I thought it was against rules to unmask a person on acts. Is that still the case? I see where Charles Page is asking for Judah4him name. I am generally against this, however, if what he is saying is true Charles I mean then should a person be protected if spending potential slander against another Acts member? I am torn on this, Thoughts________________Are the things you are living for, worth Christ dying for?www.jacksonplant.org/jacksonplant.blogspot.com/www.facebook.com/jackson.plant
I will withhold my opinion on Charles Page in this post, but I do think Judah4Him crossed the line in repeating what he claimed a church official said about Charles Page. I suppose it has been deleted because I cannot find it. (I do remember it, though.)It was a broad enough accusation that it could have meant one thing but could have been perceived as something totally different. In other words, if you say a pastor who doesn’t meet a mortgage payment for the church is morally responsible to do so, you might say a failure to pay the mortgage is a moral failure. But if you say a pastor was removed from a church for a moral failure, many people might think that means adultery.
Not to mention that he apparently embraced Reformed Theology declaring that smuggling bibles was not necessary because the grace of God is
The anonymous part by itself is okay, but if you combine it with accusation of moral failure, it is unseemly to do it anonymously and also claim an anonymous source. That’s my opinion of the matter.
I’m already out. I post only under my real name here.