Important Announcement regarding the Alternative Views Subforum

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

Good points bro Ohio. Nee was so against government that he didn't pay 'em taxes (didn't render to Caesar). That got him arrested. Then he relented toward government ... and changed his mind, to get a lighter sentence ... and admitted many more sins toward those efforts ... damaging many, and his ministry, in the process. Martyr my behind. Witness Lee go tell it to those who don't know you, or Nee.

Should we trust Nee, or Lee, about anything?

An ad hominem argument is a fallacy unless it can be shown that the character of the proposer is relevant to the truth of his/her proposition. Even a pathological liar may correctly observe that the sky is blue. So, it doesn't necessarily follow that if Nee transgressed then his propositions regarding politics are false. If you wish to refute Nee's points, you can't just attack Nee. You actually have to show how they are false.

[testallthings]

WE WILL NEVER SAY THAT WE CAN NEVER BE WRONG! (WATCHMAN NEE)

"We will never say that we can never be wrong! Even if all others approve us, we will be the last to approve ourselves. It may be that our mistakes are more numerous than those of others! But, dear brothers, we are willing to follow the Bible literally. If we are wrong, we are indeed willing to be corrected. We would ask those who know where we are wrong to please point out to us our mistakes from the teachings of the Bible, and not from the opinions of men. We know that we are not trustworthy. This is why we trust in the Bible. Since we know that we are not trustworthy, we would also ask your forgiveness in our unwillingness to trust in any famous Bible expositor. We admit that the exposition in The Christian is quite different from the traditional interpretations of men. We are definitely not for our readers to follow us blindly. If they do this, it would be better for The Christian to cease its publication. We can only proclaim the truth that we know. Our readers should never think that what The Christian has said can never contain any mistake. We have to tell the brothers frankly that we do not believe we are like the biblical prophets who wrote the Scriptures by divine inspiration. We can make mistakes. Even though those who love The Christian are increasing day by day, perhaps no one is more aware of the shortcomings of the magazine than the editor himself. The Lord also knows our shortcomings. We hope that every reader will check our messages against the teachings of the Bible. If they are the same, then please pay the price to follow these teachings. If they are not the same, we advise you to refuse them totally. Never follow blindly just because you trust The Christian and its editor. Our unique goal is to lead people closer to God's living word and His written Word. If a man can be drawn closer to Christ and to the Bible, our work has received its great reward. I wish that The Christian would simply be something like a pontoon bridge, something that is used and then forgotten, with itself receiving no recognition at all."

COLLECTED WORKS OF WATCHMAN NEE, THE (SET 1) VOL. 07: THE CHRISTIAN (5)

Chapter 19 Section 1

[awareness]

Originally Posted by testallthings

WE WILL NEVER SAY THAT WE CAN NEVER BE WRONG! (WATCHMAN NEE)

"We will never say that we can never be wrong! Even if all others approve us, we will be the last to approve ourselves. It may be that our mistakes are more numerous than those of others! But, dear brothers, we are willing to follow the Bible literally. If we are wrong, we are indeed willing to be corrected. We would ask those who know where we are wrong to please point out to us our mistakes from the teachings of the Bible, and not from the opinions of men. We know that we are not trustworthy. This is why we trust in the Bible. Since we know that we are not trustworthy, we would also ask your forgiveness in our unwillingness to trust in any famous Bible expositor. We admit that the exposition in The Christian is quite different from the traditional interpretations of men. We are definitely not for our readers to follow us blindly. If they do this, it would be better for The Christian to cease its publication. We can only proclaim the truth that we know. Our readers should never think that what The Christian has said can never contain any mistake. We have to tell the brothers frankly that we do not believe we are like the biblical prophets who wrote the Scriptures by divine inspiration. We can make mistakes. Even though those who love The Christian are increasing day by day, perhaps no one is more aware of the shortcomings of the magazine than the editor himself. The Lord also knows our shortcomings. We hope that every reader will check our messages against the teachings of the Bible. If they are the same, then please pay the price to follow these teachings. If they are not the same, we advise you to refuse them totally. Never follow blindly just because you trust The Christian and its editor. Our unique goal is to lead people closer to God's living word and His written Word. If a man can be drawn closer to Christ and to the Bible, our work has received its great reward. I wish that The Christian would simply be something like a pontoon bridge, something that is used and then forgotten, with itself receiving no recognition at all."

