Place your banner ad here.           See all banner ads

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

Where is my NewThisWeek Email subscription?......Click Here

Place your text ad here.           See all text ads

  << Previous Topic | Next Topic >>Return to Main Index  
Hoosierdaddy
(no login)
70.241.85.66

YOU HAVE GOT TO BE KIDDING ME

July 8 2006, 12:32 PM 

Nice to see how this threads focus has switched from the "Change Agents" in FULL effect at Bammel to a personal attack on People and there preference of Bible translations.

 
 Respond to this message   
Chris
(no login)
70.252.70.254

If you can't defeat the argument, attack the man!!!

July 14 2006, 3:41 PM 

I have read this discussion with great interest. When asked which Bible I would suggest that a person use, I have always suggested that people do as I do -- use a parallel Bible -- one that contains both the KJV and the NIV.. That way, you can have one that has been considered by many to be a standard and at the same time have one that is easy to read.. Those who are interested in TRUTH and not simply pushing a particular version should not object to this type of approach. How many of you KJV'ers have NEVER used anything else, in study or research, but the KJV?? By the use of your only logic -- if you have used anything else other than the KJV to come to an understanding of any verse of the Bible THEN you are not a KJV ONLY person. I doubt there are many of those in existance. I am sure they all passed away prior to 1750 A.D.

If you read this thread from beginning to end you notice something quite revealing in the exchanges between "B" and "SeekingtopleaseGodonly." What is revealed in their exchanges is that same old "if you can't defeat the argument, attack the man" mentality that has given the church of Christ a bad reputation over the years. If you need examples of this simply recall the following two statements:

"Sorry that your spiritual comprehension level will not allow you to understand my previous post." (SeekingtopleaseGodonly)

"I am afraid that you may have progressed to full blown AIDS (Acquired Ignorance Disease Syndrome). I don’t know if there is much hope for you." (SeekingtopleaseGodonly)

Isn't it interesting that "SeekingtopleaseGodonly" has either placed himself in the position of GOD or demonstrated his/her own AIDS (Acquired Ignornace Disease Syndrome - Book of "SEEKING", Chapter "toplease", verse "Godonly") by making the statement "I don't know if there is much hope for you [B]."

Have we forgotten that "Jesus came to seek and save that which was lost." (By the way, do I have to put a KJV reference to that last statement before it can be considered scripture??) Or, that "God sent his only begotten son into the world that whosoever believeth in him should not perish but have everlasting life?" (John 3:16 -- but then again, even with the reference to KJV scripture it is only a perversion because I failed to put commas, semicolons and italics in the quote).

I will go ahead and save you some trouble "Seeking..." as I will point out that I need some prayer time because of the poor attitude I have in this post. Suffice it to say, I am honestly ashamed of the way you have dealt with this entire discussion. But, I can already hear you -- I am DEFENDING THE FAITH. Whatever!! You are defending the KJV, period. And, the sad thing is -- by your attitude in this discussion you have turned this KJV user off to anything you had to offer. You are the one that ended up being a "change agent" in this discussion - as you never dealt with very much of "B's" comments from his/her original post except for the NIV. What a shame!

By the way, when you wage your attack against me for this post, PLEASE, AT LEAST STICK TO THE TOPIC ANSWER JUST ONE QUESTION -- IS IT A SIN TO RAISE "HOLY HANDS" TO GOD DURING THE SINGING OF A SONG????? And, if you get on a roll, answer the following also:

Is it wrong to have a men's prayer breakfast? (Acts 2)
Is it wrong to have group studies in individual homes? (Acts 2)
Is it wrong for women to minister (teach or serve) to women? or others?
Is it wrong to sing contemporary songs? If so, were any of the songs you sing at worship once contemporary?

"B" I appreciate the "attitude" you maintained during the course of this discussion. You didn't all "Seeking..."'s attitude and personal attacks on you to cause you to stoop to his level. I apologize to you for the tone of my response, I should have imitated you more, and "Seeking..." less.

