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 >>  
SBC
(no login)
72.146.37.218

"UNMASK" = "FRUITY LOOP"

June 7 2006, 5:46 PM 

When the questions get tuff, then comes the the "UNMASK" request. I am not a genius but its apparent whats going on here. Dr. Bill, why engage conversation with the "MASKED" posters if you have no intention of answering their questions?

 
 Respond to this message   
Dr. Bill Crump
(no login)
66.19.70.107

Re: "UNMASK" = "FRUITY LOOP"

June 7 2006, 10:14 PM 

The answers to the questions are simple enough. But in our experience, most detractors couldn't care less about the answers except to use them as a springboard to carry the "discussion" far away from the original topic. It's a typical distraction move we've seen numerous times. Since I now require people to unmask to get answers, we'll see how desperate the masked people are to have those answers. Sort of a moment of truth challenge. But I suspect that the incentive to know the answers will never outweigh the detractors' fear of unmasking. Full name and religious affiliation: that's the requirement.

 
 Respond to this message   
Dr. Bill Crump
(no login)
66.217.162.146

Re: Teaching the Bible with TV Sitcoms

June 4 2006, 10:01 AM 

"B" claims that I have successfully deflated the imaginary concept that TAGS is a method to teach the Bible. Yet perhaps it is "B" who is suffering from delusions. On May 31, 2006, "B" stated in the thread The Jesus Proposal:

"As I've thought today about this entire discussion, I am just more and more amazed at the close mindedness concerning a method of teaching the Bible. Understand that's what this [TAGS] is, a method. Nothing more, nothing less."

"B" claims that TAGS is a method to teach the Bible. Did he speak rashly? I took "B" at his word and invited him to present at least 25 episodes (10 percent of the shows) that specifically "teach the Bible." After all, a "method" like TAGS is supposedly designed to accomplish something; in this case, "teach the Bible," or so "B" claims. I stipulated that "B" must present TAGS episodes that teach more than just morality, because we all agree that TAGS teaches simple morality, and we all know (or should know) that morality is not unique to Christianity or the Bible; most non-Christian faiths also teach morality. The TAGS episodes must teach specific aspects of Christian doctrine that go beyond morality.

"B" has now had ample time to present these episodes. Within a few minutes, I summarized 10 or 11 TAGS episodes above that do not teach Christian doctrine, and I could list far more; whether those particular episodes even teach morality is questionable. So if "B" cannot prove to us that TAGS teaches Christian doctrine from the Bible, then "B" should admit that he spoke rashly, admit that TAGS occasionally teaches a little morality, admit that we have debunked his claim that TAGS is a method to teach the Bible, and finally admit that the best place to begin a discussion about Christianity is the New Testament. But that would be an admission that TAGS and other pop-culture gimmicks are not suitable methods for teaching the Bible at church, Sunday school, or anywhere else. And I doubt that "B" would be willing to do that.

 
 Respond to this message   
B
(no login)
70.238.52.169

Re: Teaching the Bible with TV Sitcoms

June 4 2006, 10:57 PM 

A flannelgraph doesn't teach the Bible by itself either. Both the flannelgraph and TAGS need a teacher to help make the Biblical applications.

Of course, I addressed this several posts ago.

 
 Respond to this message   
B
(no login)
70.232.72.241

Re: Teaching the Bible with TV Sitcoms

June 6 2006, 2:28 PM 

Dr. Bill,

It's the internet. If you're unwilling to discuss with people you can't identify, then you might as well just shut it down now.

 
 Respond to this message   
Dr. Bill Crump
(no login)
66.19.69.193

Re: Teaching the Bible with TV Sitcoms

June 6 2006, 8:20 PM 

Of course, I don't make the rules here, but if "B" is unwilling to discuss topics identity to identity, then he sheds a most unfavorable light on himself and is free to find other forums where he can hide "in peace." As far as the Internet goes, if "B" is so afraid of posting on it, then he should stay away from chat rooms altogether. BTW, I will advise "B" to stick with the New Testament as the prime source for beginning any biblical conversation; TAGS can't hold a candle to it. Go in peace, my son.

 
 Respond to this message   
B
(no login)
70.238.52.169

Re: Teaching the Bible with TV Sitcoms

June 7 2006, 1:36 AM 

No one said that TAGS does hold a candle to the Bible. This is exactly what I'm talking about when I say you're deconstructing imaginary points of view.

