Content-transfer-encoding: |
7bit |
Sender: |
|
Subject: |
|
From: |
|
Date: |
Sat, 7 Apr 2007 22:38:47 -0400 |
MIME-version: |
1.0 |
Content-type: |
text/plain; format=flowed; charset=iso-8859-1; reply-type=original |
Reply-To: |
|
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
Hi Phil,
I am aware that you do not have to agree with everything posted on echurch.
I was taken by surprise by what you said and in the way it was stated. I
realize you have strong feelings about this man, his past history, and in
the way he left the church, all of which is very understandable. When I
sent the message to echurch I had no knowledge of the man or his past
history nor any knowledge of your personal involvement in the church. Of
course there is a lot of emotion surrounding this entire situation because
you had to clean up the messy situations left by him. I do not believe that
anyone could lose a child in a senseless tragedy and not be changed. I am
not condoning his prior actions or the way he handled them but I think he
would have to be a changed person forever. No matter what happened in the
past he is still her father and his heart must ache because of the loss of
his daughter. I cannot judge this man but I can feel compassion for him.
Our Lord Jesus is the ultimate judge and He forgives our sins if we
sincerely repent and ask for that forgiveness. I pray that he has asked for
forgiveness of his sins and that he is obeying the will of God to the best
of his ability.
Virgie and Hoshi
----- Original Message -----
From: "Phil Scovell" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Saturday, April 07, 2007 7:13 PM
Subject: Re: Darrel Scott's testimony
> Oh, Virgie,
>
> Cut that out. You know good and well it didn't bother me that you posted
> it. I said I agreed with everything he said. Whenever I see it, I just
> feel it is fair to post the whole truth and nothing but the truth. As you
> can see, my opinion has already gotten me into trouble. So? What else is
> new. Besides, you don't think I have to agree with everything posted on
> echurch, do you?
>
> Phil.
|
|
|