As long as you know
the high standard
|October 15 2006, 2:39 AM |
of postings, messages with responsible content and at least a certain level of maturity and are conducive to scripture-based learning
will continue to be posted. [Now you know that the moderators read every post that is submitted.]
BTW, Im assuming that this is your real name this timethus, you have emerged from hypocrisy. And for that this forum is thankful.
|October 15 2006, 11:34 PM |
"...messages with responsible content and at least a certain level of maturity and are conducive to scripture-based learning
will continue to be posted."
"The Constipated Message Board"... maturity? conducive to scripture-based learning?
We are obviously operating from two different paradigms here.
"Now you know that the moderators read every post that is submitted."
I never said you didn't READ them. I said you edited, ignored, and deleted them, just like you cried that the "constipated message board" does.
You know, hypocrisy. Google it.
Fodder for the Cannon Balls
|October 15 2006, 11:28 PM |
Dear Dr. Pill Pump, I heard this incredible factoid on TV today. I wonder if you could get a BeDate started on whether I should believe this and whether I should make it part of my creed: here is the raw assertion:
"Hawaii is an island entirely surrounded by water."
This is quite disturbing: hoping you will get me medication for this totally disturbing claim.
A Preacher want forgive another preacher's wife????
|October 17 2006, 5:25 PM |
One writer who was ban from this board has crossed wires with another writer on the fs board. This other writer claims to be a preacher's wife while HoldenOn claims to be a preacher.
HoldenOn writes: How dare you assume that I am not hurt? Yes, I'm angry, but I'm more hurt than angry.
And it did not start with "Important end times information." It started before that. It started with your exchange with M----.
Then, it continued with your confession. I didn't have a problem with what you said about yourself, but the fact that you included everybody else was beyond your authority. I don't feel that I did anything wrong to or about B-----. If you felt that you did, that's between you, him and God.
Then you adopted this very arrogant, condescending attitude and to quote you, "I won't tolerate the same behavior you have displayed here."
I just don't know what I did to merit the kind of treatment I have received from you.
Alledged preacher's wife writes: R--- (HoldenOn)isn't "hurt", he's angry. If he wants to talk to me, he has my email. But I won't tolerate the same behavior he has displayed here. As a preacher, he knows his behavior has been out-of-line.
HoldenOn writes:. Pardon me, but your arrogance is showing. You claim to have made a public confession of your sins. It was a nice show, but you haven't confessed everything. You did a pretty good number on me and it did not seem to bother you. You like to say what you want and not have to deal with the consequences. By that I mean stick the knife in and twist it, then say, I'm not going to talk about this anymore. I thought more of you than than that.
Alledged preacher's wife writes: Great. Now I see that some of R--k's and S----- posts are being deleted. By whom, is anyone's guess. I should know by now to copy and paste them into my replies so that I'm not left looking like the troublemaker.
Maybe it's time to shut this board down.
This exchaange can be found on the thread: RE:WHAT DOES THIS MEAN; DATE 10/07/06
As the plot thickens at fs and veeejo-o-o-o calls for the board to shut down it seems that the preacher, and HoldenOn claims to be one, is ready to fight. Even if his opponent is a preacher's wife. As for the alledged preacher's wife, well you can read about her in some of the post's made earlier in this thread.
If I was putting money on this fight I would put it on the alledged preacher's wife. She seems to be tuff as snuff. I certainly wouldn't want to cross her.
Unethical behavior by Jimmy Wren
|October 18 2006, 11:29 AM |
Jimmy is copying and pasting without permission from another forum in violation of the footnotes on the posts:
"Users may not modify, publish, transmit, participate in the transfer or sale of, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, display or in any way exploit any of the content in whole or in part, without obtaining prior written authorization."
Perhaps his cronies will have enough integrity to insist that he remove these posts and that this unethical behavior stop.
