Faithsite / Jabez HIJACKED by ANTI Church of Christ PLANTS?

Tom Brite
Tom Brite

October 27th, 2006, 11:18 am #111

Doctor, I see that, again, you are unable to respond with any facts. I guess that should be expected.

Sorry, don't need your prescriptions. My wife can provide my prescriptions. Besides, they might turn me into the hateful, childish person that you have unfortunately become.
Quote
Share

Tom Brite
Tom Brite

October 27th, 2006, 1:43 pm #112

Tom, if you think my behavior is "abusive and childish," then I guess the rank and repulsive behavior which many at FS have demonstrated against conservatives is biblical and condoned by the New Testament. Just look at how Rick and others howl and try to chew up Jimmy Wren. He's the most benign guy on that board, and a conservative at that, the only one left.

No, Tom, you perceive my behavior as "abusive," because I rebuke you and the other liberals there at FS for your persistent violations of 1 Cor. 6:9-10. You despise being called to task for it, and you retaliate by abusing those who rebuke you. You and the other liberals (better yet, spiritual mavericks) there at FS need to face that fact and move on.

BTW, since the "Children Can Teach Adults" post never mentioned any names or web sites, but taught everyone a valuable lesson, why was it nonetheless deleted at FS, if not because I am a conservative? No, Tom, it's because I am a very strong conservative, and you very well know that STRONG conservatives are not wanted at FS, no matter how much you and the other liberals there deny it.
Doctor, let's see if you are willing to DIALOGUE about this for a bit.

You have repeatedly called me a "liberal." What is it, in your eyes, that makes me a "liberal?"
Quote
Share

Dr. Bill Crump
Dr. Bill Crump

October 27th, 2006, 2:06 pm #113

O.K.- there IS one thing I am confused about. On October 20th, Bill Crump said this:

"When I posted at FS, it was commonplace to see a string of responses...."



Then, on October 25th, he posted this:

"Here’s another essay that I had posted at FS just a few days ago but which the moderators over there axed again."


Which is it? Do you still post there, or not? Does this go along with your constant claims that you don't read any of the "slanderous" posts over there, yet somehow, you seem to respond to ALL of them?

I would love, but do not expect a direct answer from Bill Crump, but I don't think he'll give one, and I do expect Sublett to butt in with some of his ramblings.

By the way, DONNIE CRUZ, since you got rid of Nadab by saying that you fully believe Ken Sublett to always tell the truth, never lie, and to be full of integrity, defend these intelligent, and clearly Christ-like postings from your idol Ken:



"Nablab is stil Urinated Off that he procured a DEGREE from Anti-Christ University..."

"A black preacher friend in Seattle responded to my question about food in the old rural South where I lived in more slave cabins, picked more cotton and ate more watermellon which he hated. He told me what I knew about white people with a 1 candle power consiousness."

"I understand that the old coon hunting fraternities did some odd things to accept you as a "brother." "Iffen yal will swaller yore chaw, drank a quart of my latest lead-based snake bite remedy and have sex with my best bitch THEN we will shake your whatever and you are ONE of us."




You may hate Nadab, and all the other Faithsite conservatives, but when you not only align yourself with, but sing the praises of, and heartily endorse people who say things like this, you are revealing some sickening aspects of your character and integrity.
To see whether I post at FS or not, all Anon. has to do is peruse several FS pages and see if I'm there. But wait...that won't do much good, because the biased and prejudicial moderators there deleted my posts; that's why I reposted some of the more timely messages over here. And what's this half-baked notion that Anon has about my responding to every post at FS? Like I said over there when I was there, I rarely read any of the liberals' responses to my own posts, because I knew from past experience that those responses contained nothing but insults and personal attacks. I never said that I didn't read other posts from the liberals. I then selectively responded to a few of those liberals who were the furthest out in left field, whose train of thought would lead less-informed Christians astray. But the biased and prejudicial moderators over at FS have decided to have a "closed society" of liberals and delete practically all posts from conservatives. The only conservative remaining there that I know of is Jimmy Wren, and he's bashed and reviled every time he posts anything, regardless of what he posts. For example, "preacher" Rick at FS has said he prays that the moderators will ban Jimmy. That's some fitting prayer request for a "preacher" to make (along with the usual requests to bless the poor, heal the sick, and guide, guard, and direct us)! I'm sure Jimmy remembers Rick's kind sentiment.

