The baby issue is relevent. It is reflective of the church. It is reflective of the leaders who are still there now including Tony C and Paul G, and the elders for allowing it to happen. It is a great example of the brainwashing and bad teaching that goes on there. I am glad Paul has escaped that environment. You are entitled to your stance but it is not about whether I agree with it, it is about whether God agrees with it. That still hasn't been addressed. Let me ask the question again--- Why would a church and it's leadership allow one of it's leaders to give away a baby that they had ability to take carre of? What is the scriptural basis? SpeakTruth, This pharasing should make you feel better since your friends name is not involved and it is a general question. Again, you are only on here to save your butt and your friends. This forum is not about you, Love or childs. Childs was part of something that involved the leadership there because of their teachings and their celebrating the event. Yes, BM and others have much culpability in turning this church into a very destructive place especially BM and his cult following. He is like someone I would expect to meet on a car lot.

On a car lot....LMAO!!! That is very true... And what is up with Tony writing books.... just more of the techniques he has studied and another avenue for him to make cash!! why did they ever start up the business Dynamias... a consulting group.... that don't even make sense... again... another one of Tony's money making ideas.... Hey Tony! When is your "CULT INFOMERCIAL" going to air on cable... I would love to see that!!! HA HA

Transparent: this is a helpful post. Now readers actually understand a bit more of your experience there. I asked "a pastor" there about the whole prophetic gift thing. I have never had a problem with gift-giving, but this process should not equate with advancement. It looks a whole lot more like buying authority. The heart question would be: is that special prophetic gift meant to please the Lord, or is it just to get in tight with your discipler? See, what's so dangerous is not necessarily what is happening, but I personally think it is the heart and motivation beneath it. WAJ referred to isogesis (isolation out of context). It's on the same lines as that. It is taking something that is good and then manipulating it for control purposes. See, there is nothing wrong with corporate prayer... read the Word. But there IS something wrong with being pressured to pray a certain way, or to make funny noises like "Yeeeeaasss!" I hope someone appreciates my spelling of that... LOL. What about generosity, that TC teaches so much on. The concept is Biblical and meant to please the Lord... yet it is used for personal gain and to please people. Is this getting through? Am I so far off? Is this only construed as "defending tony"? You see, piss is mostly water... but if you do not filter out the 8% that is NOT water, you are likely to die because of the toxins within it. It looks like where we differ, is that I still see the church as being mostly water. But if you take it all in, you could be poisoned and die... that's why I left. That's why I simply say that I want to be honest about the situation.

To whom it may concern:

There are some excellent resources regarding the Shepherding/Discipleship movement, which might be helpful.

See [www.culteducation.com]

And also see [www.culteducation.com]

These two links explain what has historically gone wrong with such efforts/programs.

Also see [www.culteducation.com]

This is a detailed explanation of how coercive persuasion works.

"The Subtle Power of Spiritual Abuse." is good book that can be helpful for people leaving destructive churches.

See [www.amazon.com]

No need to "reinvent the wheel" regarding recovering from destructive churches, as there is quite a bit of information available that help people sort it out.

Someone once mentioned that corruption starts at the head. If Christ is the head, then there is no corruption. If man makes himself the head, the whole body becomes corrupt.

Dr. Love:

A long rambling religious rant you submitted has not been approved.

Preaching and ranting is not within the rules you agreed to before posting here.

You are very close to being banned from this message board.

To whom it may concern:

After ignoring repeated warnings "Dr. Love" has been banned from the message board.

"You are entitled to your stance but it is not about whether I agree with it, it is about whether God agrees with it. That still hasn't been addressed. Let me ask the question again--- Why would a church and it's leadership allow one of it's leaders to give away a baby that they had ability to take carre of? What is the scriptural basis?" -WhatAJoke

I am not able to answer this question, because doing so would involve making reference to scriptures, which, in turn is considered preaching. I would be willing to provide the text by email or PM that the "late" Dr. Love had provided, resulting in his departure.

RRmod: There appears to be a double-standard by which you operate as a moderator. Is the rule that no scripture references may be used? Or what exactly qualifies as preaching? Under what pretense is it acceptable? I would like to respect the rules, but at times they are unclear. I only say this because some people are permitted to speak freely without regulation, while others are not allowed to say something even less "controversial". I'm not trying to fight... I just dont get it. Thanks, Joe.

SpeakTruth:

If there ae scriptures that specifically addresses why giving up a baby under the circumstances described would be biblically sanctioned, by all means post the scripture.

But if you mean proof-texting and preaching please read the rules again.

There is no "double standard."

"Dr. Love" attempted to post religious rants, which were not responsive to questions asked by WhatAJoke.