What is the persons real name whose footnotes are on the posts? I would think that the poster, whose message is especially doctrinal or religious in nature and has any redeeming value, would like his message known or heard by others.
|This message has been edited by Donnie.Cruz from IP address 184.108.40.206 on Oct 19, 2006 5:17 AM|
|October 18 2006, 5:57 PM |
Jimmy, that was despicable.
|October 19 2006, 12:00 PM |
Hi Max it's good to hear from you.
Why is that post considered to be despicable by you? Is it because of the content in R*iK's or VeE-jo-O-o's post?
Is it okay to sit on the side lines and watch these two people go at each other on a public forum? Is their conduct consider to be okay by you? Why did the fs moderators allow such a thread to continue?
I wrote the post because this "preacher" and this alledged "preacher's wife" have often written false and mean things about other people. Both have had harsh things to say about people including whole churches.
Do you remember how both of these have written demeaning posts that dealt with the church leaders and elders and members who drive expensive cars?
Both were content at one time to take jabs at S. E., Piney, Donnie, Dr. Bill and myself. Now that most of those do not post at fs anymore they now have turned on each other.
Barking dogs will bark at each other when they have nothing else to bark at.
Thanks for your comments Max.
|October 20 2006, 3:52 PM |
I stopped writing on this board 8 months ago. I would not be writing now, but Jimmy has taken it upon himself to copy, and paste some posts I and another person wrote to each other on another site. He has also edited them.
I believe this to be unethical on his part and told him so on the other site.
I also believe that the moderators of this site, even though I may not agree with them on many topics, will allow me at least a limited defense of what has been posted about me.
They will also be able to put to rest once for all the untruth that I had been banned from here.
That, in fact, is the first topic I would like to address. I was never banned. I have from time to time had posts that were edited by the moderators, as many posters have. I never used foul or obscene language.
Next, Jimmy writes that I "have often written false and mean things about other people." I will plead guilty to the occasional mean comment. But Jimmy, I challenge to find something false that I wrote. The burden of proof is on you.
In that same paragraph Jimmy writes, "Both have had harsh things to say about people including whole churches." Then only comment I have ever made about "whole churches" has been in as general sense. I never singled out a church, never named one, never identified the name location or even state of a single whole church. I made a comment that I knew churches that had bad leadership. I do know them. Do you mean to tell me that you do not know of "whole churches" that have bad leadership? That have gained bad reputations?
What about some of the threads on this board? They name churches by name. I have never done that.
Then you write, "Do you remember how both of these have written demeaning posts that dealt with the church leaders and elders and members who drive expensive cars?"
Again, I ask you to name one single leader of a church, one elder or deacon that I have written something demeaning about.
Lastly, v-jo and I have no problems. You can ask her. We are fine.
Why did you want to spread our previous problems around? Do you take delight when Christians quarrel? We should never had let things get to the point that it did. It was my fault and I apologized. We are reconciled. That should make you rejoice.
Again, I thank the moderators and hope they will post this. I hope this brings this whole unfortunate episode to a close. There has been nothing gained by posting these things, and as I have been reminded of so many times, this site is supposed to be about theological issues, not personalities.
|Dr. Bill Crump|
Not Quite Enough
|October 20 2006, 9:52 PM |
The CM moderators here allowed Rick to present his "defense" regarding the allegedly "despicable" act committed by Jimmy. That's far more than the moderators at FS would have ever allowed anyone from Concerned Members to do, because the FS moderators and the regular posters over there just don't want any conservatives, especially those from CM, to post there at all. Thus they keep "banning" the conservatives and deleting all of their messages, regardless of the topics presented. For example, I had posted at FS a most serious essay by John Waddey about teachers and the Change Movement. It was summarily deleted along with all the other conservative messages.
