Place your banner ad here.          See all banner ads

|| ConcernedMembers.com || About || Links Library || Help Warn Others ||
|| Madison Church of Christ || Richland Hills Church of Christ || Hillcrest Church of Christ || More Churches || Sunday School in Exile ||

Where is my NewThisWeek Email subscription?Click Here

Place your text ad here.           See all text ads

  << Previous Topic | Next Topic >>Return to Index  
Donnie Cruz
(no login)
70.149.148.188

Kent/Brad and Detraction

September 10 2005, 11:22 AM 

Kent/Brad,

We already know your style and your fake ID (cf. “Ken, Donnie, Jimmy Legalists” thread). You’ve been given ample chances, but you are truly a “faithful detractor” by your own admission. Mental evaluation is over—and you need help.

Despite all that, any [but only] substantive article from Kent (a.k.a. Brad) or someone else will be posted.


Donnie

 
 Respond to this message   
Anonymous
(no login)
66.189.13.108

Re: Kent/Brad and Detraction

September 11 2005, 10:09 PM 

hey crump, who gave you permission to copy a post i made on another web site?

The thought still applies though.
Oblivion Hmm. you are one distubed man

 
 Respond to this message   
Dr. Bill Crump
(no login)
66.19.66.98

RE: Kent/Brad and Detraction ([we know it's by] Kent/Brad)

September 12 2005, 9:00 AM 

Permission? Authors may quote very brief passages from books, periodicals, or any other media as long as they give full credit for the source. It's called "fair use" in the publishing industry, and it's quite legal (surely you remember doing term papers in high school or college and citing sources for your quotes). I quoted a LINE from one of your profane posts at the Ex-Church of Christ web site and gave you FULL credit for it. I also cited some of your colorful phrases from the Concerned Members web site and gave you FULL credit for the source.

BTW, I noticed that in order to register at the Ex-C of C site, each person must electronically "sign" a statement (push the "I accept" button) to the degree that s/he will not use abusive language or behave in an uncivil manner; if reported, violators will have their IP addresses reviewed, and their access to that site could be permanently terminated. You're a persistent violator, so I don't need to tell you to tread lightly there as well as here. That's not a threat, that's a PROMISE.

And I'd also be most careful about slinging around words like "disturbed" when you so freely use profanity/vulgarity like you're addicted to it. There's addiction to drugs, addiction to sex, addiction to pornography, etc. You, my friend, are addicted to profanity/vulgarity and you are in dire need of spiritual HELP.

Heed Matt. 5:22 (KJV) and turn away from this bane before it completely eats you up.

But maybe a tiny bit of healing has begun: you didn't use one profane/vulgar word in your response here; the anger and hatred are still there, however, which you need to purge as well.


 
 Respond to this message   
kent
(no login)
66.189.13.108

Re: RE: Kent/Brad and Detraction ([we know it's by] Kent/Brad)

September 12 2005, 8:53 PM 

i'm not afraid over on that site, many say a lot of things there you might find offensive, but the moderator over there understands free speech

 
 Respond to this message   
Dr. Bill Crump
(no login)
66.217.126.107

"Free Speech" at Ex-C of C Site

September 13 2005, 9:48 AM 

So if pictures could be posted at the Ex-C of C site and someone posted the blasphemous photo of a cross immersed in a jar of urine (it received high acclaim from the artistic world), then no one would object there. It would be a form of "free speech" -- free expression. If that's true, and if the moderator there allows all kinds of abusive language ("free speech"), then the statement to register there is false and totally meaningless.

Yes, many over there do use quite a lot of "strong language." There's even a thread that deals with cursing. Surprisingly, many of the posters believe that there's nothing wrong with using profanity, vulgarity, obscene language, for God surely will not hold them accountable for their right to "free speech."

The Ex-C of C site states that one does not need to be a Christian to post there. I can believe that. The New Testament tells the Christian not to be conformed to this world (Romans 12:2 KJV), which means not to behave and act like the rest of the non-Christian folks in the world, who curse and use profanity/vulgarity, etc. The Christian life is not governed by "free speech" but by the commandments of Christ. The Christian is more concerned with pleasing Christ and fulfilling those commandments rather than being "one of the boys" by being adept at cursing and swearing.

If the Ex-C of C site allows and even condones profanity/vulgarity, then it has become a friend of the world, for the world surely is adept at cursing and swearing. James 4:4 (KJV) states that the friend of the world is the enemy of God.