 
 Respond to this message   
Dr. Bill Crump
(no login)
66.217.126.214

Re: Teaching the Bible with TV Sitcoms

June 7 2006, 2:20 PM 

“B” makes an excellent point: TAGS doesn’t hold a candle to the New Testament. It never did, and it never will. How clever of “B” for thinking of that! I’m so proud of him! Therefore, if TAGS never did, does not now, and never will hold a candle to the New Testament, then it is foolish to use TAGS as an adjunct to or to complement the New Testament. Discerning people will recognize that it is far wiser to cut to the chase and go directly to the New Testament, the first, best, most logical, and the only authoritative source for teaching Christian principles and the New Testament Itself. Why settle for less than the very best--the New Testament?



 
 Respond to this message   
Jimmy Joe
(no login)
68.52.127.150

I wonder

June 7 2006, 6:10 PM 

Hey B. I wonder why Dr.Crump considers that your are hiding your idenitity but PPB is not. PPB is never taken to task for hiding behind a moniker yet you are. Could it be because you do not agree totally with everything the good doctor believes. Just wondering.

 
 Respond to this message   
Dr. Bill Crump
(no login)
66.19.70.107

Re: I wonder

June 7 2006, 10:25 PM 

Could be, but "B" will just have to face his own identity fears. PPB can take care of herself.

 
 Respond to this message   
B
(no login)
70.238.52.169

Re: I wonder

June 8 2006, 12:39 AM 

Jule Miller filmstrips don't hold a candle to the New Testament either. Should we abolish them from Bible class use, too?

 
 Respond to this message   
Dr. Bill Crump
(no login)
66.19.71.203

Re: I wonder

June 8 2006, 8:53 AM 

Unmask, and all questions will be answered. Full name and religious affiliation. How much do "B" and "Opie" want to know the answers?

 
 Respond to this message   
Anonymous
(no login)
66.156.7.85

Re: I wonder

June 8 2006, 2:29 PM 

I'm not going to play your game. Just because you have some strange, may I say perverted , curiosity to know my name (you already know my affiliation), doesn't mean I bow down to your desire. I don't know you, and you won't know me, so what does it matter? It would be like me "requiring" you to unmask what your doctorate is in for me to continue my discussion with you. It is not germane, but it does provide me with an out since I know from previous post that it is something you will not do. It's not about cowardice, its about privacy.

Why won't you answer the questions? Why do you prefer knocking down straw men or imaginary points of view? How many times do B and I have to tell you we are not trying to make the ridiculous argument to replace the New Testament with sitcoms for you to stop harping on it? You carried on a conversation before now with us, why at this moment do you require us to unmask? You spend an extraordinary amount of time posting to this website about the change movement and its perceived evils, but when you have two people who are truly interested in discussing difficult issues, you refuse to discuss something that is obviously close to your heart.

Why do you continue to bate us into get into a name-calling match with you?

"Perhaps it is "B" who is suffering from delusions,"
"if "B" is so afraid of posting on it,"
"He shouldn't accuse anyone of not being 'brave',"
"yet he is too much of a coward to reveal his true identity."

The one-up-manship is growing old. I feel like I'm in junior high again. It's really hard not to respond with "Oh, yeah, your mama is a coward!" or worse, "Your mama's a CHANGE AGENT!" Why not just discuss the issues without all this one-up-manship. It isn't effective and weakens your argument.

There is no hidden agenda here. I wanted to carry the discussion from the specific case of TAGS to the more general case of using nontraditional techniques in church. If you answer the questions and I use them to "springboard" into something off topic, I am sure you will call me on it, so what's the risk?

 
 Respond to this message   
Dr. Bill Crump
(no login)
207.69.138.8

Re: I wonder

June 8 2006, 8:57 PM 

"Anonymous," "B," "Opie" (does "Opie" = "Anonymous"?) and all other masked phantoms now know the drill if the desired answers are so incredibly vital to them. This is non-negotiable, neither is it a game, nor is it perverted, unless perhaps the masked phantoms have lived perverted lifestyles or have run afoul of the law, in which case their real identities would allow the cops to nail them!

And sorry, I don't known the religious affiliation of "Anonymous." I suspected that someone posing as "SBC" was Baptist, but until everyone unmasks and "comes clean," everything from them must be taken with a grain of salt.



 
 Respond to this message   
SBC
(no login)
72.146.9.240

Re: I wonder

June 8 2006, 10:04 PM 

How do the site moderators feel about Dr. Bill's position on privacy? Is Dr. Bill's position supported by the people who run this site? Just let me know how you feel.