FS clearly wants a "closed society" of liberals, whereas it is also clear that by allowing Rick and others of similar views to post here, CM is more open to posting views from both sides. That said, it should now be obvious which site suffers from bias and narrow-mindedness.
|October 20 2006, 4:26 PM |
If a dog barks on a forum and no one is around to read it, does the coffee still taste bitter?
|Dr. Bill Crump|
|October 21 2006, 9:19 AM |
There's one about cats, too: If a wild cat hisses on a forum and no one is around to read it, does clabber still taste just as sour?
And one about skunks: If an angry skunk releases its scent gland on a forum and there is no recipient around to "benefit" from it, is there still a great stink in the air?
And then there's one about hangmen...Well, you get the point.
|Dr. Bill Crump|
Who Is Really Despicable?
|October 20 2006, 3:53 PM |
It seems that anyone who exposes and calls to task the obviously despicable behavior demonstrated by the left-wingers over at FS automatically becomes a "despicable" person himself. No one is to reprimand or criticize the hypocrisy rampant at FS, for the left-wingers there follow the bizarre notion that, as "servants of God," they are free to revile and ridicule those whom they please.
When Jesus openly exposed the hypocrisy of the scribes and Pharisees and called them to task for it, the offenders became highly offended and most likely regarded Jesus as "despicable." In fact, they were so offended that they plotted to kill Him, among other reasons.
Jimmy openly exposed the hypocrisy of the left-wingers at FS and called them to task for it. As expected, the offenders became highly offended and screamed (through the voice of Max) that Jimmy did something "despicable." No, the offenders were justly nailed!
How ironic that the offensive left-wingers continue to waste vast amounts of energy "banning" the conservatives from FS, yet those same offensive left-wingers can freely post over here at Concerned Members.
|Dr. Bill Crump|
Who Is Really Hurt?
|October 20 2006, 10:22 AM |
The left-wingers at FS have always had, and still have, a penchant for posting messages intended to bash, hurt, revile, insult, and hurl all manner of personal attacks against those with whom they disagree. They previously delivered these messages of derision against the regulars from Concerned Members and other conservatives who once posted there. Now according to Jimmy, with the conservatives gone, the left-wingers are left with attacking each other and are doing so without reducing the amount of bile and vinegar spewed in the process.
When I posted at FS, it was commonplace to see a string of responses by the left-wingers, and sometimes they would expend much energy to create new threads just to bash me. I really didn't need to read such posts and often passed them by, because they were filled with the same offal of insults and derision.
That said, consider this: Who is really hurt when left-wingers revile and ridicule their opponents? Many of them at FS follow the bizarre notion that they are actually "serving God" when they revile and insult, and that their opponents will be justifiably mutilated and hacked to pieces in the process. What kind of "Christianity" is FS promoting by this kind of vicious heresy?
The FS left-wingers seem oblivious to the fact that verbally ripping and hacking others requires an abundant "spirit of mean-spiritedness" as well as an ample dose of blind hatred, attributes which find no place among faithful Christians. So who is really hurt in the process? First Cor. 6:9-10 (KJV) brands those who revile others as "unrighteous" and promises that they will not inherit the Kingdom of God. Thus it is logical to conclude that when the FS left-wingers verbally hack and slash, they do nothing more than hack and slash their own souls to ribbons.
|October 21 2006, 7:27 PM |
Rick if you are really such a misunderstood preacher and Jimmy misrepresented you, you could have set the record straight by inviting CM readers to FS to read your post. Now all you can do is ask the CM readers to take your word for it.
After Jimmy posted some of the things that you had written you immediately deleted those wicked things plus some others that I have not mentioned yet.
If you kept copies why not post them here?
|October 23 2006, 9:36 AM |
I see you do not deny editing the posts. I never said I was misrepresented, either. If you read what I wrote you will see that. My objection was to your unethical behavior in copying and pasting posts from fs. That is a direct violation of fs rules. You also make another false assumption by writing this: "you could have set the record straight by inviting CM readers to FS to read your post." The assumption is that I had something to set straight. I did not. I already said earlier that I was wrong in writing what I did. Again, I did not say that you misprepresented me. I don't know what your reasons were.