So you just continue to enjoy your "free speech" at Ex-C of C. That site has already shown itself for what it is.

 
 Respond to this message   
kent
(no login)
66.189.13.108

Re: "Free Speech" at Ex-C of C Site

September 13 2005, 6:15 PM 

the site never claimed to be a christian site, but many who post there are christians

 
 Respond to this message   
kent
(no login)
66.189.13.108

Re: "Free Speech" at Ex-C of C Site

September 13 2005, 8:23 PM 

and by the way, you can post pictures on that site. There are a few posted there, and not those pagen picts old ken posts\. They are of some very funny fashions, of coc ladies wearing jumpers and helment hair, most likely PPB being subservient.

ROFLMAO

 
 Respond to this message   
Dr. Bill Crump
(no login)
66.19.69.105

RE: Free Speech at Ex-C of C Site (by Kent)

September 13 2005, 9:02 PM 

Let's hope that those "many Christians" who do post at Ex-C of C are not among those who are given to uncivil responses and unspeakably vile language. That would be a stark contradiction, now wouldn't it? Imagine someone saying, "I'm a Christian, because I believe in Jesus, read my Bible, and pray every day; and oh, by the way, since I don't agree with you, you're full of [excrement] as a Christmas goose!" Imagine.

 
 Respond to this message   
casual observer
(no login)
72.146.0.242

"Ten pretty good rules" (secular)

September 13 2005, 11:28 PM 

Dr. Bill, You are violation of one of the rules, "Never argue with an Idiot, some people may not know the difference". LOL!

 
 Respond to this message   
kent
(no login)
66.189.13.108

Re: "Ten pretty good rules" (secular)

September 14 2005, 6:44 AM 

oh thats funny observer, ha ha ha, nearly wet my pants with that one!
BTW Crump, i thought you coc'ers didnt believe in crosses and crucifix' as symbols. So why would you care where anybody put them, urine or not.
besides, it is fre speach. Would you ban that if you could?

 
 Respond to this message   
kent
(no login)
66.189.13.108

Re: "Ten pretty good rules" (secular)

September 14 2005, 9:16 PM 

BTW, i attend a catholic church. i guess you think we are all doomed huh?

 
 Respond to this message   
Donnie Cruz
(no login)
68.154.168.13

Doomed in purgatory … maybe?

September 15 2005, 6:47 AM 

Kent,

Casual Observer has suggested that “some people may not know the difference.” Since you are not an idiot and you know the difference, do you attend an American Catholic Church or a Roman Catholic Church? According to the book of Acts (check the Douay Bible Version), the church built by Christ was established in Jerusalem. Can you provide us information regarding the Catholic Church that Pope Peter founded in Rome? Do we find this in the epistle that Paul wrote to the Romans? Oh, BTW, there are myriads of issues regarding Catholicism that we would like to discuss with you later on.

Meanwhile, we would like to emphasize that we’re still looking for substantive discussions from you that are worth posting and to be determined on a by case basis—just like everyone else’s. In case you didn’t know, there are numerous fine articles that are waiting to be posted in this thread. Otherwise, I would highly recommend this link to you:

http://thelostforum.net/viewtopic.php?t=1995&highlight=&sid=03ff24e248de09951b34002d0e6a538b

Donnie

 
 Respond to this message   
kent
(no login)
66.189.13.108

Re: Doomed in purgatory … maybe?

September 15 2005, 3:01 PM 

so i see from all these rants that you folks think that if one is not a member of the church of Christ, then one is lost.
Ok, how bout this, which c of C?
Liberal, conservative, how bout one cuppers? No sunday schoolers? No fellowship hallers? Each one of them, except maybe the liberals, think the other is wrong. And each one can back the position with BCV!
So which is it oh learned ones of the coc?
Forget the other christian denominations, which coc is correct?

One thing you people all forget,. each coc is autonomous. The elders from each congregation decide how to lead and how to conduct worship. Seems to me you al are advocating a coc council. Lets have a coc convention and kick out all the coc's we dont think do it right and disfellowship them.
Ok, cool beans. who ya throwin out? One cuppers? Naw, they do it ok, except they dont use those littel glass cups and trays that go..clink.
No sunday schoolers? Maybe, casue they dont study the Word enough.


