you a courtesy letter but, it will also get the message
across. jest an idea
What sort of courtesy letter? Would you have to make a video, or just
comment on one?
gypsie: re how to and what to upload check with afgs productions here
in this ng. your message is your own. courtesy letter? much like the
initial one you got from the attorneys.... cease and desist.
Would it include any kind of legal threat?
gypsie: omit copyright infringement and take it down when asked. Some
one (incl her attys) will keep it as will you? You can always put up
another one. afgs productions can relate some of their experiences to
make this more clear. I haven not personally posted anything there so
I probably am not the best one to give more advice.
What is afgs productions?- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
gypsie: post a message to afgs productions here and they will respond
if they care to.
Celestias
2009-12-08 08:30:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gypsie
Post by Gypsie
Post by Celestias
Post by Gypsie
Post by Celestias
Post by Gypsie
gypsie: the fastest way for missy to hear you is to put a message on
You Tube or some such thing like that!! Her attorneys luv these sites
and will send you a courtesy letter but, it will also get the message
across. jest an idea
What sort of courtesy letter? Would you have to make a video, or just
comment on one?
gypsie: re how to and what to upload check with afgs productions here
in this ng. your message is your own. courtesy letter? much like the
initial one you got from the attorneys.... cease and desist.
Would it include any kind of legal threat?
gypsie: omit copyright infringement and take it down when asked. Some
one (incl her attys) will keep it as will you? You can always put up
another one. afgs productions can relate some of their experiences to
make this more clear. I haven not personally posted anything there so
I probably am not the best one to give more advice.
What is afgs productions?- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
gypsie: post a message to afgs productions here and they will respond
if they care to.
What, like a group within a group? The way you say it, do I need to
swing a dead chicken first?
Gypsie
2009-12-08 10:47:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Celestias
Post by Gypsie
Post by Gypsie
Post by Celestias
Post by Gypsie
Post by Celestias
Post by Gypsie
gypsie: the fastest way for missy to hear you is to put a message on
You Tube or some such thing like that!! Her attorneys luv these sites
and will send you a courtesy letter but, it will also get the message
across. jest an idea
What sort of courtesy letter? Would you have to make a video, or just
comment on one?
gypsie: re how to and what to upload check with afgs productions here
in this ng. your message is your own. courtesy letter? much like the
initial one you got from the attorneys.... cease and desist.
Would it include any kind of legal threat?
gypsie: omit copyright infringement and take it down when asked. Some
one (incl her attys) will keep it as will you? You can always put up
another one. afgs productions can relate some of their experiences to
make this more clear. I haven not personally posted anything there so
I probably am not the best one to give more advice.
What is afgs productions?- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
gypsie: post a message to afgs productions here and they will respond
if they care to.
What, like a group within a group? The way you say it, do I need to
swing a dead chicken first?- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
gypsie: r u a virgin? know any?
rpbc
2009-12-08 22:39:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Celestias
Post by Celestias
PS:   Surfcrow, your game is starting to unravel. You first put on
this act of a kind of uncultered type through your grammer and
mispelling. Now we see more of a focused individual with an agenda. As
pointed out here, you could not be disconnecting that fast from LAUC,
and at the same time defend Scott to the level you do. So you instead
created a persona that was out of character for you, and launch it
here to see if it would fly.
Now your lucky you are in good hands here and I would like to see your
success with your spiritual endeavors. For your own sake, you need to
take Scott's teaching to the challenge. Remember he always said to
check-him in an area of teaching at times. So take him up on it. For
instance, find the word Domata, or a word with similar meaning and
where it grants him the level of authority he felt went with it. And
what would be even more impressive is if you could find new
information not used by Scott to defend this or one of his other
arguements.
You said Scott was a father figure to you, everthing you wanted to be
and everthing you did not want to be. Well, I think you lied about
that and you are afraid you might hurt your brain if you think
anything contrary to what Scott said. Am I right?
Pope you say that like its a no-no to have an agenda here. This site
IS an agenda!!! And accuracy is not necessarily the order of the day.
I noticed how everyone dropped my discussion about money like a hot
potato.
Surf wouldn't be the first one around here to feign grammar and
spelling weaknesses.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
   Im not pretending anything you guys   i got some advice on how to
post and some ribbing on posting like i was on a phone texting so i
cleaned my act up.   I have left lauc  My pastor is now leslie hale
Dr.Scott was important to my spiritual growth. posting here has helped
me assess what i belive and why.
        In one of my posts i said thank you dr.Scott for giving me the
push i needed to run to Jesus.    And in another post  I said that
Dr.Scott hurt me.   I have thought about these two statements and put
them in better perspective.  As for thanking him for giving me the
push i needed to run to Jesus.  I was wrong.  The more i think about
what i have learned from him the more i realize that he was always
pushing me toward Jesus.   Mellissa pushed me out the door because  I
Have come to belive that she should be maintaining Docs legacy as
administrative pastor   not pushing her own agenda.  It should be
Dr.scott reruns on every thing that is taught when it comes to his
internet site And shortwave and any tv time purchased.   If she
belives she has an anction she should do it on her own time. and with
moneys collected for her teaching.   If she truly belives that she is
capable of teaching pastors with deep bible language exegesis  then go
do it at that level somewhere else.  But in my opinion her method is
not reaching the ordinary sinner or layperson with the gospel.  There
was only one Dr.Scott!
         As for saying that he hurt me, I realize that I was blaming