Then you did something even stranger. You wrote this, referring to yourself in the 3rd person. "After Jimmy posted some of the things that you had written you immediately deleted those wicked things plus some others that I have not mentioned yet." That seemed to indicate that you wanted to continue your unethical actions.
Of course I deleted the posts, and I did not keep copies. I was ashamed of them. Why would I want to repost them here? I did not want you to repost them here, either. I e-mailed the other poster and advised her to delete her posts, also, so you would not have any more fuel to add to this fire.
Again, I ask you, what is to be gained by dragging an old argument through the mud again? Are you trying to re-open old wounds?
It won't work.
Re: "Who Is Really Hurt?"
|October 21 2006, 8:35 PM |
|Dr. Bill Crump|
Re: "Who Is Really Hurt?"
|October 22 2006, 10:10 AM |
The point is that if messages which deliberately bash, hurt, insult, and attack others are never read by the intended recipients, then the only ones hurt are those who write such evil messages. Some may argue, "If the message is never read, then there's no harm done." Not so. Evil messages always hurt people, yet they don't always hurt the intended recipients.
That's the whole point of the parody about the tree falling in the forest and no one around to hear it make a sound: If messages designed to hurt others are never read by the intended recipients, is anyone hurt in the process? Answer: Yes--only the ones who write the messages, not the intended recipients.
Writing messages with the intent to hurt and ridicule others requires two vile attributes: (1) a "spirit of mean-spiritedness" and (2) blind hate. Neither of these two attributes will ever be found in true Christians. Therefore, people who call themselves "servants of God" but who possess such vile attributes are not only hypocrites but also unrighteous, because they persistently revile others. According to 1 Cor. 6:9-10, revilers will not inherit the Kingdom of God.
So by attempting to destroy others, those who write destructive and hateful messages will only succeed in destroying themselves.
Oh ye of little curiosity beyond the fuz in your belly button!
|October 23 2006, 12:16 AM |
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. He said that people literally hungered and suffered for lack of food when they often had unlimited space upon which to grow a garden. And the woods were well supplied with animals which could be snared and edible plants everywhere.
My mother and father grew hordes of vegetables until Dad was passed 90. Mom would call some pour soul and ask her if she needed any produce. She laughed about a common question--as only she could mock them--"Air they a picked yeet?" Well off people love to go pick vegetables and some for the poor neighbor. People with a shred of Bible knowledge love to be instructed and challenged by anyone who can speak in "whole thought text" rather than lying by quoting isolated verses. I have noticed that preachers get huffy and call you insane when you try to share some new information. It is a fact that when you go TOO LONG without food you are no longer ABLE to eat.
More sinster and spooky is that I remember that Jesus, Peter, Paul and others spoke of the gospel as being liberation FROM "this crooked generation" or "brood of vipers." Peter said that this happened when God gave us A holy spirit so that we can worship in the PLACE of the human spirit: and you CANNOT worship God in houses or by hands even though you may sit in a building. You spit in the face of God when you refuse to take his free gift, plant and water it.
We have the power to work and grow food: it is the GIFT of God. What ingratitude when grown men hunger and thirst for the Word of God and have NOT A holy spirit. Peter called this A good conscience which also means consiousness which means a CO-perception or A holy spirit. Without this supernatural CANDLE LIGHT (of the seven SPIRITS of God) you sit in the dining hall of the King of the universe and STARVE to death.
Nothing makes me literally shudder, even as it validates my faith in the WORD as a food supply from God, more than people who stick pins in one another proving a terminal malnutrition when they have the CODE BOOK or KEYS to the kingdom which Jesus said the "doctors of the Law take away and hide." They have the keys to the FOOD PANTRY and hunger and thirst for the Word of God and CANNOT FIND it. This is THE meaning of baptism: it is a portal which Jesus passed through in a true sense as a "guide through grizzly bear country." Yet, the vipers are so fearful of water that they cannot take a bath. For example,
As a results of instrumental "worship" in the OLD wineskins religion which virtually terminated Israel at Mount Sinai, Amos warned.