Now that I've spent far too much time addressing a "phantom," it's time for him/her to cast off that cowardly mask and reveal his/her full identity. Which one of the liberals from FS hides behind "Anonymous"?
Quote
Share

Max Moon
Max Moon

October 27th, 2006, 4:54 pm #114

You mumblers should grasp that faithslight.con has become a vast intellectual wasteland. When you have SFH who has apparently taken control trying to argue with Walt you know that no one is ever going to be able to defend the historic Christian positionns.

This thread will probably get 300 to 500 reads today and the numbers at FS must consist totally of the tiny few posters who have not been censured. YTBH did the bust job as usual and the male whiners who couldn't tolerate the loss of Chatty Cathyism must have gagged at the feminist controller and decided that it was not a safe house after all: I commend the ladies of IQ who consider the modulator as less then honorable.

Wave, I assign you the Code of Hammurabi to research and post at CM. Dr. Pill Pump could do research on mummification. He might comment on the significance of NO DNA in those 4004BC dinosaur bones. No mumbling and muttering permitted.

All people of honor should remove life support from FS: you are endorsing evil.
Max Moon wins!

Now Dr. Bill Crump can eat some Ice CROWm!
Quote
Share

Ken Sublett
Ken Sublett

October 27th, 2006, 9:19 pm #115

Faithsite seems to have been hijacked by a terrorist in Cyprus. I think he has a SECRET PLANT working inside of Jabez who EXCLUDES any defense of those BASHING churches of Christ.

This may be a HIGH CRIME and certainly NOT Christian.
Since I know that the major MISS leader over in the vast waist land is fueled by the likes of Leroy Garrett, Reubel Shelly and EVEN Al Maxey in their RACA hate crimes against anyone who is Bible literate 101aaa about Music and Satan and The Harlot religion, I thought you might miss it if I didn't post something REALLY perverse for you. It is APPARENTLY a sign of the holy spirit person's leading that one can get paid as a preacher and LIFT isolated texts in order to teach a lie. Why do YOU think that this is possible for people who have left lying? We had about 650 readers yesterday so FALSE teachers will simply be ignored.

Al Maxey has published his PLAN for the NEW CHURCH OF CHRIST (didn't he attend a Christian Church college?): it is the same old scam that if YOU will affirm the instrumental churches and those who practice WHATEVER as long as they have been dipped in water (or maybe not since knowledge is not important), and YOU fellowship pagan instruments THEN we will all be in a UNION.

Apparently Al Maxey's predestinated task in life is to find someone like Jesus defending the LAW OF SILENCE by violating the Law so that he can add or fellowship the use of instrumental music. Like his mentors such as Leroy Garrett he hallucinates the GUILT CLAUSE which says: "I have forced the organ into your church, and no you (J.W.McGarvey) will not be able to speak against it, and if YOU leave then YOU are sowing discord."

http://www.piney.com/MuJWMc.html

Al Maxey rests on the false dogma that churches of Christ had ROOTS with the Stoneites at Cain Ridge in a ritual defined by fairly modern "devil worship" in Iraq. The ONLY similarity between Stone and Campbell is that they both supported the BIBLE as the only authority for faith and practice: but so did Martin Luther, John Calvin and all historic scholars. He also hallucinates that only SOME of the Reformers thought that they had ANY VALIDITY for a new church: minimal common sense according to Alexander Campbell would ask THEN WHAT DO YOU THINK WE HAVE BEEN TEACHING.