the freedom that was set loose in my life by the message of grace
which i recieved from Dr.Scotts teachings.  Dr.Scott used to say that
flesh turned loose  will always turn it into liscence and he was
right. He also said that the price of freedom is association with
nuts,  He was right about that as well.  For twenty years Jesus has
been wrestling with me over issues of what my love is really all about
and being single minded in my walk with him. The message of grace
didn'nt hurt me it freed me and yes through the process my real carnal
self came to the surface so that Jesus could deal with it
appropriatly
 I did'nt know what i was getting into when i first came here you
guys. But i figured while I was here maybe mellissa would hear me?
its not like they answer mail at lauc ya know?- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
rpbc:
Oh, Melissa reads here all right. Most of LUAC does, more or less
depending on if there's a crisis or personal problem that rises to the
surface from there. But if you want her to take you seriously first
you'll have to demonstrate that you 'get it'. Doc said she was the
only one who 'got it' after thirty five years... what do you think he,
domatah and all, meant by that..... ?
Emmett
2009-12-08 05:29:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Emmett
Post by Emmett
snip
Post by surfkrow
"tithe action BS" is a misnomer. You were expounding upon
giving not tithing and there is a difference. Tithing is an act of
stewardship and giving is an act of worship.
Tithe was an old Testament "LAW" that you had to give 10% of all you
had.
Please show me in the N.T. where it tells Christians we have to
tithe???
Jesus freed us from the O.T. law.
"giving is an act of worship" You aren't going to give us that BS
about
"worth-ship" meaning "worship" that Dr. jean made up are you???
As for the "action BS"
Post by surfkrow
God declares a promise to the faithfull THAT ACT on this matter. In
Malachi 3:10 God says "Bring ye all the tithes into the storehouse,
that there may be meat in mine house and prove me now herewith, saith
the Lord of hosts, if i will not open you the windows of heaven and
pour you out a blessing that there will not be room enough to contain
it. I would'nt call Gods promise and our call to act upon it BS if I
were you. God may not like it very much...
That is O.T. law in Mal 3:10. We are free of the O.T. law
or maybe you didn't know it.
Post by surfkrow
"Unfortunately, religion does have alot to do with fear. Fear
due to a lack of knowledge. Scott almost made a difference here."
Dr. Scott did make a difference. Of the many examples i could draw
from, his teachings on communion established the table of the lord as
a table of grace not guilt through passing on the knowledge that to
partake in an unworthily manner (not discerning the body of the lord
in that he paid the price of our sins) is different from false
teaching that mis-quotes scripture to read that we must examine
ourselves to see if we are to unworthy to partake of the lords body
which produces guilt and thus, fear of hell. And guilt is the
primary source for fear of hell in the body of christ...
Here again Dr. jean made this stuff up. I've been a Christian for
many
years and have attended many churches and I have never came
across Dr. jean's allagations that we had some kind of fear when
receiving communion. Just plane crazy.
Post by surfkrow
On the one
Post by PopeChumpo
hand he was teaching the liberty you have from the law through the
gospel of Jesus revealed in Paul's letters,
yes i agree...
but on the other hand was
Post by PopeChumpo
creating his own requirements of faith works of giving
Again what are you talking about here giving or tithing? If
your talking about tithing than i already addressed the matter so NO
he did not create his own requirements for faith works because in the
context of the tithe it is God that prompts believers to ACT (in
faith) as a precondition to recieving the blessing. If however, you
are refering to giving, which is an act of worship, then we will
continue with that premis.
Dr.Scott twisted the requirements for having Jesus' life in us by
creating his own requirements that faith works of giving (the action
of it) were neccessary as a pre-condition for God to aknowledge that
we had faith and therefor the deposit of his own life in us.
More Dr. jean BS. We don't give in order to receive a blessing.
We give because we have already received a blessing.
Post by surfkrow
Thats just another way of saying you could buy your way into
heaven! Contrarily, Dr.Scott taught that you could buy your way
straight into hell if you thought that the act of faith giving
(alone) would get you into heaven. Dr.Scott taught Gods word in its
proper context, Mat. 26:13 makes it clear that wherever the gospel is
preached you tell what the woman with the alabaster box did. Do you
know what she did? she took the most precious thing she had and
annointed him with it. Now ask youself a question. Why did Jesus want
her memorialized every time the good news of the Gospel is preached
(taught, whatever...) I am not going to answer that for you.
further more he taught on giving in the context of Gal. 6:6-8 that
when giving is done for the right reasons (in response to having been
taught in the word) than the act of giving is considered sowing to
the spirit and subsuquently "ye shall of the spirit reap life
everlasting.
Gal 6:6-8 is not talking about giving money as Dr. jean said.
It says "good things". Money in the Bible is not considered a good
thing.
Sharing the word of God is a good thing. Sharing the faith is a good
thing.
Post by surfkrow
You ask "My question is did Scott know the truth but choose the
add on tithe BS in fear of not making it financialy or was he not
capable of comprehending What the gospels actualy say."
Did he know the truth? In my opinion, Yes. Did he choose the add on
tithe BS because he was afraid of not making it financialy. No, He
taught the add on tithe BS because it is sound biblical teaching and
he was a sound biblical teacher. Was he capable of of comprehending
What the gospels actualy say? Yes...
The tithe is not a N.T. biblical teaching.
Dr. jean was able to make someone like you a believer in his
BS because you are ignorant of the Bible and it's teachings.
Simple as that.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Dr. jean was able to make someone like you a believer in his
Post by Emmett
BS because you are ignorant of the Bible and it's teachings.
Simple as that.
That will be for the readers of this thread to decide.
As for me all u proved is that you had to resort to vague
accusation :)
Emmett writes:
You can't handle the truth.
Now you can go worth-ship. Duh!!
Emmett
2009-12-07 08:12:11 UTC
Permalink
On 6 Dec, 14:21, surfkrow <***@yahoo.com> wrote:

snip
Post by surfkrow
Dr. Scott did make a difference. Of the many examples i could draw
from, his teachings on communion established the table of the lord as
a table of grace not guilt through passing on the knowledge that to
partake in an unworthily manner (not discerning the body of the lord
in that he paid the price of our sins) is different from false
teaching that mis-quotes scripture to read that we must examine
ourselves to see if we are to unworthy to partake of the lords body
which produces guilt and thus, fear of hell. And guilt is the
primary source for fear of hell in the body of christ...
Emmett writes:
Dr. jean's biggest teaching on communion was: If you took
communion worthily then God "HAD" to heal you of your
physical illnesses. Dr. jean taught this for 4 years because that
was how he thought he was healed from his prostate cancer.
It was called healing through communion. Dr Jean was taking
communion worthily 10 times a day and wasn't being healed.
That was when Dr. jean started saying God is a liar and spitting
on His Son.
Well.......... we know that part of Dr. jean's teaching was wrong
because Dr. jean died.
Celestias
2009-12-07 10:38:58 UTC
Permalink
                                 snip
Dr. Scott did make a difference.  Of the many examples i could draw
from, his teachings on communion established the table of the lord as
a table of grace not guilt through passing on the knowledge that to
partake in an unworthily manner (not discerning the body of the lord
in that he paid the price of our sins) is different from false
teaching that mis-quotes scripture to read that we must examine
ourselves to see if we are to unworthy to partake of the lords body
which produces guilt and thus, fear of hell.  And guilt is the
primary source for fear of hell in the body of christ...
Dr. jean's biggest teaching on communion was: If you took
communion worthily then God "HAD" to heal you of your
physical illnesses. Dr. jean taught this for 4 years because that
was how he thought he was healed from his prostate cancer.
It was called healing through communion. Dr Jean was taking
communion worthily 10 times a day and wasn't being healed.
That was when Dr. jean started saying God is a liar and spitting
on His Son.
Well.......... we know that part of Dr. jean's teaching was wrong
because Dr. jean died.
I wonder what his teaching would've been like if he'd used painkillers
instead of enduring the pain.
Emmett
2009-12-07 16:46:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Celestias
Post by Emmett
snip
Post by surfkrow
Dr. Scott did make a difference. Of the many examples i could draw
from, his teachings on communion established the table of the lord as
a table of grace not guilt through passing on the knowledge that to
partake in an unworthily manner (not discerning the body of the lord
in that he paid the price of our sins) is different from false
teaching that mis-quotes scripture to read that we must examine
ourselves to see if we are to unworthy to partake of the lords body
which produces guilt and thus, fear of hell. And guilt is the
primary source for fear of hell in the body of christ...
Dr. jean's biggest teaching on communion was: If you took
communion worthily then God "HAD" to heal you of your
physical illnesses. Dr. jean taught this for 4 years because that
was how he thought he was healed from his prostate cancer.
It was called healing through communion. Dr Jean was taking
communion worthily 10 times a day and wasn't being healed.
That was when Dr. jean started saying God is a liar and spitting
on His Son.
Well.......... we know that part of Dr. jean's teaching was wrong
because Dr. jean died.
I wonder what his teaching would've been like if he'd used painkillers
instead of enduring the pain.
Emmett writes:
How do you know he didn't take anything for pain???
He was only in pain, according to him, the last year
when he started experiencing nausea and couldn't lay down.
Beside, all his BS teachings were done over the years
and as he needed more money they became more distorted.
Dr. jean was a charlatan and scam artist who conned you
and you still can't get over it.
Weatherman
2009-12-07 17:05:39 UTC
Permalink
Micah
6:7 Will Yahweh be pleased with thousands of rams? With tens of
thousands of rivers of oil? Shall I give my firstborn for my
disobedience? The fruit of my body for the sin of my soul?