Hear this, O ye that swallow up the needy, even to make the poor of the land to fail, Amos 8:4
Saying, When will the new moon be gone, that we may sell corn? and the sabbath, that we may set forth wheat,
making the ephah small, and the shekel great, and falsifying the balance [sermonizing]
Hear this, O ye that swallow up the needy, even to make the poor of the land to fail, Amos 8:4 [in Tithes and Offerings]
Saying, When will the new moon be gone, that we may sell corn? and the sabbath, that we may set forth wheat,
making the ephah small, and the shekel great, and falsifying the balances by deceit? Amos 8:5
That we may buy the poor for silver, and the needy for a pair of shoes; yea, and sell the refuse of the wheat? Amos 8:6
The Lord hath sworn by the excellency of Jacob, Surely I will never forget any of their works. Amos 8:7
Shall not the land tremble for this, and every one mourn that dwelleth therein?
and it shall rise up wholly as a flood; and it shall be cast out and drowned, as by the flood of Egypt. Amos 8:8
And it shall come to pass in that day, saith the Lord God,
that I will cause the sun to go down at noon, and I will darken the earth in the clear day:Amos 8:9
And I will turn your feasts into mourning,
and all your songs into lamentation;
and I will bring up sackcloth upon all loins, and baldness upon every head;
and I will make it as the mourning of an only son, and the end thereof as a bitter day. Amos 8:10
Behold, the days come, saith the Lord God, that I will send a famine in the land,
not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the Lord:Amos 8:11
And they shall wander from sea to sea, and from the north even to the east,
they shall run to and fro to seek the word of the Lord, and shall not find it.Amos 8:12
In that day shall the fair virgins and young men faint for thirst.Amos 8:13
They that swear by the sin of Samaria, and say,
Thy god, O Dan [USA?], liveth; and,
The manner of Beer-sheba liveth;
even they shall fall,
and NEVER rise up again.Amos 8:14
Music was and is always a MARK that people have fallen and cannot get up: when they call, God will not respond. God has been there and here "and WILL NOT pass this way again."
How can you believe a Jeff Walling [etal] that God CHANGED HIS MIND about instruments "in worship?" How many I BELIEVES or I THINKS are you willing to put your TRUST IN as powerful enough to TRUMP the universal association between MUSIC and STEALING the spiritual food out of your mouth? If you have, say, a 7 candle power SPIRIT or LIGHT from God then how CAN you call people evil when they tell you the simple simon absolute truth: that NO ONE can give heed (Paul's only worship word) to God and His Words and at the SAME time to the pretend mediator singing HIS own "scripture" and making jitterbug mandatory that YOU--of human certainty--give your WHOLE attention to Him/Her/It and "their" words? If you cannot GRASP that or call it a LIE then God and the world will know that you have the "genetics" in John's words of the VIPER people and "name it and claim it because you have lost all CHOICE." I can understand Jeff's dilema if he has grasped that Jesus put the speakers, singers and musicians in the same SECT of Hypocrites. How can he question some one riding on the poor as MUSICIAN and at the same time perform the SAME act more attached to the word HYPOCRITE than say, cymbal clanger?