I say again and again that the Bible, Jesus and all contemporaneous literature proves that the Cainite (from a musical note) RACE as OF that wicked one survived the flood through the wives and immediately set up what we know from the Babylonian tablets as descendants who OPPRESSED others with music to be able to SELL BACK the people's own cows which they had "penned up" and kept SAFE. I know of no other explanation for people on MISSION to prove that the 100% Biblical testimony that music came with Lucifer and the message of the musicians to God is: "Shut your face, we will not listen to YOUR words." That includes Eve, Nadab and Abihu, earlier in Job 21 and many Biblical passages where MUSIC is within itself proof that people WILL NOT listen to the Words of God: Al Maxey accepting an UNAUTHORIZED salary is proof because Jesus paid it all, Paul repudiated THE LAW OF GIVING and all historic scholarship--including John Calvin and Restoration leader.

Al Maxey: <font color=red>A Christian Sister's Challenge

As anyone knows who has ever dared to set forth his views and convictions before the public in written form, as Campbell did in his journals, there will be those who question and challenge those convictions. Alexander Campbell received his fair share of criticism and condemnation from those who did not appreciate his perspectives. One such challenge came from an unnamed woman in Lunenburg, Virginia (now located in West Virginia), whose letter to him was dated July 8, 1837. She wrote this very brief letter to question a statement he had made in the June, 1837 issue of The Millennial Harbinger. Her question, and his response to her, have had a tremendous effect upon the thinking of disciples of Christ for generations. Some have suggested this correspondence has become his most controversial, and certainly one of his most misunderstood. It has been praised, as well as condemned, far and wide. In this current edition of Reflections I would like for us to take a closer look at this most fascinating and historic exchange, which has come to be called The Lunenburg Letter. For those unfamiliar with it, it can be read in its entirety at the following web site:

In an article entitled "Letters to England -- No. 1" (Millennial Harbinger, June, 1837) Campbell sought to motivate his BRETGHREN to cooperate with other Christians everywhere in a global effort to "promote every benevolent, humane, and charitable object which can ameliorate the conditions of human existence." He provided quite an itemized accounting of such Christian efforts, and urged believers to join hands in such endeavors.

Where he "crossed the line," in the minds of SOME, however, was in his view that we should join hands with those outside sectarian parameters, and together, as fellow believers, seek to push back the effects of the present spiritual darkness (which is our true). </font>
  • I will jump ahead to hear the REAL Campbell ask a QUESTION which proves that Campbel DID NOT THINK that the SECTS were Christian!

    <font color=blue>ANY CHRISTIANS AMONG THE SECTS? JUDGING from numerous letters received at this office, my reply to the sister from Lunenburg has given some pain to our brethren, and some pleasure to our SECTARIAN friends. The builders up of the PARTIES tauntingly say to our BRETHREN, "Then we are as safe as you," and "You are COMING OVER to us, having now conceded the greatest of all points--viz. that immersion is NOT essential to a Christian." Some of our brethren seem to think that we have NEUTRALIZED much that has been said on the importance of baptism for remission, and disarmed them of much of their artillery against the IGNORANCE, ERROR, and INDIFFERENCE of the times upon the whole subject of Christian duty and Christian privilege.</font>
Would you say that OTHERS were ECUMENICAL and only SOME "legalistic, sectarian, hypocrites" refused to JOIN? You COULDN'T have "joined" a Baptist or Presbyterian church without some supernatural SIGN that you were saved the INSTANT you believed or from ALL ETERNITY. You could NOT be ecumenical without agreeing with them. Therefore, Al Maxey insists that we AGREE that all "water babies" ARE SAVED.
I suggest, as with all Lunenber distorters, that Al got those words from Leroy Garrett or others. He alludes to the document but does not quote it:
  • Campbell:<font color=blue> "Touching your inquiries on some matters, I hasten to observe,--that our brethren GENERALLY regard the church as the ONLY moral or religious association which they can lawfully PATRONIZE. Hence they form NOT Missionary, Education, Tract, Bible, Temperance, Anti-Slavery confederations.</font>
The CHRISTIAN CHURCHES formed these INSTITUTES and therefore because they ADDED something not absolutely required to be a "church" THEY deliberately sowed discord and the SECTARIANS are those who ADDED something not generally held by CHRISTIANS for all of recorded history.
Can you see any difference between Al's OF SOME and Campbell's OUR BRETHREN GENERALLY? As a BODY, Campbell will MOCK people who think that he did his work believing that the DENOMINATINS were already the CHURCH OF CHRIST.