6:8 He has shown you, O man, what is good. What does Yahweh require
of you, but to act justly, To love mercy, and to walk humbly with your
God?


Ask some ministers even some on tv how they stay on and hardly ask for
help? And compare them to Murduck for a sample.
H8N S8N
2009-12-07 19:41:22 UTC
Permalink
Emmett writes:
How do you know he didn't take anything for pain???

H8n:
I know for a fact, before he broke
Covenant #2 he made before God?
There was an unusual amount of
Hard Liquor bottles in his, not the
ranch trash. This would have been
roughly 1991-3

Christine was just not big enough to
consume that amount.

H8n
Weatherman
2009-12-07 12:53:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by matt2442
- Show quoted text -
Mat. 26:13 makes it clear that wherever the gospel is
Post by matt2442
preached you tell what the woman with the alabaster box did. Do you
know what she did? she took the most precious thing she had and
annointed him with it. Now ask youself a question. Why did Jesus want
her memorialized every time the good news of the Gospel is preached
(taught, whatever...) I am not going to answer that for you.
WM-This is not about what you think its about. If all you see is the
value of the contents of the box then your not far removed form the
Judas mentality. She didnt just pour anything of value on Jesus nor
was it simply an exstream outpouring of the womans heart.

A minister that sees this as something that should be poured out in
his direction is like I said really more like Judas.

Even Judas noted it as a waste. Something spilled out that could not
be gatered again for use by anyone.

And its not even an offering but a memorial a recognition. It was an
act full of symbology, found in the OT. Mary somehow figured it out.
Celestias
2009-12-07 13:37:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by surfkrow
Post by matt2442
- Show quoted text -
Mat. 26:13 makes it clear that wherever the gospel is
Post by matt2442
preached you tell what the woman with the alabaster box did. Do you
know what she did?  she took the most precious thing she had  and
annointed him with it. Now ask youself a question. Why did Jesus want
her memorialized every time the good news of the Gospel is preached
(taught, whatever...) I am not going to answer that for you.
WM-This is not about what you think its about. If all you see is the
value of the contents of the box then your not far removed form the
Judas mentality. She didnt just pour anything of value on Jesus nor
was it simply an exstream outpouring of the womans heart.
A minister that sees this as something that should be poured out in
his direction is like I said really more like Judas.
Even Judas noted it as a waste. Something spilled out that could not
be gatered again for use by anyone.
And its not even an offering but a memorial a recognition. It was an
act full of symbology, found in the OT. Mary somehow figured it out.
So are you saying we should remember what the woman did and tell about
it, but not do what she did? Jesus didn't say we should do it, did
he?. Hmmm, I never noticed that before.

