heron said:My comments were not totally unrelated to what others said. They were unrelated to one very small subtopic of Hinn withing this discussion. My last few posts related to new wineskin's and breezy's comments, and trying to respond to your misinterpretation of my posts.
I haven't seen anyone's comments totally off-related. But I am feeling I am wasting my time trying to fend off whatever you think imagine am saying. The thread is about reasons people feel the need to leave church. Maybe feeling misunderstood and not listened to, lol?
Not a big deal.
It's important for people who've seen injustices and felt uncomfortable with practices to have a place to put them. If someone's problem was with Hinn, they should feel free to say that. I really don't think this was turning into an anti-Hinn slam, or an anti-pentecostalism flame, or whatever. People are just sharing their experiences and trying to get past them.
Well, message #97, page 10, is addressed to me, regarding my comments that began with noting that resistance to change can come from a seminary with some denominations. And, then it throws in what's wrong with Hinn, and by message #105 it is total condemnation.
Hinn is one of the most controversial figures in Christianity, and he is often subject to intense and unethical criticism of the worst kind, and he is often used as a basis to denounce Pentecostalism. Thus, if someone wants to run him down, in my opinion he/she should have evidence, not just his/her word that he is no good. And, they should pick the right spot to make the comments, not outside the train of thought of a conversation, which is a sideways technique for a cheap shot. Now, I don't know that much about Hinn, but I know the nature of the opposition against him, and how it is used--and when techniques are employed that resemble entirely time honored methods to run people down, I point them out.
It's important for people who have suffered abuse to find ways to express what they have experienced and to deal with it. But, following time honored techniques for smearing controversial people doesn't have to be condoned as the proper way to do it.
As far as your comments, whether you were aware of it or not, they reinforced the unsubstantiated comments of Breeze, and just as his comments should have been addressed, so should have yours.
And, of course, it wasn't meant as an attack against Pentecostals--it never is--it just coincidentally accomplished that purpose, even though there is no documented evidence. Very convenient.
Well, I've been around the techniques too long not to respond when I'm involved.
Regards,
Paul
PS.. The quotes by me you made in short, were used in proper context to demonstrate how the basis of what I was commenting about was prejudice, and my right to respond to them.
Upvote
0