Now, honest readers will look at the list of things that CHRISTIANS as individuals can be involved with and ECUMENICAL is NOT on the list! However, IF they are good works, he has another view:

<font color=blue>If these are good works, they belong to the CHURCH in her OWN proper character;
and every member of the church is, AS a Christian,
obliged to promote these objects as far as he has the MEANS and the opportunity.

The Christian institution, in our judgment, demands of all its subjects THEIR best efforts to put down all profanity, unrighteousness, injustice, oppression, and cruelty in the world; and to promote every benevolent, humane, and charitable object which can ameliorate the conditions of human existence.
distinctions and differences, as their fellow-creatures, as subjects of God's philanthropy, [in his next restatement he adds]
to be taught his religion, and trained for immortality, are propositions or tenets held by us sacred as the precepts of Christ. </font>

But, back to the CHURCH as a body and NOT just individuals: he moves into things permitted by the whole church.

<font color=blue>That the gospel ought to be preached; that evangelists or missionaries ought to be SENT OUT and sustained by THE CHURCH;
that the whole community should be intellectually and morally educated--
every child born upon our soil so trained as to be a useful, safe and honorable member of society;
that the Bible always, and sometimes religious tracts, newspapers, magazines and pamphlets
should be widely circulated in the world; that Christians should be temperate in all things,
and especially so in the use of all intoxicating liquors, and perhaps sometimes wholly abstinent;
that they should not, after communing at the Lord's table, unite in any secret, political, or moral combination with the Lord's enemies, Turks, Jews, or Atheists; that they should oppose all schemes of robbery and oppression, whether the victims be white, black, or yellow--bond servant or hired servant; that Christians should render to their servants every thing that is just and equal; that they should not, even when the laws permit them, violate or cause others to violate </font>

The Bible identifies OPPRESSION or A BURDEN as singing songs to force people to conform or "take taxes not in warfare." Early restorers denied the role of the BUDGET and of "adding any anxiety such as DEBT. Al Maxey wants to form TEMPLES to attractg customers to hear HIS WORDS and the best way to do that is MUSIC. If we as a group pay anyone they should be SENT OUT and sustained by the church. There is no hint of a young PREACHER and Alexander Campbell calls the preachercraft as the CRAFTIEST CRAFT OF ALL.

Al Maxey wrote that Campbell wrote,<font color=blue>"We would, indeed, have no objections to co-operate in these matters with all Christians, and raise contributions for all such purposes as, in our judgment, are promotive of the Divine glory or of human happiness, whether or not they belong to our churches: for we find in all Protestant parties Christians as exemplary as ourselves according to their and our relative knowledge and opportunities." The italicized phrase is the one that generated the letter of concern from the sister in Lunenburg. </font>

But Campbell wrote:<font color=blue>We would, indeed, have no objections to co-operate in these matters with all Christians, and raise contributions for all such purposes as, in our judgment, are promotive of the Divine glory or of human happiness, whether or not they belong to our churches: FOR WE FIND IN ALL PROTESTANT PARTIES CHRISTIANS as exemplary as ourselves according to their and our relative knowledge and opportunities; </font>

Why did Al Malxey GAG? Al doesn't read further to note that Campbell spoke of "c" christians and "C" Christians.

<font color=blue>but we cannot form a confederacy with the troops of Satan, or tax his subjects to sustain the Christian cause;
and, therefore, so long as all these associations openly and avowedly form a community on any one of these bonds of union,
irrespective of citizenship in the kingdom of heaven;


I say, so long as they hold communion with profane and ungodly persons, or with Gentiles of no creed and every creed,
because of a SINGLE point of COINCIDENCE,
whatever that point may be,
we cannot unite with them, or sail under such a flag.