Too bad, that people who have unlawfully saddled widows and honest working people are the MOST HOSTILE to any words which do not fit the PATTERNISM in their own liberal, sectarian minds however vocally they SING and HARP that they are a CONSERVATIVE. Isn't it a proof of my thesis and that apparently of Jesus and all ancient commentators of the Bible that there are at least TWO SPIRITUAL or MENTAL species? While this den of vipers or generation of vipers or crooked (skolion, new wineskin singers) are able to MIMIC
the species God put HIS SPIRIT into to make them "bara" or created as something ORIGINAL and NEW, they prove without a doubt that they have no more "Spirit" either infused or REgenerated at baptism than my Newfoundland barking at his echo from yon distant cliff. How else can you explain the response to just quoting the Word of Jesus Christ or commonly-known facts when they BARK "liar, liar, liar?" This species results when Satan puts HIS spirit into them as "replacement therapy" for their own squandered spirit FROM God. Because Judas was "well preped" it was the SOP as basic meaning of Psallo or "melody" which SIGNALLED the indwelling of Satan. Judas whose Judas Bag was for "carrying the mouthpieces of wind instruments" always attached to the flute case of PERVERTED skolion singers (because they were often drunk to induce the 'spirit.') was prepped by those "fluted down along with wine" or drunk with wine" and UNABLE to speak "that which is written" meaning "scripture." He was Judas Sicarri: the daggar men or assasins who betrayed or murdered people "on contract" and then point an accusing finger at someone else. This same sect in later history is well documented as Hashish Men who we puffed by by drugs (or music?) to go do foul murder.
Because this is absolute truth, Jesus spoke in Parables "from the foundation of the world" to delude or keep this species of Cainites (from a musical note) occupying Jerusalem in place of the dispersed, faithful Jews FROM understanding what Paul identified as BLACK text on WHITE paper. If my count is correct only 120 of the local ISRAELITES were the remnant offered to God out of the several million Jews. The Rest of the baptized believers were from "the nations" and fled before the Spirit of FIRES and judgment BAPTIZED the whole city which John called SODOM. Adam Clark refers to linguistic evidence which shows that the NACHASH or SERPENT was a species like the Babboon which has much of the vocal mechanism as humans. The Babylonian tablets clearly identify a species of humanoids which were less diluted but their DNA still exists.
So, if your response is to HISS when someone posts Biblical text rather than discussing and debating it then you KNOW that you are of the seed of the Devil who insists on "speaking on his own" and are literally stinging speakers of the Word as it has been revealed. I check in on the feminized den once in a while but get that sick in the stomach feeling like when you hear the rattles which WARN with no lust to BITE.
That is my thesis and the HISSING and BARKING proves that neither "wing" of the hen-pecked "foul" has a clue to the meaning of the BODY which rides on NEITHER wing or they would quit whining and show some hint of interest in the 100% of human history and background to the Bible which they avoid like vipers avoid water. I have given up doubting new findings that PRACTICES make permanent changes to the DNA which is passed on to the next generation. That is why people still BELIEVE that they are Bible believers but lack the genetic machinery to think without images and sound bytes. Fact: read it and hiss.
|Dr. Bill Crump|
Portrait of the Spiritual Maverick
|October 24 2006, 10:22 AM |
The following is a modified version of an essay that I had posted a few months ago at FS but which apparently did not survive the axes of the moderators over there. The term "spiritual maverick" may appear from time to time in discussions about the Change Movement, so Christians should be familiar with it.
"Spiritual maverick": Apparently some believe that, like truth, a definition depends on each person's viewpoint. Liberals hold that the ultimate spiritual maverick was Jesus, Who bucked the religious status quo of the day and Who opposed the legalism of the Pharisees. Thus liberals claim that by being spiritual mavericks, they emulate Christ in that they shun "legalism" by shunning strict obedience to rules, regulations, and commandments. In reality, liberals put Christ in the role of a rebel and heretic to justify their own penchant for ignoring the Authority of Christ in the Scriptures. While liberals may see themselves as mavericks in a positive light, they often turn face and become offended when conservatives refer to them by the same term. It's really quite similar to the situation with blacks and the "N" word. Blacks quite often call each other by the "N" word and are comfortable with it among themselves, yet if whites use that word, blacks turn face and become highly offended. So it's a double standard.