I stil find you people repugnant. Im sure ill get some smart (insert epitath here, i cant use it) comments from our resident loons like PPB, ken or crump. At least old dnnie can type in complete sentences and has a coherant thought. Hes an arrogant one, to say the least, but i actually kinda respect donnie. He hates Madison, but at least he goes there and keeps up the fight for what he believes in, Ken, doest even go to church!

 
 Respond to this message   
Donnie Cruz
(no login)
65.1.194.117

Re: Re: Doomed in purgatory … maybe?

September 17 2005, 10:03 PM 

Please see below my [indented] response to this post; it is titled, “A battery of techniques for dodging issues.” Thanks!

 
 Respond to this message   
Dr. Bill Crump
(no login)
66.19.66.79

"Who Is Going to Heaven?" An Essay Re-posted for Kent

September 18 2005, 10:53 AM 

Kent has been fuming against this site for many months, and he asks the same questions over and over. From the “Apostate: Jeff Walling” thread, Kent said on March 30, 2005:

“Dont need your prayers, dont want them.” “Do you believe that only the people who follow the coc are going to heaven? Are all catholics condemed, how bout methodists, baptists, presbyterians, etc???” “Am i also to asume you think im lost since i attend a catholic church now? Most likely!”

And as recently as September 15, 2005 in the present thread: "so i see from all these rants that you folks think that if one is not a member of the church of Christ, then one is lost." (Don't even begin to deny these posts, friend.)

Same thing over and over. After a while, it becomes obvious that responding to a persistently rebellious, impenitent person like Kent is completely futile. So it's time to put Kent aside and move on. For his benefit, however, I’m re-posting a previous essay that I wrote in the “Apostate” thread on March 31, 2005. The essay is titled “Who Is Going to Heaven?”

“WHO IS GOING TO HEAVEN?

“The Gospels record several instances in which the Pharisees tempted Jesus with questions, hoping to trap Him with His words. But Jesus always provided answers that, to some, would seem ambiguous or evasive; but to the discerning, His answers were the pure truth. A typical example is His answer given when asked about paying taxes to Caesar (Matt. 22:15-22, this and all succeeding verses KJV): Render unto Caesar his things and unto God His things (although Jesus well knew that ALL things belong to God in the final analysis).

“And so it is when change agents or other detractors of the traditional Church of Christ come to this web site and ask over and over again if the Catholics and members of the Protestant denominations are going to Heaven. They not only mock the confidence that the traditional Church of Christ manifests about its salvation, they also mock us with demands that we speculate upon the eternity of other faiths. So with temptation as their motive, they crouch with Matt. 7:1-2 hidden up their sleeves, itching to spring.

“It’s perhaps easier to ask, ‘Who will decide who is going to heaven?’ for the answer is obvious: God will be the final Judge, and anyone who says otherwise violates Matt. 7:1-2. Is it then more difficult to ask, ‘Who IS going to heaven?’ Why not turn to the ONE source that has the definitive answer—the New Testament? Why not the Old Testament? Gal. 5:3-4 explains why not. You have a Bible—read.

“First of all, Jesus said, ‘I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me’ (John 14:6). This means that, since the advent of the Christian dispensation, no person who has ever walked, or who ever will walk, on this earth can be saved (go to Heaven) from ANY faith (Christian or non-Christian) unless he first believes on Jesus, and Jesus only, as Lord. For those who do not believe this basic premise that Christ created, there’s nothing more to be said.

“For Christians, belief is not enough; there must also be obedience, as the Scriptures also stipulate. Jesus ordered for His followers to observe all things whatsoever He had commanded them (Matt. 28:20) and that if we love Him, we will keep His commandments (John 14:15). If all we needed to do was just ‘believe’ and do nothing else, why did Jesus make a big issue over obedience to everything that He had commanded? Why would nearly a third of His 50 recorded parables be devoted specifically to obedience? All that Jesus directly commanded, or commanded through the inspired Apostolic writings, is recorded in the entire New Testament, and it is the New Testament that is the ‘gold standard’ by which all Christian ‘faiths’ eventually will be judged, for the New Testament is the very Word of God. This Word is to be followed without ever adding anything to it, without ever diminishing anything from it, as the Scriptures also stipulate (Rev. 22:18-19).