Besides, if such schemes are really necessary, then has the church failed--
then the Divine institution must yield the palm to institutions merely human. (pp. 271-273)</font>

Does Campbell's identificaton of SECTS and of those claimig that GOD FAILED because of their innovation mean that he wanted to have SWEET FELLOWSHIP with them? This is about the worst form of perversion of the truth which is USUALLY used by those who have LOST fellowship with faithful churches of Christ and, like the story of the Musical Fall in The Book of Enoch, they LUST to force their now-mortal enemies worthy of many RACA words, to be shamed into submission.

That sounds like speak where the Bible speaks and IF anyone has added anything such as MUSIC which is utterly condemned beginning in the garden of Eden and culminating in defining the BABYLON WHORE using "speakers, singers and musicians" the Campbell NEVER remotely hinted at being ECUMENICAL. The word ECUMENICAL does not appear in the Lunenberg body of correspondence.

Why do you think people want to build an ECUMENICAL CHURCH and lift isolated "evidence" from dead men but then DISTORT what honorable men wrote. The Lunenberg correspondence has NEVER been used honestly by those whose SOLE motive is to force a shotgun marriage between two religious groups which are not even of the same species. Anyone who would try to force people to "worship" with musical forms when the concept is NOT in the Bible for God's faiithful. Furthermore, all musical terms and names of instruments in a "religious" sense point to Satan as the "singing and harp playing prostitute," prostitutes and Sodomites and in sacrificial altars which were NOT Israelite but were NATIONAL systems to which God ABANDONED many because of musical idolatry at Mount Sinai. The PERSONA of musicians has NEVER CHANGED in all of recorded history: wonder why people LUST to have males as theatrical and musical performers when ALL of the Greek language and Jesus identifies them as of the SECTARIAN HYPOCRITES.

More to follow..

Quote
Share

Dr. Bill Crump
Dr. Bill Crump

October 28th, 2006, 4:08 am #116

Faithsite seems to have been hijacked by a terrorist in Cyprus. I think he has a SECRET PLANT working inside of Jabez who EXCLUDES any defense of those BASHING churches of Christ.

This may be a HIGH CRIME and certainly NOT Christian.
Tom, old buddy, I would have thought that, being one of the boys at FS, you would have had a really great sense of humor. After all, you and the other liberals over there see bashing and ridiculing others as "just having good, clean fun." Or at least you guys manifest a highly cavalier attitude about it. Like truth, "fun" is in the eyes of the beholder, right? So I figured that you would really appreciate a little prescription "humor." But when YOU become the object of "humor," YOU become a rather acrimonious person. So perhaps you see that being ridiculed yourself is NOT funny at all! But since you have a penchant for running with and supporting those who thrive on ridiculing and bashing others, I really don't expect your kind to understand any of this at all.

Therefore, Tom, it's impossible to take you seriously. Run along home. Now I believe that there is a Corvus aviary not too far from where you live, so I suggest that you get yourself on down there pronto. Your Corvus level is dangerously low! For anyone else, I would have said to hurry down while supplies last, but in your case, which is most desperate, there are unlimited supplies of Corvus just waiting for your teeth to chomp into.

BTW, tell your friend Max that I've got a prescription for Mephitis mephitis waiting for him in additon to the Corvus he's been eating now for the last few weeks. You wouldn't believe it, but his case is actually worse than yours!
Quote
Share

Dr. Bill Crump
Dr. Bill Crump

October 28th, 2006, 4:49 am #117

Doctor, let's see if you are willing to DIALOGUE about this for a bit.

You have repeatedly called me a "liberal." What is it, in your eyes, that makes me a "liberal?"
I gather that Tom detests being branded a "liberal," yet he runs with and supports the pack of liberals at FS, who BTW persistenly bash and revile those with whom they disagree. OK, we'll accommodate Tom. Maybe "spiritual maverick" would be more accurate. Personally, I think "liberal" is more polite and easier on the ears.