I would eagerly await your offering with open hands or arms but I am sure that would be a sin also... Therefore, I will just await with open eyes..




 
 Respond to this message   
David Rhoades
(Login ConcernedMembers)
ConcernedMembersChurchList
70.146.134.73

Re: If you can't defeat the argument, attack the man!!!

July 15 2006, 10:52 AM 

Well Chris, it seems that you are guilty of what you accuse others of.

Your attack sounds most vicious.

Your not a seeker of the truth. It is evident.

That is not an attack, it's simply my observation.

I do have a copy of the NIV, that I had purchased by mistake.

I use it to mark it up and show others how corrupted the text is. I draw big yellow circles in it.
I don't even call it a Bible. In my studies it changes God's word in over 8,000 places..

If you had been a seeker of the truth, you would realize that the NIV is actually owned and copyrighted by someone other than God. You have to change something at least 15% to claim a new copyright.

I'm aways amazed by those that argue facts about things they haven't even studied.

Prove yourself to be a seeker of the truth.



 
 Respond to this message   
Chris
(no login)
70.128.34.51

Consistency is a jewel

July 15 2006, 1:56 PM 

David,

I appreciate your taking the time to respond to my post, however, I do have a few things to say about yours.

First, in my post I openly admitted that I needed to pray because I allowed my frustrations to be vented in my message. But, I appreciate your deducing that because I was frustrated, and allowed it to be shown, that it means I am not a truth seeker and thereby not interested in truth. One plus one surely equals eight.

Second, I do have one question for you.. You stated, "If you had been a seeker of the truth, you would realize that the NIV is actually owned and copyrighted by someone other than God." Last time I check, David, God didn't have a copyright on the KJV either. And, have you double checked to make sure the KJV text is totally identical and has no additions or subtraction from the original greek?? You stated, "You have to change something at least 15% to claim a new copyright." That sure sounds like the "do not add to or take away from" verse that I read in my KJV. Perhaps God should have said, "Do not add to or take away more than 15%." Also, just in case you didn't read the entirety of my previous post, I stated that I use the KJV.

Third, you conclude that I haven't studied the issue just because I took offense to the way people avoided the questions asked by "B" in his original post -- which you have chosen to totally avoid from my post.. I will be glad to answer yours, will you answer mine??

Fourth, you stated that I need to prove myself a truth seeker.. My question is, will I ever be considered a truth seeker by you if any of my conclusions are different from yours??? If not, then perhaps I need to be a seeker of David's truth.

For everyone reading this, I didn't claim to be perfect, in fact, I informed you of my need for prayer. BUt, I am not ashamed to admit when I am wrong -- will anyone else?? Probably not, because it appears (my opinion, not an attack)that on this website "truth seeking" is defined by agreeing with the moderators..

Someone please just address the simple questions I asked near the end of my first post.

Again, I await with open eyes the responses to come.


 
 Respond to this message   
SeekingtopleaseGodonly
(no login)
67.64.184.197

Satan's soldiers

July 15 2006, 7:23 PM 

Another one of Satan's soldiers rears his...head.

Would you also call this directive an "attitude", Chris?

"Get thee behind me, SATAN: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men."

Get your "parallel" Bible out and answer your own questions!

You are not sincerely seeking the truth; you are just seeking a fight!


2Tm:2:16: But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness.
2Tm:2:17: And their word will eat as doth a canker: of whom is Hymenaeus and Philetus;


I don't have time to play games with you!

Praise God for David Rhoades and other members on this site who are sincerely "seeking to please God only" and who are boldly defending The Lord's Church while the soldiers of Satan try their best to tear down what the Lord has built by attacking his Word.

They will not succeed.

1Tm:4:1: Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;

M'r:7:6: He answered and said unto them, Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me.
M'r:7:7: Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.