COLLECTED WORKS OF WATCHMAN NEE, THE (SET 1) VOL. 07: THE CHRISTIAN (5)

Chapter 19 Section 1

These are great words from Nee. Nee said a lot of great things. But in the end, from what I've learned, and seen with my own eyes in Lee's movement in America, he says one thing and produces another ; not to mention is own personal sexual improprieties, in his hidden personal life.

So what was your purpose in posting it testallthings?

[zeek]

Originally Posted by testallthings

WE WILL NEVER SAY THAT WE CAN NEVER BE WRONG! (WATCHMAN NEE)




"We will never say that we can never be wrong! Even if all others approve us, we will be the last to approve ourselves. It may be that our mistakes are more numerous than those of others! But, dear brothers, we are willing to follow the Bible literally. If we are wrong, we are indeed willing to be corrected. We would ask those who know where we are wrong to please point out to us our mistakes from the teachings of the Bible, and not from the opinions of men. We know that we are not trustworthy. This is why we trust in the Bible. Since we know that we are not trustworthy, we would also ask your forgiveness in our unwillingness to trust in any famous Bible expositor. We admit that the exposition in The Christian is quite different from the traditional interpretations of men. We are definitely not for our readers to follow us blindly. If they do this, it would be better for The Christian to cease its publication. We can only proclaim the truth that we know. Our readers should never think that what The Christian has said can never contain any mistake. We have to tell the brothers frankly that we do not believe we are like the biblical prophets who wrote the Scriptures by divine inspiration. We can make mistakes. Even though those who love The Christian are increasing day by day, perhaps no one is more aware of the shortcomings of the magazine than the editor himself. The Lord also knows our shortcomings. We hope that every reader will check our messages against the teachings of the Bible. If they are the same, then please pay the price to follow these teachings. If they are not the same, we advise you to refuse them totally. Never follow blindly just because you trust The Christian and its editor. Our unique goal is to lead people closer to God's living word and His written Word. If a man can be drawn closer to Christ and to the Bible, our work has received its great reward. I wish that The Christian would simply be something like a pontoon bridge, something that is used and then forgotten, with itself receiving no recognition at all."

COLLECTED WORKS OF WATCHMAN NEE, THE (SET 1) VOL. 07: THE CHRISTIAN (5)

Chapter 19 Section 1

Humble words those, but when others actually did say "we" were wrong 'we" sued the pants off of them. So "we" said one thing and did another. Let me know if I'm "wrong" but I think that's called hypocrisy.

[Ohio]

Separation of politics and religion is a fine teaching in the Bible. "You know that those who are esteemed as rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them. But it is not so among you [the Christians]" (Mark 10:42-43). The Lord Jesus declared that His kingdom is not of this world. Hence, the church, which is subject to the Lord, does not need to go to war. But the question now is much deeper than that of separation between politics and religion.

This is similar to Jefferson's federalist statement "the separation of church and state." It was not that the church could not be a part of the state, but that the state could not rule the church. That was the separation the framers intended.

Jesus said, "it is not so among you," meaning that in the church no leader should exercise authority as the Gentiles do. Jesus never said that His children could not engage in any politics. Where is that specific verse? Notice how many liberties Nee takes to promulgate his own opinions.

Note that in this first paragraph, Nee's most provocative point was that the church does not need to go to war. He got that from Mark 10.42-43? Seriously? Is that like Cassius Clay becoming a "conscientious objector" so that he could dodge the draft and remain a professional boxer? Pulleeease! What about all those verses about submitting to authorities? Jesus said "His kingdom is not of this world," does that also mean that we should not live in houses because we are the "house of God?"

[Ohio]

We should look at the teaching in the Bible. The Lord Jesus left us "a model so that you may follow in His steps" (1 Pet. 2:21). The Lord is our example in everything. We will not go wrong if we follow Him in respect to our relationship to politics. Was the Lord Jesus a politician? Did He pay attention to the politics of His country? Did He ever represent the voice of the people to criticize the officers of Palestine? Did He ever rebuke the political oppressors on behalf of the politically oppressed? Did He ever rally any political power around Him? Please read Luke 12:14; 13:1-3; Matthew 17:24; 22:21.

I agree, the Lord Jesus was our model, and He was never a politician. He surely did, however, pay attention to the leaders of Israel. Remember our Lord was not sent to Rome or Greece or Egypt, He came to Israel as the prophets have told us. And Jesus did indeed publicly chastise the Jewish leaders for oppressing the children of God! Go read about how He rebuked the Pharisees and scribes. He shamed the Sanhedrin, the political leaders of the day, telling them "woe to you ..."