On the other hand, if Tom claims to be a conservative, he surely caters and cuddles up to the liberals at FS, who BTW persistently bash and revile those with whom they disagree (yeah, I said it before, but I said it again for emphasis). But since Tom has a penchant for becoming highly perturbed whenever anyone rebukes the liberals at FS, then I do wonder where in this world I got the notion that Tom is a LIBERAL!
Quote
Share

Anonymous
Anonymous

October 28th, 2006, 5:10 pm #118

Tom, if you think my behavior is "abusive and childish," then I guess the rank and repulsive behavior which many at FS have demonstrated against conservatives is biblical and condoned by the New Testament. Just look at how Rick and others howl and try to chew up Jimmy Wren. He's the most benign guy on that board, and a conservative at that, the only one left.

No, Tom, you perceive my behavior as "abusive," because I rebuke you and the other liberals there at FS for your persistent violations of 1 Cor. 6:9-10. You despise being called to task for it, and you retaliate by abusing those who rebuke you. You and the other liberals (better yet, spiritual mavericks) there at FS need to face that fact and move on.

BTW, since the "Children Can Teach Adults" post never mentioned any names or web sites, but taught everyone a valuable lesson, why was it nonetheless deleted at FS, if not because I am a conservative? No, Tom, it's because I am a very strong conservative, and you very well know that STRONG conservatives are not wanted at FS, no matter how much you and the other liberals there deny it.
Doctor, I do think you behavior at FS was abusive and childish. I also believe that the behavior of several of the others at that site was abusive and childish as well. That is not the point.

The point is that you purport to represent the Churches of Christ. You should be held to a higher standard of behavior. You have failed in doing so, miserably.
Quote
Share

Ken Sublett
Ken Sublett

October 28th, 2006, 7:10 pm #119

Faithsite seems to have been hijacked by a terrorist in Cyprus. I think he has a SECRET PLANT working inside of Jabez who EXCLUDES any defense of those BASHING churches of Christ.

This may be a HIGH CRIME and certainly NOT Christian.
I peeked in on FaithSlight and noted that the perpetual liars are at the Calvinist heresy again and old servant doesn't have a clue: probably never read the whole story.

If they had they would understand that TWO NATIONS were in the womb and no one was chosen to go to HELL or HEAVEN. Brian nor Walt nor Calvin can find a single person who is predestinated to be burned for eternity even if they died as an embryo JUST to prove that God is in charge. Nor, is anyone ever said to have contracted ORIGINAL sin more deadly than AIDS just because mommy had fun conceiving them.

Romans 9 through 11 proves JUST THE OPPOSITE: for those reading wwhole thought patterns, the JEWS thought that they were predestinated and could NOT be lost. In Romans 10 Paul proved that they were UNchosen because of musical idolatry. The PURPOSE is to prove that NO person is ceremonially impure (Cornelius) just as a pig is not unclean. Therefore,ALL Jews like ALL Gentiles are ELIGIBLE to be saved by THE FAITH OF JESUS CHRIST. ALL races have sinned because each individual DID THEIR OWN sin and needed to be baptized and REgenerated.

Any person who can accuse God of being INFINITELY worse than Hitler undoubtedly prove that they are OF that CROOKED GENERATION which rejects baptism because Jesus won't let them hear the gospel (except in parables) and John won't baptize them because they belong to the VIPER generation. One KEY characteristic of the Viper is that they HATE WATER.

ALL of the evidence proves that Cain (from a musical note) was OF that wicked one because Paul said that Eve was wholly seduced like a new bride is seduced. Just last night TV showed a black baby and a white baby which came out of the same womb.