If you can find one example in the New Testament where an early Christian lifted up "Holy hands" while SINGING praises to the Lord in a worship service than you just go right ahead and lift up your "Holy Hands".

We who are "seeking to please God only" will follow the examples of the early Christians.


In Jesus's name




 
 Respond to this message   
Chris
(no login)
69.152.45.184

"The pride of thine heart hath decieved thee..."

July 16 2006, 2:20 PM 

SeekingtopleaseGodonly,

I am extremely happy to see that you have returned to this discussion and posted your words of wisdom for us all to view.. I will refer to your post in my response so that no one who views this discussion will think that I am avoiding you questions or thoughts..

First, my answer to your question of whether or not I would call Jesus' statement to Peter an attitude is NO... As you and I both know, Jesus was tempted in all aspects of life without sinning.. However, my issue was not with Jesus, or with his statement.. Apparantly, however, you feel that you are on the same level as our Lord and Savior because you proceeded to demonstrate your abilities to read my heart and motives.. By accusing me of simply seeking a fight and not the truth and by letting all of us know you didn't have time to play games with me you demonstrated your unwillingness to follow the Word of God by giving an answer to everyone that asketh a reason of the hope that is in you.. Rather than heeding that command you chose to hide behind one that was more in accordance with your judgement of my motives and heart -- avoid vain babblings.. If I had the abilities you demonstrate I would have avoided this discussion all together and just avoided your babblings to begin with.. Unfortunately, I am human not divine..

Second, I only have a few words to say regarding your comment about David Rhoades and the others on this site who are sincerely seeking to please God only and boldly defending the Lord's church... I say, Amen... For those who are sincerely seeking -- keep seeking, don't swallow hook, line and sinker everything that is penned (typed) from anyone, even if he claims to be a seeker of the truth (myself included)..

Third, as far as reading my "parallel" Bible and looking for a passage that tells me the early church lifted holy hands while singing songs in a worship service is concerned, I admit I can't find such a passage.. However, I do find, in my KJV, a passage where Paul states, "I will therefore that men pray everywhere, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting." In your doing Bible things in Bible ways, do you lift holy hands while praying??

NOW, "SeekingtopleaseGodonly", would you please show me what your Bible authorizes you to do while singing songs in a worship service of the church??? And, I will emphasize the phrase DURING a worship service of the church in the New Testament..

Also, what amazes me is that you say I can go ahead and lift my holy hands.. What is so amazing to me about that statement is that for all your claims about knowing who and what I am -- Satan's soldier, one seeking a fight not seeking the truth, one only playing games and not a sincere seeker of God -- you've TOTALLY shown your ignorance (lack of education about Chris) because I DO NOT LIFT UP HOLY HANDS WHILE SINGING SONGS TO MY GOD, NEVER HAVE... How does that taste "ye that dwellest in the clefts of the rock, whose habitation is high; that saith in his heart, who shall bring me down to the ground... the pride of thine heart hath decieved thee." (Obadiah 3)

Hopefully the next time you address me you will apologize for accusing me of being one of Satan's soldiers, one not seeking truth, only wanting to play games... I was simply wanting someone on this forum who claims to defend the faith to answer the questions asked by "B" in his original post... Yet, NO ONE HAS... I believed "B" to be a sincere seeker, who wanted to know why those things were thought sinful... Yet, he was attacked and to this post his questions remain unanswered... And you wonder why I get so frustrated over people who quickly make judgements and attack without knowing all the situation.. People like you remind me of the lady who came to me following one of my sermons during a gospel meeting and said, "I went and knocked doors today and invited a member of the Baptist chuch to our service to hear you preach tonight." I asked her if the lady accepted her invitation. She said, "No, and I just had to tell her before I left that she was lost and headed for hell..." May God forgive all of us of our poor attitudes and pride...

SeekingtopleaseGodonly, I have no ill will toward you.. I have simply tried to address an attitude of attack the person and avoid the questions that appears to affect so many who partake in the discussions on this site..