But I'd still like an answer to why Jesus told us to remember and tell
about it. Anybody got one?
Weatherman
2009-12-07 16:44:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Celestias
Post by surfkrow
Post by matt2442
- Show quoted text -
Mat. 26:13 makes it clear that wherever the gospel is
Post by matt2442
preached you tell what the woman with the alabaster box did. Do you
know what she did?  she took the most precious thing she had  and
annointed him with it. Now ask youself a question. Why did Jesus want
her memorialized every time the good news of the Gospel is preached
(taught, whatever...) I am not going to answer that for you.
WM-This is not about what you think its about. If all you see is the
value of the contents of the box then your not far removed form the
Judas mentality. She didnt just pour anything of value on Jesus nor
was it simply an exstream outpouring of the womans heart.
A minister that sees this as something that should be poured out in
his direction is like I said really more like Judas.
Even Judas noted it as a waste. Something spilled out that could not
be gatered again for use by anyone.
And its not even an offering but a memorial a recognition. It was an
act full of symbology, found in the OT. Mary somehow figured it out.
So are you saying we should remember what the woman did and tell about
it, but not do what she did? Jesus didn't say we should do it, did
he?. Hmmm, I never noticed that before.
But I'd still like an answer to why Jesus told us to remember and tell
about it. Anybody got one?- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
WM-It has to due with the fact that Mary was anointing Christ as
offering with special oil of the apothecary. Jesus was the offering
here the sweet savor offering, a memorial was made in acordance with
OT. Not all offerings where made with the speical oil, the apothecary
mixing with the meat. Thats what this is all about.

At this point Mary represents the "whore" in Eze that had set the oil
and incense before strangers but has now gotten her mind right and was
anointing her King in preperation for his offering. This act of hers
had national as well as personal implications per Moses and the
prophets.

It really has nothing to do with the value of whats in the box.
Conversion value that it. And dont these that convert this act and
value of whats in the box to a cash equivalent share guilt like Judas?
This is the wrong kind of offering here to be using it as a sort of
silver sheckel transaction. This was Christ putting Himself on the
line as burnt sweet savor offering.

Some say tithe is before the law that it goes back to the tree in the
garden. Even this has been restored in Christ. And if the tithe is
some sort of pure faith related giving thing why was it incorperated
into the law? Considering the tithe in the law and or its application
to the tree we miss Christ when we give according to measure.

Jacob said if you do this God then I will do that, give a tenth. Was
that really faith? Nope. Joseph had faith and he saved his people.
rpbc
2009-12-07 19:27:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Celestias
Post by surfkrow
Post by matt2442
- Show quoted text -
Mat. 26:13 makes it clear that wherever the gospel is
Post by matt2442
preached you tell what the woman with the alabaster box did. Do you
know what she did?  she took the most precious thing she had  and
annointed him with it. Now ask youself a question. Why did Jesus want
her memorialized every time the good news of the Gospel is preached
(taught, whatever...) I am not going to answer that for you.
WM-This is not about what you think its about. If all you see is the
value of the contents of the box then your not far removed form the
Judas mentality. She didnt just pour anything of value on Jesus nor
was it simply an exstream outpouring of the womans heart.
A minister that sees this as something that should be poured out in
his direction is like I said really more like Judas.
Even Judas noted it as a waste. Something spilled out that could not
be gatered again for use by anyone.
And its not even an offering but a memorial a recognition. It was an
act full of symbology, found in the OT. Mary somehow figured it out.
So are you saying we should remember what the woman did and tell about
it, but not do what she did? Jesus didn't say we should do it, did
he?. Hmmm, I never noticed that before.
But I'd still like an answer to why Jesus told us to remember and tell
about it. Anybody got one?- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
rpbc:
I haven't heard anybody say we should remember what the woman did and
tell about it but not do what she did. Next time I see Jesus and his
feet are tired and sore I'll give what ever I have to comfort Him.
The issue was Gene Scott using the story as a vehicle for giving to
him equating his teaching, and through that, himself, to Jesus. He
certainly did attach the two to each other and with hell and damnation
if you didn't. Agree with him in that or not it's still what he,
Gene Scott, did. Who's going to argue with the unqualified statement
about giving to God when it's all His in the first place. It's those
who insert themselves into that line of giving and make one's
salvation dependent upon it that is the Gene Scott subject here.
H8N S8N
2009-12-07 19:44:59 UTC
Permalink
rpbc writes:
Gene Scott (was) using the story(s) as a vehicle
for giving to him (for) his teaching, and through that,
himself, to Jesus.