That Jerusalem was truly SODOM is proven by the fact that the CAINITES where Cain is "from a musical mark or note" is proven by Isaiah. The Cainites even BOAST about INFILTRATING and DIVERTING peaceable churches to make them "theaters for holy entertainment." The PATTERNISM repeats: Of the Lucifer BRANCH:
  • <font color=purple>These infiltrating Canaanites weren't part of Yahweh's own vine, for they never were any part of true Israel. They had secured positions of wealth and power in Israel and Judah. They were corrupting the nation so that it was no longer bearing the sort of fruit, which Yahweh expected from His vine. These Canaanite infiltrators are also the same people against whom Yahweh spoke in Isaiah 57:3-4. In the Hebrew He calls these Canaanites, "children of inborn transgression, and a false seed."</font>
In Isaiah 5 God sings a SONG and tells Israel that the vineyard had failed because of "wine, women and music." The same story is told in Amos 5-9: they were turned over to worship the starry host because they had LISTENED to the devil and the MARK was that they continued to replace the WORD with "songs in the temple" along with wine, women and instruments. This was repeated as the first Abomination of Desolation with Zeus worship (Note that they pronounce Jesus as Je Zeus or hail Zeus).

The prophecy was that there would be NO CANAANITE (traders) in the House of the Lord when Messiah came to baptize them with the SPIRIT OF Fire and Judgment. People who grasp DAVID as their music leader do not grasp that God gave the kings to LEAD the nation into captivity and death. We know that the temple was EVER a den of thieves and house of merchandise because it was a NATIONAL meaning GENTILE temple.

You will notice that Brian keeps posting the "punch line" but is not able to grasp that Grace is available THROUGH faith when Paul in Eph 1-2 details the same BAPTISM he defines in other letters. The word APISTOS as in 'believeth not' means that theyy REVOLT at the first part of the verse "He that believes AND is baptized SHALL BE saved."

So, the Calvinists and not the hen cluckers are back with a vengeance but NOT to worry: probably ten people will be exposed to the big fat lies of the Esau Nation. Make them find ONE person who was predestinated to hell or prove that you are a CALVINIST site. Make them find ONE person who was NOT righteous because they LIVED righteous or prove that you are FALSE TEACHERS. Make them find one person who is NOT blamed for their own sins or prove that it is GOD who has taken the site down just like he blows out the candles of those using "speakers, singers or musicians" John accused as Sorcerers working for the MOTHER/FATHER of the VIPER SEED generaton hatched when EVE questioned God's authority.

Rejecting the PREcounsel or FORORDAINED counsel of God to be baptized, the sectarians controlling Canaan and especially Jerusalem (a city set on seven hills) REFUSED to be baptized. They were not therefore sealed and a million UNbaptized Jews died and their bodies thrown on a bed of maggots at Topheth as the symbol of HELL which was prepared specificially for Lucifer, the singing and harp playing prostitute and all she could cheat with wine women and song. The place was PREDESTINATED also for liars and your "mentors" cannot say the whole truth. Amos said that the songs in the temple become mourning songs as they are led captive to Babylon and God said "I WILL NOT pass this way again." Isaiah 30 proves that the Wind, String and percussion instruments are the SOUNDS of God repaying His enemies as He BEATS them into TOPHETH. In that sense we have discovered those PREDESTINATED because they are the SEED of the serpent REgenerated by Him just as the SOP (base meaning of Psallo or melody) was the SIGN for Satan to fully take over Judas.
Quote
Share

Dr. Bill Crump
Dr. Bill Crump

October 28th, 2006, 11:17 pm #120

Doctor, I do think you behavior at FS was abusive and childish. I also believe that the behavior of several of the others at that site was abusive and childish as well. That is not the point.

The point is that you purport to represent the Churches of Christ. You should be held to a higher standard of behavior. You have failed in doing so, miserably.
Anon fails to realize that many, but not all, of the bashers and revilers at FS also represent the churches of Christ, albeit they are far more liberally minded. Instead of bashing me, Anon should concentrate on urging those bashers and revilers at FS to heed 1 Cor. 6:9-10 and stop reviling those with whom they disagree. But then I believe that Anon IS indeed one of those bashers and revilers at FS. That's why s/he won't reveal his/her name.
Quote
Share