- Topic
With all the accusations against former members allegedly “slandering” the WMSCOG, I decided to get the definition of slander and start a thread about it.
slander n. oral defamation, in which someone tells one or more persons an untruth about another which untruth will harm the reputation of the person defamed. Slander is a civil wrong (tort) and can be the basis for a lawsuit. Damages (payoff for worth) for slander may be limited to actual (special) damages unless there is malicious intent, since such damages are usually difficult to specify and harder to prove. Some statements such as an untrue accusation of having committed a crime, having a loathsome disease, or being unable to perform one’s occupation are treated as slander per se since the harm and malice are obvious, and therefore usually result in general and even punitive damage recovery by the person harmed. Words spoken over the air on television or radio are treated as libel (written defamation) and not slander on the theory that broadcasting reaches a large audience as much if not more than printed publications. (See: defamation, fair comment)
Copyright © 1981-2005 by Gerald N. Hill and Kathleen T. Hill. All Right reserved. (WWW.dictionary.com)
So according to the definition of slander the person(s) accused must tell something untrue about the other party. The WMSCOG cannot prove a person is lying by merely saying they are “lying”.
144000 wrote:
Genny,
Did you keep reading? Or do you just want to keep calling our interpretation interesting?
"67 “You do not want to leave too, do you?” Jesus asked the Twelve."
I apologize for my gross and negligent math, 5000 was way off target. Perhaps 5000-12 = 4988 is the answer that will split the hair fine enough for you.
I can see how you would be contentious about everything, you miss every biblical teaching trying to analyze tangential factoids that miss our instructions by a country mile.
Of course I kept reading. And you still assumed more than the text tells you.
Read this story:
A band played a concert with 5000 people in the audience. The lead singer said something unpopular over the microphone, and "many people" left the auditorium. The singer turned to his bandmates and said, "You don't want to leave too, do you?"
There is nothing in that story that tells you ALL the people left except for the band. "Many" is a vague number that means "a large or considerable number." Maybe half of His followers left, maybe more, maybe less than half but still a considerable number. To say that all but the twelve left or to say a specific number left is adding to the text.
And yes, this is important. If it only happened once or twice, I would chalk it up to you being imprecise and prone to mistakes. But it's been happening often. It shows a pattern of taking liberties with the Bible, filling in blanks with your own ideas when your own church preaches so strongly that you should not add to the Bible.
I wonder if this a problem with just you, or if all these added ideas are part of WMSCOG doctrine.
genny wrote:
144000 wrote:
Genny,
Did you keep reading? Or do you just want to keep calling our interpretation interesting?
"67 “You do not want to leave too, do you?” Jesus asked the Twelve."
I apologize for my gross and negligent math, 5000 was way off target. Perhaps 5000-12 = 4988 is the answer that will split the hair fine enough for you.
I can see how you would be contentious about everything, you miss every biblical teaching trying to analyze tangential factoids that miss our instructions by a country mile.
Of course I kept reading. And you still assumed more than the text tells you.
Read this story:
A band played a concert with 5000 people in the audience. The lead singer said something unpopular over the microphone, and "many people" left the auditorium. The singer turned to his bandmates and said, "You don't want to leave too, do you?"
There is nothing in that story that tells you ALL the people left except for the band. "Many" is a vague number that means "a large or considerable number." Maybe half of His followers left, maybe more, maybe less than half but still a considerable number. To say that all but the twelve left or to say a specific number left is adding to the text.
And yes, this is important. If it only happened once or twice, I would chalk it up to you being imprecise and prone to mistakes. But it's been happening often. It shows a pattern of taking liberties with the Bible, filling in blanks with your own ideas when your own church preaches so strongly that you should not add to the Bible.
I wonder if this a problem with just you, or if all these added ideas are part of WMSCOG doctrine.
Genny, this wasn't even the same gig where the 5000 attendance was recorded. It happened at a subsequent gig at a different venue where the numbers were unknown. So the wmscog's unauthorized addition to the bible is even more than what you have pointed out.
emil wrote:
Genny, this wasn't even the same gig where the 5000 attendance was recorded. It happened at a subsequent gig at a different venue where the numbers were unknown. So the wmscog's unauthorized addition to the bible is even more than what you have pointed out.
Yes, I agree. I believe it is talking about His followers in general that fell away, not the 5000 from the previous story. But even if you assumed it was still the 5000 from the feeding, it's still not an accurate reading. (Besides, according to Matt 14 the number of 5000 at the feeding did not count the women and children, so the number of people present was actually higher.)
By the way, I read the same thing about the 5000 on thetruewmscog website. So either 144000 is thetruewmscog, or 144000 is repeating thetruewmscog info without reconsidering it, or its a common wmscog teaching they both have learned.
Its common wmscog
Simon wrote:
Its common wmscog
It doesn't look good for the wmscog then.
Genny
The point is the people left because they were more interested in the physical food than the gospel!
Could you possibly be any more obtuse?
144000 wrote:
Genny
The point is the people left because they were more interested in the physical food than the gospel!
Could you possibly be any more obtuse?
No, the point is that you (or the wmscog if its their teachings you are parroting) have a habit of taking liberties with the Bible, adding details that aren't there. It may seem small to you, but it's significant because it shows the presence of an underlying attitude about the word of God. Also, by adding to the Bible in these ways, you end up changing the message to suit your own doctrines.
They do acknowledge them as separate but make inferences regarding Jesus saying they followed him because of the feeding the 5000
144000 wrote:
Could you possibly be any more obtuse?
Are you really Andy Dufresne from "The Shawshank Redemption"?
Even if Ron Ramos is lying, it is small fries compared to the extent they lie about other churches being babylon, etc.
It is tiny fries compared to lying majorly with religious doctrine and leading people to hell. Even lying about what their own so-called God said.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.