Jesus came as the Lamb of God to redeem God's people. There are lots of things He did and did not do. Jesus was not an Architect. He cared little for Herod's gorgeous temple, even prophesying that no stone would remain on another. Does this mean that no Christian should be an Architect?

What about a bazillion other professions? Jesus was silent on them all, especially computers and smart phones. Hear ye, hear ye, all you backsliding Christians! Come out of her My people! And throw all your computers and smart phones in the fire! And be faithful to follow Jesus the carpenter!

In my neighborhood there are lots of nice houses going up all around, and the Amish do the rough carpentry on them all. According to Nee's hermeneutic, all of us Christians should be carpenters like Jesus, just like the Amish are. (And, btw, the Amish don't pay taxes either!)

[testallthings]

1. (Deuteronomy 24:16)--"Fathers shall not be put to death for their sons, nor shall sons be put to death for their fathers; everyone shall be put to death for his own sin."
2. (Ezekiel 18:20)--"The person who sins will die. The son will not bear the punishment for the father’s iniquity, nor will the father bear the punishment for the son’s iniquity; the righteousness of the righteous will be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked will be upon himself."


To awareness:

Nee was trying to present what he understood from the Bible. He didn't pretend to be correct all the time, so he asked his readers to check with the Bible and if they found him wrong to correct him. That was my point (actually Nee's point). He accepted correction from the Bible but not from the opinions of men. So far I haven't seen a single verse (maybe allusions), from anyone, disproving what Nee said.


The second thing is, if you believe he sinned in an horrible way, why are you still concerned about what he wrote. It seems that to prove his point was wrong you have to attack his person. If his point was wrong it would be wrong even if he was “perfect” in his conduct.


To all:

Nee was Nee. Lee was Lee.
Please, do not judge Nee's writing by what Lee or Lee's coworkers did or said.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by testallthings

1. (Deuteronomy 24:16)--"Fathers shall not be put to death for their sons, nor shall sons be put to death for their fathers; everyone shall be put to death for his own sin."
2. (Ezekiel 18:20)--"The person who sins will die. The son will not bear the punishment for the father’s iniquity, nor will the father bear the punishment for the son’s iniquity; the righteousness of the righteous will be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked will be upon himself."


To awareness:

Nee was trying to present what he understood from the Bible. He didn't pretend to be correct all the time, so he asked his readers to check with the Bible and if they found him wrong to correct him. That was my point (actually Nee's point). He accepted correction from the Bible but not from the opinions of men. So far I haven't seen a single verse (maybe allusions), from anyone, disproving what Nee said.


The second thing is, if you believe he sinned in an horrible way, why are you still concerned about what he wrote. It seems that to prove his point was wrong you have to attack his person. If his point was wrong it would be wrong even if he was “perfect” in his conduct.


To all:

Nee was Nee. Lee was Lee.
Please, do not judge Nee's writing by what Lee or Lee's coworkers did or said.

Yes they were different guys and their teaching should not be conflated. However, The Lord's Recovery Movement claims allegiance to both. So, the faithfulness of the movement to Nee's teachings ought to be evaluated. For that matter, Nee's adherence to his own teaching can be assessed. His teachings over time can be also be compared for consistency.

Was the teaching you shared an early one? Did Nee remain that humble? If he claimed to be the minister of his age, what possible meaning could that title have if he admits that anything he teaches could be wrong and that we ought not follow him blindly? If you accept that a guy is God's sole minister of the age, aren't you obligated to follow him blindly? Of course, why anyone would accept that claim from anybody is another question.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by testallthings

1. (Deuteronomy 24:16)--"Fathers shall not be put to death for their sons, nor shall sons be put to death for their fathers; everyone shall be put to death for his own sin."
2. (Ezekiel 18:20)--"The person who sins will die. The son will not bear the punishment for the father’s iniquity, nor will the father bear the punishment for the son’s iniquity; the righteousness of the righteous will be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked will be upon himself."


To awareness:

Nee was trying to present what he understood from the Bible. He didn't pretend to be correct all the time, so he asked his readers to check with the Bible and if they found him wrong to correct him. That was my point (actually Nee's point). He accepted correction from the Bible but not from the opinions of men. So far I haven't seen a single verse (maybe allusions), from anyone, disproving what Nee said.


