Proverbs 27:5-6
Better is open rebuke than hidden love. Faithful are the wounds of a friend; profuse are the kisses of an enemy.
One Tale to Rule Them All
5 hours ago
March 28, 2008
The wounds of a friend
Labels:
Devotional,
Just a thought
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
May we all take this proverb to heart -- especially in the hour when we experience a biblical rebuke.
ReplyDeleteYour depiction of Mrs. McDonald is still cruel. You are whitwashing your own behavior.
ReplyDeleteLynn allowed me to be abused on her blog. She herself got involved in it and allowed it and egged it on.
She then says that she is done with the subject and wants to move on?
I have NEVER attacked Lynn, ever! Yet this is the third time, at least, that she has been involved in an attack on me. One time was at my own blog, and I shut it all down because of their intimidation and bullying.
This time, I fought back. Am I supposed to turn the other cheek? ...or do I not have the right to defend myself? I may nothave good logic skills. I may not spell very well. I may not measure up to all of your godliness. I may not want your "freedom in Christ".
...but does that mean that I should be savigly attacked by a gang of people,most of whom I don't even know?
Go ahead and make fun of me, a person you don't even know. god ahead and gossip about me. Say all manner of evil against me. Even if it is all true, every word of it, would that make YOU godly?
You have still not repented. ...no, I am not a friend...and no I am not flattering you. I think that you need to be held responsible, and so does Lynn, and so do those evil people who support Don Veinot.
For the life of me, I can't figure out why in the world he wants to be connected to that kind of internet slander campaign.
Not even the CBE wanted their antics on their blog.
..and YES I am sinning by talking to you, but honestly! What do you think you are doing?
Donna - I'm not sure how you managed to springboard from a scripture verse into a tirade about things that I have no knowledge of.
ReplyDeleteI don't know Stacy, my use of this verse did not apply to her in any way. I am unconcerned about the gossip you have presented here--it truly is non of my business.
You said: Am I supposed to turn the other cheek? ...or do I not have the right to defend myself?
The answers are "yes" and "yes." You should always follow scripture. If it tells you to turn the other cheek (which it does) then your neck better be rotating as you defend yourself.
I'm not sure who Lynn is. I'm not sure who the "gang" of people is. I'm not sure who Don Veinot is. I have no clue what CBE stands for. And if you thought that this post had anything to do with you, as is evidenced by your statement that you are not my friend, you are exhibiting symptoms of paranoia and really need to seek psychiatric help.
You said: I may not want your "freedom in Christ".
I'd be careful about denying Christ. This does not bode well for your eternal future.
You said: ...but does that mean that I should be savigly [sic]attacked ...
Is this why you also said: I may not spell very well?
You said: Go ahead and make fun of me ... gossip about me. Say all manner of evil against me.
I have had very little communication about you at all. The only thing that transpired since your last disconnected, rambling comments was that I reached out to a few folks asking them if they knew you and what the deal was. I have never seen such unstructured thinking in my life and it makes concerned for your medical well-being. I'm hoping that your blatant rejection of authority and scripture do not indicate that I should also be concerned for your spiritual well-being.
You said: You have still not repented
And you have not told me exactly what it is I need to repent of. I have shown a light in the direction of someone you admire. I don't see any scriptural mandates against doing that.
You said: and YES I am sinning by talking to you, but honestly! What do you think you are doing?
You don't actually have to confess your sins here, although your rejection of your husband's authority makes it obvious to all. But your sin does not reflect on me. I do not think I am sinning by posting a scripture verse on my blog.
Richard, just so you can connect the dots, I am Lynn (the same Lynn you asked why my email address was named the way it was). I am also the blog owner of the "indelible grace" blog. You commented on my blog, in the post about Ryan Dobson and the Prairie Muffins.
ReplyDeleteHere is the post Donna is so offended at, but, like you, I was just asking a question, and didn't call anyone a "she-wolf," accuse anyone of lying, don't think I got hysterical, or anything like that:
Donna Carlaw's Accusation Against MCO
There it is if you are inclined to look at it.
Simplegifts3 - I thought it might be you, but wasn't really sure. I guess I don't really think of you as Lynn (yet). I think of you by your blog title, Indelible Grace. I'll tell you a funny story about that sometime that causes that title to stick out in my mind.
ReplyDeleteI think Donna thinks that somehow I have been motived by and am being mind-controlled by some demons in her mind. As you know, I had not met you or anyone else involved with Donna until about five days ago. I have not been encouraged to write any of what I've written on this blog by anyone else. Just my random ramblings.
Now back to the verse: Better is open rebuke than hidden love. Faithful are the wounds of a friend; profuse are the kisses of an enemy.
I wrote this post to thank a friend I have made through this blog. Her name is Peggy. She pointed out to me that I was getting a little too strident in my posts. This was my way of thanking her.
Thank you, Richard. Peggy
ReplyDeleteRichard, maybe you should ask me how. You mocked me. You had access to something that was private, and you posted it on your blog.
ReplyDeleteI don't even KNOW YOU!
Why did you do that?
You told me to go do missionary work.
Is that a godly response?
You have felt free to mock me, rebuke me, post things on your blog that were mine, and were personal - that I later took down ... because people are stalking me on my blog
Who gave you that private information, and who incited you to post it here?