H8n:
He was the champion!
He could randomly select any scripture and?
Gypsie
2009-12-07 20:25:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by H8N S8N
Gene Scott (was) using the story(s) as a vehicle
for giving to him (for) his teaching, and through that,
himself, to Jesus.
He was the champion!
He could randomly select any scripture and?
gypsie: yup h8n, doc used to brag that he could make a giving message
out of ANYTHING in the bahbull
studio
2009-12-07 23:57:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by H8N S8N
Gene Scott (was) using the story(s) as a vehicle
for giving to him (for) his teaching, and through that,
himself, to Jesus.
He was the champion!
He could randomly select any scripture and?
Twist it.


He would fricken twist scripture to accomodate an
inaccurate stance on tithes and offerings. He also
in his last years included a person's time while
not calling it volunteerism, he would spiritualize it
and call it by many different names. Gideon Bands,
Voices of Faith, Philipian Band, Alabaster box etc.

Melissa is now trying to spiritualize a communion
segment and create an atmosphere of church for
the TV audience. At least there's hope that it
will not include any Barbie Bible Babble, but
I'm not sure about that.
matt2442
2009-12-07 21:05:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by rpbc
Post by Celestias
Post by surfkrow
Post by matt2442
- Show quoted text -
Mat. 26:13 makes it clear that wherever the gospel is
Post by matt2442
preached you tell what the woman with the alabaster box did. Do you
know what she did?  she took the most precious thing she had  and
annointed him with it. Now ask youself a question. Why did Jesus want
her memorialized every time the good news of the Gospel is preached
(taught, whatever...) I am not going to answer that for you.
WM-This is not about what you think its about. If all you see is the
value of the contents of the box then your not far removed form the
Judas mentality. She didnt just pour anything of value on Jesus nor
was it simply an exstream outpouring of the womans heart.
A minister that sees this as something that should be poured out in
his direction is like I said really more like Judas.
Even Judas noted it as a waste. Something spilled out that could not
be gatered again for use by anyone.
And its not even an offering but a memorial a recognition. It was an
act full of symbology, found in the OT. Mary somehow figured it out.
So are you saying we should remember what the woman did and tell about
it, but not do what she did? Jesus didn't say we should do it, did
he?. Hmmm, I never noticed that before.
But I'd still like an answer to why Jesus told us to remember and tell
about it. Anybody got one?- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
The issue was Gene Scott using the story as a vehicle for giving to
him equating his teaching, and through that, himself, to Jesus.  He
certainly did attach the two to each other and with hell and damnation
if you didn't.  
Matt2442:
Yes, he definitely did that.
matt2442
2009-12-06 21:26:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Celestias
The last guy on that first thread says....
"He plays on peoples' fears."
Well isn't that what religion is all about? People are afraid of going
to hell.
BTW, in 1993 wasn't the internet mostly just used by schools, etc?
Matt2442:
Playing on people's fears means that yes, people are afraid of going
to hell, and there are charlatans ready to cash in on those fears,
making people believe that they must pay them to stay out of hell.
Yes, at that time I'm pretty sure there wasn't much public use of the
internet yet. Just a couple more years though. I first got on the
internet in 1996. I didn't have a computer until then.
DP
2009-12-07 21:33:23 UTC
Permalink
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.gene-scott/browse_frm/month/19...
The very first AFGS thread. It might be fun to spend a little time
sampling some posts through the early years to see what people were
discussing.
The earliest posting of mine that I could find was from March 1996,
near the end
of the month on the topic of "Sammy & John."

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.gene-scott/browse_frm/month/1996-03

I enjoyed posting the "Vintage Doc" series back then, gathered from
broadcasts
I saw on Channel 38.

-DP
Loading...