“Therefore, each Christian ‘faith’ must examine itself, its creed, and its doctrine most closely and determine if it measures completely up to New Testament standards—not occasionally, not sometimes, not here and there—but in ‘all things.’ Not all Christian faiths live up to New Testament standards. For example:

“If there are women pastors or homosexual pastors, confirm whether the New Testament authorizes them or not.
Likewise, if baptism is by sprinkling or pouring instead of by immersion;
If infant ‘christening’ is practiced as the sole form of ‘baptism’;
If baptism is not considered essential for salvation;
If the roles of elders or deacons have been eliminated;
If the Virgin Mary is venerated or deified as holy and able to answer our prayers;
If the Pope is considered the vicar of Christ;
If human priests serve as intermediaries between man and Christ;
If priests have the power to absolve sins;
If there is belief in Purgatory and Limbo;
If divorce and remarriage are readily acceptable for any cause;
If all portions of the Word are not considered of equal merit and importance;
If practices are implemented in worship which closely mimic worldly practices or which are clearly designed to make worship more entertaining, culture-relevant, and acceptable rather than reverent and holy;
If a new practice is under consideration for implementation in worship;

“Therefore, for ‘all things,’ confirm whether the New Testament specifically authorizes them or not, either by specific command or by direct implication by the Word. The list could go on and on.

“Which act follows the Word more closely—to second-guess the Scriptures and implement into worship anything and everything not specifically forbidden therein, or to implement only that which is specifically authorized and commanded therein? Is it not more obedient to take the Scriptures at face value, trust them to be a true Guide, and not deviate from them in any way whatsoever? Neither Jesus nor the Apostles gave Christians any authority to go beyond that which is specifically authorized and commanded in the Word. This is not ‘legalism’; this is simple obedience to God’s Word.

“So who is going to heaven? Those who believe that Jesus is Lord, who forsake the world, and who do the will of the Father according to His Word (1 John 2:15-17).”

I bid Kent a good life. Perhaps someday he will change and become a penitent person.







 
 Respond to this message   
ConcernedCatholic
(no login)
67.191.143.37

American Catholic Church???

September 19 2005, 10:04 AM 

Okay, you folks can say or do whatever you wish, that is fine with me. But, I do have a question for Donnie. What the heck is the AMERICAN CATHOLIC CHURCH??? You asked Kent whether he goes to a Roman or American Catholic Church.

I am a "cradle Catholic" (born and raised so to speak) and I have NEVER heard of the American Catholic Church? Is this possibly the Espicopal Church? If so, the Episcopals are the American Anglicans, not Catholic.

I am just confused on the terminology American Catholic Church. Could you please direct me to a valid source of information regarding this movement? Thanks so much.

 
 Respond to this message   
ConcernedCatholic
(no login)
67.191.143.37

Re: Doomed in purgatory … maybe?

September 19 2005, 5:25 PM 

Donnie, hi, I just have a question, I am not going to make any comments on your opinions or philosophy.

As a "cradle Catholic" (one who is born and raised Catholic) I am very interested about your statement to Kent regarding the Roman vs. American Catholic Church. I am not sure that I have ever heard of the American Catholic Church. Being raised in the Roman Catholic Church, I realize I may not be aware of ALL of the other divisions, but I am aware of some. However, I have NEVER heard of the American Catholic Church.

Now, the American version of the Anglican Church (the Church of England) is the Episcopal Church. I hope you are not confusing the "American" Anglicans as "American" Catholics.

Please, direct me to a valid source of information regarding the movement called the American Catholic Church.

Thanks so much for your time,
Concerned Catholic

 
 Respond to this message   
Donnie Cruz
(no login)
68.154.166.20

Re: American Catholic Church??? … Re: Purgatory?

September 20 2005, 12:32 AM 

To Concerned Catholic:

Thanks for posting.

Actually, I was just trying to strike a conversation with Kent. I was also being somewhat facetious, wanting to challenge Kent to defend certain Catholic beliefs and practices. As you may have noticed, the idea to have a little discussion in that regard didn’t work out. I had felt so certain that he would respond at least by telling me that the question didn’t make sense or by asking me to elaborate further—just like you did. But that’s fine with me—that’s Kent’s prerogative.

I would like to just say briefly (since this thread is about the Community Churches and the associated movement that’s taking over various religious groups) that it is common knowledge among Catholics who strongly believe that the Catholic Church was founded in Rome by Peter its first pope and its headquarters being in the Vatican City. Of course, the Bible says otherwise—and that can be a different topic altogether.

I guess part of my point has to do with the way Catholics in the United States may feel about the fact that the Mother Church is located in Italy and some of its children churches are in America—considering that while the U.S.A. is the greatest and most powerful nation on earth, it is in subjection to another country (Italy) when it comes to religion.