What in the world are you doing?
Here is what Luther said about the devil's attacks and accusations.:
ReplyDelete"When I awoke last night, the Devil came and wanted to debate with me; he rebuked and reproached me, arguing that I was a sinner. To this I replied: Tell me something new, Devil! I already know that perfectly well; I have committed many a solid and real sin. Indeed there must be good honest sins -- not fabricated and invented ones -- for God to forgive for His beloved Son’s sake, who took all my sins upon Him so that now the sins I have committed are no longer mine but belong to Christ. This wonderful gift of God I am not prepared to deny [in my response to the Devil], but want to acknowledge and confess. "
"A slanderer does nothing but ruminate the filth of others with his own teeth and wallow like a pig with his nose in the dirt. That is also why his droppings stink most, surpassed only by the Devil’s. . . . And though man drops his excrements in private, the slanderer does not respect this privacy. He gluts on the pleasure of wallowing in it, and he does not deserve better according to God’s righteous judgment. When the slanderer whispers: Look how he has s*** on himself, the best answer is: You go eat it...."
Donna - Stalking is not possible through the Internet. Anything you post online is no longer private. Once you have posted it for the entire world of Internet users to read, it is basically public domain. At least with the small amount of text that I reposted. Even under printed copyright, that small amount of text is able to be posted legally.
ReplyDeleteYou are not being stalked, certainly not by me. I posted your comments because I thought it would encourage you to live up to your promise to your family not to do what you are continuing to do.
I am not mocking you when I say that I think you need help. And my encouragment for you to do missionary work was based on your profile that said that you are a missionary. I simply meant that you should probably focus on that rather than the Internet. Your comments cause me to question your hold on sanity. I'm not trying to be mean by saying that. I truly think you need to seek help.
You may be able to correct your issues by simply signing off of the Internet and not returning. But I'm afraid that it might be much worse and more widespread than just your Internet outbursts. If you are doing these things and saying these things anywhere else in your life, you need to get help before your family has to deal with the pain of placing you in a residential treatment center.
Please consider this seriously and discuss it with your husband.
Richard,
ReplyDeleteback to the verse you posted :) -
I am so grateful that God has placed faithful friends in my life who have gently and in love corrected me. I know I did not always respond graciously at the time and pray I am learning to remember this verse as Lynn said - "in the hour when we experience a biblical rebuke." (Well said, Lynn)
Richard, you said it isn't possible to stalk through the internet. I would disagree with that, but I agree that looking at someone's blog, and quoting from it after that person first comes to your blog and starts commenting to you in very certain terms, can hardly be considered stalking. You were merely responding to the commenter with the knowledge you had about some other things the commenter said.
ReplyDeleteAnd limited quoting of public material is recognized as allowable, when attribution is given, as you did.
Sandy, may we also be given the discernment to recognize when a rebuke is truly biblical, and needed, and when it is just a bunch of hooey!
ReplyDeleteOne we need to take to heart, and the other we don't.
And if we have that discernment, then we need to not be too sensitive about the real rebukes, and we need to forget the fake ones quickly!
"You had access to something that was private, and you posted it on your blog."
ReplyDeleteHi Donna,
You mean what Richard posted from your own public blog? That isn't private. No more than all the things you have quoted from me that I have posted on other blogs. How is it wrong when Richard does it but right and "free speech" when you do it?
About the rest of your accusations of abuse and stalking, I don't think it is fruitful to discuss these things with you because the past track record shows me that it really goes now where.
Lynn has never attacked you. Your stories about CBE are simply false. It is actually the other way around from what I know.
I am pretty sure calling people "wolves" and "she-wolves" and telling people that a person has post-partum depression (when she doesn't and you have absolutely no proof to the contrary) and is on the verge of killing her children like Andrea Yates and signing off your posts as "Trust Jesus, Corrie, and take your meds!" is considered to be an attack. At least, that is how it felt when I was the brunt of so many of your diatribes.
You have even posted up to 10 - 15 posts all about me on your blog in just one day for several day sin a row and it could be said that you are stalking me or attacking me if we use your measuring stick for judging these things.
I think Richard has tried to extend some very helpful advice to you. I don't see him mocking you at all. I see him very concerned about someone who seems to be acting in an erratic fashion.
Is there anyone you could talk to about these things? Maybe you could print out all the posts from your blog and the posts from Lynn's blog and have someone look at them for evaluation. You could even print out the ones from this blog.
About the scripture you posted, Richard:
It is a good and convicting one. I do hope that I have the grace and humility to accept a biblical and true rebuke when it is presented to me.
Well, since we are talking about rebukes here, and Donna complained here (being unsubmissive to her own husband while doing so), I can see rebuking Donna for posting here.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I have just been allowed to see a lot of documentation that took place when Alice Robertson was messed over by Stacy McDonald and the moderator from Alice's former group.
The moderator of that group has repented, according to Alice, but Stacy, who sent out a letter against Alice on a trivial issue of Alice's negative opinion of an article, has never apologized, nor written to the hundreds of women she tried to get to go against Alice.
So I'm not inclined to rebuke Richard for that picture of Stacy. As far as I'm concerned, it is quite fitting.