Conservatives, on the other hand, define spiritual mavericks as those who fail to conform to the tenets of the New Testament; who prefer to march to the beat of another gospel; who place prejudices, preferences, and man-contrived creeds ahead of "Thus saith the Lord"; and who behave in a vile, abusive manner toward those who urge others to follow the tenets of Christ in the New Testament faithfully. By this definition, Jesus could never have been a spiritual maverick, because He would never have defied His Fathers will. Although Jesus seemed to buck the hypocritical Pharisees, in reality He was following His Fathers will by preparing His followers to retire the Old Law of Moses once and for all after He died, arose, and ascended. Jesus was very much attuned to obedience, having obeyed His Father even unto death, and in turn having ordered that His disciples should also obey Him in all things (Matt. 28:20 KJV).
So who is a spiritual maverick? It is anyone who attempts to find his own way to salvation by failing to submit to the absolute Authority of Christ in all things; who takes the easy, wide, ecumenical path of the Change Movement, the popular path of the Change Movement, and the glitzy and dazzling path of the Change Movement, instead of the narrow and difficult path as laid out in the New Testament.
|Dr. Bill Crump|
Children Can Teach Adults
|October 25 2006, 8:56 PM |
Heres another essay that I had posted at FS just a few days ago but which the moderators over there axed again. No names of people or web sites were ever mentioned, yet FS deleted it nonetheless (along with all my other posts). Hopefully, the essay will find a better home here, for the sentiments expressed herein are worthwhile to liberals and conservatives alike. I thank Jimmy Wren for his kind comments about the essay while it lasted at FS.
Usually we think of adults as the teachers and children as the learners. But in some instances, children can teach adults--if the adults are receptive to learning. Take childrens arguments, for example. Children have a set pattern for conducting their arguments, even though they may not realize the mechanics involved.
The squabble may be over a toy or some other petty nonsense. The combatants first banter back and forth over who has right of possession: Thats mine
No it isnt, its mine! Or perhaps the argument may be over an opinion: Youre wrong and Im right! No, Im right and youre wrong!
Eventually, one child will sense that he is losing ground to the dominant opponent. What does he do? He initiates the next phase, which involves insults and name-calling: Aw, youre just stupid! Then they haggle over whos really stupid: No Im not, youre the stupid! Whadda ya mean--Im not stupid
Yes you are
No Im not
Yes you are
!! Or one child may attack the others relative: Your daddys a wimp
No he aint
Yes he is
No he aint
!! Of course, absolutely nothing is accomplished in such goings-on, except maybe an acceleration to a physical altercation and a bloody nose, but such are the immature ways of children.
So what can we as adults learn from childrens arguments? Perhaps many adults do not realize that they actually behave quite similarly to children when discussing controversial topics. Poorly prepared, lacking proper evidence, or otherwise unable to present their arguments in a mature and convincing manner, some adults resort to name-calling, insults, and personal attacks, because they literally have no resources left. Rather than admit that they have nothing to offer and that they are defeated and should bow out with honor, these adults become like angry little children and allow their wounded egos to take over. But whereas their behavior may be incredibly immature, the resulting name-calling, insults, and personal attacks can take on adult qualities in the form of vile, hateful imprecations.
Adults behaving in this manner further put their very souls in jeopardy when their anger and hatred of their opponents prompts responses of reviling, derision, and ridicule. First Cor. 6:9-10 (KJV) not only brands those who revile others as unrighteous, it promises that revilers will not inherit the Kingdom of God.
Yes, children can teach adults much. Let us strive to discuss topics without destroying our souls in the process.
I can surmise two reasons why FS deleted this essay: (1) I am a conservative, which brands FS as biased and prejudicial; (2) The FS liberals personally saw themselves as the adults behaving as immature yet hateful children; being offended, they threw a tantrum to have the essay deleted, which brands the FS liberals as much too fearful of facing and conquering their own malicious shortcomings.
You can attempt to silence those who expose the truth, but you can NEVER silence the truth itself. Truth ALWAYS finds a way to make itself known.