We could perhaps devote time to discuss religious differences later on. For now, I myself have gotten interested in knowing that the expression I used has raised your level of curiosity (and perhaps others as well)—Roman Catholic Church or American Catholic Church?

I just did a “Google” search on “American Catholic Church.” Guess what? There were some 71,000 links listed, such as:

  • American Catholic - A Roman Catholic Church site from the Franciscans
  • American Catholic Church Homepage
  • Home Page American Catholic Church in Nevada
  • Good Shepherd American Catholic Church
  • The American Catholic Church in the United States
  • The Holy Angels Church Home Page, An African American Catholic Church
  • Divine Mercy American Catholic Church
  • The Church of Santa Susanna - Home of the American Catholic Church in Rome
  • American Catholic Church
  • How America's Catholic Church crucified itself - Sunday Times ...
  • Building an American Catholic Church

I hope I have answered your question. Thanks again.

Donnie

 
 Respond to this message   
Donnie Cruz
(no login)
65.1.194.117

“A battery of techniques for dodging issues”

September 17 2005, 10:21 PM 

Kent,

I wish you hadn’t disappointed me by failing this time to answer any of my questions related to your professed religious faith. But there’s plenty of time for you to defend Catholicism when you are ready.

Meanwhile, it appears that you are also pretty knowledgeable of issues that disciples of change agents frequently use as part of their defense mechanisms. [Now, I’m really confused about your church affiliation. Is this something you would like to clarify for us?]

Since I think I can assume that you might really be interested in carrying on a meaningful discussion, let me briefly address certain defense mechanisms that you have well familiarized yourself with:

  • That if one is not a member of the church of Christ, then one is lost. Well, regardless of time (night or day), location (region or country), available means (baptistery in a Baptist church building or river, lake or seashore), when an accountable individual, who has heard the gospel and believed, repents and is buried with Christ in baptism UNTO [so that, in order that, for, toward] the remission of sins in the blood of the Lamb (Acts 2:37-38,41; Romans 6:4; Colossians 2:12), that individual becomes a member of Christ’s church. Remaining faithful unto death is a scriptural admonition to the Christian.

  • Liberal or conservative.If doctrine is considered unimportant by some professed Christians, just see what the Scripture has to say about that. The New Testament is replete with instructions concerning doctrines and safeguards against false doctrines (cf. Matt. 15:9; Acts 2:42; Rom. 6:17; 16:17; Titus 1:9; 2:1,7; Eph. 4:14; Col. 2:22; II Tim. 3:16; 4:2-3; I Tim. 1:3,10; 4:1-16; Heb. 13:9; Rev. 2:14-15; II John 1:9-10).

  • Other issues: one-cuppers; no Sunday School; no fellowship hallers. Hmmm … hmmm …. hmmm! Use of either one cup or multiple cups does not affect the emblem of Christ’s suffering on the cross nor the health-and-sanitation factor.

    Re: “Sunday School”—Actually, the assembly of the saints is patterned after the “synagogue” format that focuses on the reading [or teaching of God’s Word], simple non-instrumental singing, giving of means for the poor and the needy, plus the New Testament example of the “breaking of bread” known as the Lord’s Supper. It can be clearly seen that if the assembly period included or were devoted extensively to the reading and teaching of God’s Word, then, the no-Sunday-school factor would not be an issue. The assembly of Christians would be equivalent to being “a school of the Bible.” Notwithstanding, what has been termed as “Sunday School” or Bible study would be an added opportunity for Christians to study God’s Word even more—while Christians are already together. Several passages support the need for diligent study of the scriptures—which can occur any time and day of the week.

    “No fellowship hall-ers” is just as weak of an argument as having a meeting place or using a “church bus” to transport members who have no other means to be in the assembly.

We don’t normally waste our time discussing matters that do not contribute to the spread of Change Movement-ism that is intruding upon the affairs of a number of local congregations and causing divisions in them. O.K., Kent, I have succumbed to your wish … only since you brought them up. But, referring to these matters is really a weak form of defending the cause of the Change Movement. These matters do not alter God’s pattern for the church. On the other hand, culture-driven schemes in an attempt to TRANSFORM the Lord’s church into some culture- or societal-driven fashion are what this site is warning against.