The second thing is, if you believe he sinned in an horrible way, why are you still concerned about what he wrote. It seems that to prove his point was wrong you have to attack his person. If his point was wrong it would be wrong even if he was “perfect” in his conduct.


To all:

Nee was Nee. Lee was Lee.
Please, do not judge Nee's writing by what Lee or Lee's coworkers did or said.

Good post TAT. I'd like to hear more about how the verses you provided relate, but that can be set aside.

First. Are you saying that the con of a preacher conman can be dismissed as long as he teaches the Bible?

Second. Zeek's quote of Nee, and his teaching that Christians should not be involved in government, can be Biblically disproven by the fact that there are many examples in the Bible of men of God who were involved in government. King David comes to mind. And even Jesus provides an example. He was executed because he was King of the Jews. Doesn't the position of king involve government? Plus, Jesus said the 12 disciples would rule over the 12 tribes of Israel. Again, isn't that government?

Then, according to the Bible, we've got both God and Jesus sitting on thrones.

So Nee was wrong, concerning Christians and government, according to the Bible.

Third. I have no quibble with your quote:

WE WILL NEVER SAY THAT WE CAN NEVER BE WRONG! (WATCHMAN NEE)

In fact I proved with the Bible that Nee was wrong.

Fourth. We're getting our quotes from Living Stream Ministry. So Nee is too connected with Lee, and Lee to Nee.

Thanks for your input TAT. I'm anxious to learn more about where you are going.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

This is similar to Jefferson's federalist statement "the separation of church and state." It was not that the church could not be a part of the state, but that the state could not rule the church. That was the separation the framers intended.

No. The first amendment to the US Constitution says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." It cuts both ways. Jefferson wanted to prevent state churches like they had in Europe.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

No. The first amendment to the US Constitution says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." It cuts both ways. Jefferson wanted to prevent state churches like they had in Europe.

Yep. What I said.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Yep. What I said.

...Not!...

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

An ad hominem argument is a fallacy unless it can be shown that the character of the proposer is relevant to the truth of his/her proposition. Even a pathological liar may correctly observe that the sky is blue. So, it doesn't necessarily follow that if Nee transgressed then his propositions regarding politics are false. If you wish to refute Nee's points, you can't just attack Nee. You actually have to show how they are false.

The recent hurricanes have underscored the fundamental weakness in the political process.

During Hurricane Harvey it was depicted as "unprecedented" to have a storm drop that much rain. Harvey dropped 50 inches, the previous record in the continental US was 49 inches. So although it was record setting it was hardly "unprecedented". Add to this the fact that scientists have been warning that bigger storms are a consequence of climate change and I would say that this was "precedented", they were warned, and they should have expected that with the Gulf 2 degrees warmer than usual we would get this.

So then, why were so many homes caught in the flood zone? You can be sure the insurance companies weren't caught off guard, that is why 80-85% of those flooded in Harvey and Irma didn't have flood insurance.

Here is the problem for politicians -- if they tell people they can't build in certain areas they take them to court and argue they have freedoms, rights, etc. Insurance companies don't care because they make the flood insurance prohibitively expensive so that no one has it. The city absolves itself by creating maps of flood zones and then telling people "buyer beware" knowing full well that the majority of Americans have no idea how to "beware". Primarily the poor suffer as the rich are not going to go without flood insurance and if it is too expensive they'll get a property elsewhere.

So then the politicians take the money from the real estate developers for their campaign, absolve themselves by claiming people have the liberty to do as they please. Developers don't care. The risk of the storms hitting in any six month period is much smaller than the risk of it hitting over 20 or 30 years (life of a mortgage). Insurance companies don't care. This leaves banks. But, flood damage rarely destroys 100% of the value. A $300,000 house is generally a third land value and two thirds house. If the house loses a roof that can be $50,000 or less. Flood damage can add to this. But even if the damage is $100,000 the bank might not lose anything. The only real losers are the home owners who cannot afford to fix the damage, declare bankruptcy and lose everything.

This happened in Katrina, it happened in Harvey, and I expect it happened in Irma. Prior to Irma I heard that Florida had "prepared for hurricanes". Idiotic. You cannot prepare for a category 4 or 5. You can "prepare" for a Cat 1 or 2, but unless you can guarantee you won't be hit by a 4 or 5 you aren't prepared. Once again, all the politicians do is take the developers money to run their campaigns and then put a positive spin on things when the disasters do hit.