 
 Respond to this message   
Dr. Bill Crump
(no login)
66.217.165.196

Let This Be the End

June 9 2006, 12:14 AM 

Of course, I cannot speak for the moderators, but I'm sure they would agree that no one is forced to identify themselves in order to post at this site. So it comes down to what individual parties are willing or not willing to do, given requests made by other parties. Several masked phantoms want me to answer their questions. I in turn want them to identify themselves and their religious affiliations. No one is forcing anyone to answer questions or to unmask. It's simply a matter of what one party is willing to do or how far they are willing to comply with the other party's request. The masked phantoms have chosen to remain anonymous; therefore, their questions will remain unanswered. Both parties have made their positions well known. Now let other discerning readers make up their minds whether or not classic TV shows like TAGS are suitable teaching tools in Sunday schools. Let that be the end of it, and let us go our separate ways in peace.

 
 Respond to this message   
The Masked Phantom
(no login)
66.156.7.85

Re: Let This Be the End

June 9 2006, 9:11 AM 

Yes, since Dr. Bill has drawn in line in the sand that is his choice. In the end it's probably better. After this my blood pressure will probably go down. I've spent way too much time the last couple of days trying to engage in a debate with someone who obviously doesn't want to for his own reasons. But there is one good thing I've gotten from this lack of discussion, a great moniker (much better than Opie) to use next time I subcome and post on the site.

Whenever Donnie makes some sarcastic comment about the elders at Madison, I'll be there. Whenever, Ken makes some reference to change agents and sexual perversion, I'll defend. Whenever Dr. Bill tilts at yet another windmill, I'll set the record straight. THE MASKED PHANTOM striking fear into the dark hearts of the wicked!

 
 Respond to this message   
Dr. Bill Crump
(no login)
66.217.164.48

Re: Let This Be the End

June 9 2006, 1:47 PM 

I went to my doctor for a check-up on Wednesday, June 7. My blood pressure was quite normal, unlike "The Masked Phantom," whose blood pressure has been "high" because he's been beating his head against the wall vainly and desperately attemtping to pitch dead arguments. No wonder his BP soared, what with grinding his teeth, pounding computer keyboards, and shrieking at the sky in anger!

Actually, I couldn't help but enjoy the last few days, watching the uproariously comedic responses from "SBC," "Opie," "Anonymous," and others as they howled, growled, seethed, and worked themselves into a lathered frenzy because I simply asked them to unmask. It's almost as if they were like vampires who knew that they would be destroyed if they came into the sunlight of public identity! And I drove them to near-insanity simply by refusing to answer their ridiculous questions, the answers to which were in each of my postings, had the masked ones desired to look for them! Each masked phantom got on his soapbox to "preach" the sanctity and holiness of his very own privacy, while stamping and shrieking, "Answer the questions!! Answer the questionnnnsss, uhhh, wahhh, bawww!!" And perhaps some even thought of screaming, "Why-won't-you-answer-them-*&^%$#-questionnnnssss-you-contemptuous-*&^%#?" but they had sense enough to hold their tongues, lest they be "jailed" in the Vipers Den!

I tell ya, some think this site is "dying." But after the last few days, not likely! All we need do is stir up the change agents a bit with biblical TRUTH, and they'll swarm like flies to condemn that TRUTH!

 
 Respond to this message   
SBC
(no login)
72.146.37.135

Re: Let This Be the End

June 9 2006, 1:50 PM 

I can only assume that Dr. Bill now speaks for the moderators of this site. The "bait and switch" special ops mission conducted by Dr. Bill has now been completed. The regular posters (Ken and PPB) have been bridled as part of the Dr. Bill's mission to expose or eradicate the "MASKED POSTERS". Please release Ken, I miss his posts. Dr. Bill, is lurking still permitted? It saddens me to see you so bitter.

 
 Respond to this message   
Mark F
(Login markfl)
72.26.162.230

Mayberry

June 9 2006, 11:51 PM 

You're right, the bible studies that use the Mayberry shows as a launching point to discuss a biblical point are by no means evangalistic in nature. However,the goal of a study of the bible is not always evangalistic, sometimes the goal is individual spiritual growth.

For example, I do not need to be reminded of the necessity of baptism, been there, done that! Now I need to grow spiritually and mature as a christian.

To say that a study is necessarily bad because of the illustration it uses is not evangalistic in nature may not be accurate. I find parallels with the christian walk in a great many secular things. The key is that I do not focus on the secular, rather the secular reminds me of the spiritual.

For example, I serve in the military as a Captian. There are stories about military dedication and sacrifice that I could use in a class to lead into a discussion about being commited and dedicated to the christian walk. The idea is that we connect with stories very easily. If we can tie those stories back to the bible, and teach the biblical principles, then we will have spiritual growth.

I am not necessarily advocating one form of illustration or another, but to disregard an illustration because it is not evangalistic in nature seems to be throwing the proverbial baby out with the bathwater.

In Christ,

Mark F

 
 Respond to this message   
 
  << Previous Topic | Next Topic >>  
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