By the way, you are correct in that congregations are autonomous by God’s design. But decisions by the elders of each congregation are still contingent upon God’s rule—they are not automatically scriptural, but still need God’s approval. The New Testament clearly specifies that the local body of believers must be governed by the spirit of unity in the bond of peace, by being of the same mind and of the same judgment—“that there be no divisions among you.” Only God-directed leadership can provide such unity in the congregation—even when it comes to the “go … clink” that you speak of.

If the “other Christian denominations” subscribe to what the New Testament teaches, when and how one becomes a member of the body of Christ would not be an issue at all. [I have already quoted scriptures that detail what one needs to do to be added to the Lord’s church regardless of when and where … because what matters is the why (what for) and how.]

Kent, let’s not confuse arrogance with confidence in what the New Testament says about God’s scheme of redemption and His pattern for the church. Please don’t underestimate the Scripture-based knowledge of those whose writings you have read and often reject, of the extensive researches that are shared here. No, I do not hate the Madison congregation. I’m just repulsed by what happened when former elders loyal to the Lord’s church felt the need to resign because they had been overpowered by opposing forces—what else could they have done given the circumstances? What’s repugnant is that the leadership has allowed the upheaval to occur when it could have been avoided. Yes, I will keep the fight … but it’s the fight for the unity of the believers. Unity can be preserved when intruders are rejected and refused entrance at the outset.

Donnie

 
 Respond to this message   
kent
(no login)
64.12.116.132

Re: “A battery of techniques for dodging issues”

September 24 2005, 6:58 PM 

i do not respond to facecious question mr cruz, and yours were just as i supected all along.
none of you want real conversation and debate; only retoric that suits your twisted purpose.

 
 Respond to this message   
 
  << Previous Topic | Next Topic >>Return to Index  
Place your text ad here.           See all text ads

This web site is not part of or approved by any Church!

...........................THE BOOK

What Happened at the Madison Church of Christ?


There are thousands of churches being taken over across America.

This book is only about one of those churches. It's about the Madison Church Of Christ. By studying the methods used here along with the resource references you might be able to inoculate your church. At the very least you will recognize the signs early on.

Many of the current members of the Madison Church of Christ still don't know what happened.
Some never will know! This book is for them as well.

Madison Church of Christ was a 60 year old church. At one time it was one of the largest churches in the US, and the largest Church of Christ.

It thrived for many years on the vision of it's elders and those of it's ministers. Those visions undoubtably came from the the inspired word of Jesus Christ.

At sometime in the last 10 years there was a deliberate plan by a majority of the elders to take the Madison Church of Christ into a more worldly realm.

They used secrecy, covert planning, and outside sources to scheme and to change the format and direction of the Madison Church of Christ.

The Elders knew that the membership would never approve such a plan. Using the tools of the "Community Church Movement"(consultants, books, seminars, meetings,planters,seeders) they slowly started initiating change so it was never noticed by the members until it was too late.....

At the heart of the plan was the fact that old members were going to be driven off so new techniques could be used to go out and reach the unchurched through new "Contemporary Holy Entertainment" methods developed by the "Community Church Movement"

Old members had to be kept on board long enough to get their plans ready, or the funds would not be there to pay for the new building. So by the plans very nature, it had to be secret.

The church had no plan in effect to renew or approve elders. There was never any need. The elders had always been "as approved by God". 10 of the last 15 elders would begin to shed some doubt on that.

The Elders did not even need a majority at first, because some of the elders went along unwittingly.

This edition starts shortly after some of the members begin to smell something strange in January 2001. Later editions may go back and fill in some of the timeline.

To even start to understand whats happening here, you must read the background materials in the first of the book.

This is only the first edition, and not the end. New editions will be printed as needed. To keep abreast of current changes, please visit our web site; http://www.concernedmembers.com/madison

Here is the list of players;

5 Godly Elders
10 Not so Godly Elders
120 "Deacons" (allegiance unknown)
2,800 - 4,000 church "members"
2 "teners" (people who have publicly confessed to have broken all ten commandments)
Unknown number of "sinners" (This is what the 10 elders call us.)
Unknown number of "demons" (Flying everywhere, to many to count)
 

Click Here......The Book is Available Now FREE

Place your banner ad here.           See all banner ads

...ConcernedMembers.com ...About ...Links Library ...Sunday School in Exile ...Help Warn Others


FastCounter by bCentral

CM Visit Counter as of 6/25/2015
2,101,394

Site Visits Since 6/30/2015
page counter