These disasters have been predicted, often 20 years before the fact. There is no "real" preparation or response except for a few exceptions. I read of one town along the Mississippi, they were told that they needed to move to higher ground and they did. They move the entire town to an area 200 feet higher and have not been flooded since.

So then, I think Christians should be aware of the weakness and ineffectiveness of politicians. That doesn't mean that government service is unchristian or that some jobs are more sanctified than others, a position that was pushed in the LRC. But if you are going to go into it you should not be ignorant of what is involved and the bargains that have to be made.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

This happened in Katrina, it happened in Harvey, and I expect it happened in Irma. Prior to Irma I heard that Florida had "prepared for hurricanes". Idiotic. You cannot prepare for a category 4 or 5. You can "prepare" for a Cat 1 or 2, but unless you can guarantee you won't be hit by a 4 or 5 you aren't prepared. Once again, all the politicians do is take the developers money to run their campaigns and then put a positive spin on things when the disasters do hit.

These disasters have been predicted, often 20 years before the fact. There is no "real" preparation or response except for a few exceptions. I read of one town along the Mississippi, they were told that they needed to move to higher ground and they did. They move the entire town to an area 200 feet higher and have not been flooded since.

Hurricane proof? I saw some of the damage from Irma. Houses never built on stilts. Trailer homes set on cinder blocks. They should read the scripture about building on sinking sand.

These storms are "unprecedented" not because they have never happened before, but because we now have more people living on the shoreline than ever before. You can thank National Flood Insurance programs for that. Hurricane Donna was worse than Irma, yet in 1960 there were less than 5 Million people in Florida. Funny thing is that Donna occurred while the early climate change crowd were crying "ice age."

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Hurricane proof? I saw some of the damage from Irma. Houses never built on stilts. Trailer homes set on cinder blocks. They should read the scripture about building on sinking sand.

These storms are "unprecedented" not because they have never happened before, but because we now have more people living on the shoreline than ever before. You can thank National Flood Insurance programs for that. Hurricane Donna was worse than Irma, yet in 1960 there were less than 5 Million people in Florida. Funny thing is that Donna occurred while the early climate change crowd were crying "ice age."

All of those houses are built where any geologist could tell you clearly you were in danger in the event of a hurricane, etc. However, people assume that if the govt allows the house to be built then it must be safe. The reality is the government is allowing people to gamble. You can gamble with your life savings. They just didn't know that this is what the deal was.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

All of those houses are built where any geologist could tell you clearly you were in danger in the event of a hurricane, etc. However, people assume that if the govt allows the house to be built then it must be safe. The reality is the government is allowing people to gamble. You can gamble with your life savings. They just didn't know that this is what the deal was.

Talking about buildings, did you hear about that new skyscraper in San Francisco built on sinking sand? Called the Millennial Building, they decided not to build it on bedrock. They should have hired a decent geologist named ZNP. What a boondoggle! The thing is leaning too.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

You can thank National Flood Insurance programs for that.

Trump couldn't insure his Mar a Lago, and his Jupiter Fl resorts, cuz no insurance company would insure a known flood zone.

So he had to sign up with the FEMA insurance program. That program is in debt to the fed gov'ment to the tune of 1.5 billion, and if it were a private large insurance company it would be in receivership long ago.

Funny thing is, the FEMA insurance program was being discontinued (for obvious reasons) but Trump sign legislation to extend it. Trump will always take care of Trump, first and foremost, damn the debt.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

Trump couldn't insure his Mar a Lago, and his Jupiter Fl resorts, cuz no insurance company would insure a known flood zone.

So he had to sign up with the FEMA insurance program. That program is in debt to the fed gov'ment to the tune of 1.5 billion, and if it were a private large insurance company it would be in receivership long ago.

Funny thing is, the FEMA insurance program was being discontinued (for obvious reasons) but Trump sign legislation to extend it. Trump will always take care of Trump, first and foremost, damn the debt.

Now you know why he wanted to be president. I'm sure he realized the danger to his resort long before running.

[zeek]

At the UN yesterday Trump showed once again that the biggest threat to the world today is Trump himself.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

At the UN yesterday Trump showed once again that the biggest threat to the world today is Trump himself.

Well let's see if Israel announces the rebuilding of the temple now that they have Trump in their corner.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

At the UN yesterday Trump showed once again that the biggest threat to the world today is Trump himself.

I no longer question your intelligence.