Again (third time) I await with open eyes for someone to answer those questions...





 
 Respond to this message   
SeekingtopleaseGodonly
(no login)
67.64.184.197

Did Jesus apologize to Peter?

July 16 2006, 10:17 PM 

Did Jesus apologize to Peter?

No?

Then I will follow King Jesus.

Who will you follow?

I will not apologize to you for calling you a soldier of Satan. You (and others) need to know when Satan is using preachers as tools to practice his deception and fight his battles.

This is why the Church is having so many problems today.

Confusion!

Confusion from the "author of Confusion" and his soldiers (even if the soldiers don't even know that they are his soldiers!

There are too many preachers like you who are afraid to stand up and tell it like it is. Condoning things that you would not even do yourself. If you feel that you
don't have to raise your "Holy Hands" while singing praises to Lord in a worship service than why do you think that the rest of the Church of Christ are commanded to do such?

Are you above them?

Are we as the Church of Christ commanded to raise our "Holy Hands" to the Lord while singing his praises in worship service?

These are your words Chris..


"Third, as far as reading my "parallel" Bible and looking for a passage that tells me the early church lifted holy hands while singing songs in a worship service is concerned, I admit I can't find such a passage.."


If you can't find it, then LEAVE IT ALONE! Period!

When we start adding stuff to God's Word we get in trouble.

Re:22:18: For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:


If the Church was/is not commanded or instructed to do so, then you need to follow suit and proclaim the truth to the Church when you address them as their preacher.


These are more of your words Chris..

you've TOTALLY shown your ignorance (lack of education about Chris) because I DO NOT LIFT UP HOLY HANDS WHILE SINGING SONGS TO MY GOD, NEVER HAVE...

Don't be a Hypocrite!

Speak where the Word of God speaks.

Col:2:20: Wherefore if ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances,
Col:2:21: (Touch not; taste not; handle not;
Col:2:22: Which all are to perish with the using;) after the commandments and doctrines of men?


Are you fighting for the Lord or are you fighting for the right to do whatever you and the world see to be fit to do in the Lord's Church?

M't:6:24: No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.

I believe you are trying to do good things for the Lord.

So was Peter when Jesus addressed him as Satan. Matt. 16:23

So was Moses when he lifted up his hand, and with his rod he smote THE ROCK twice: and the water came out abundantly, and the congregation drank, and their beasts also. Num. 30:11

These great men thought they also were doing good things for the Lord.

But who were they serving during these instances.

If you intend to be a soldier for Jesus, than be a soldier for Jesus!

Proverb:4:25: Let thine eyes look right on, and let thine eyelids look straight before thee.
Proverb:4:26: Ponder the path of thy feet, and let all thy ways be established.
Proverb:4:27: Turn not to the right hand nor to the left: remove thy foot from evil.


In Jesus's name.

 
 Respond to this message   
Chris
(no login)
70.252.70.254

Stop, Look and Listen...

July 17 2006, 12:48 PM 

SeekingtopleaseGodonly,

Again, I appreciate your taking the time to address my post… Below is my response to your latest contribution to this discussion; I will include ALL of your comments so that you don’t think that I am guilty of avoiding you, even though you continue to avoid answering my questions…

YOU WRITE: Did Jesus apologize to Peter? No? Then I will follow King Jesus. Who will you follow? I will not apologize to you for calling you a soldier of Satan. You (and others) need to know when Satan is using preachers as tools to practice his deception and fight his battles. This is why the Church is having so many problems today. Confusion! Confusion from the "author of Confusion" and his soldiers (even if the soldiers don't even know that they are his soldiers!

There are too many preachers like you who are afraid to stand up and tell it like it is. Condoning things that you would not even do yourself. If you feel that you
don't have to raise your "Holy Hands" while singing praises to Lord in a worship service than why do you think that the rest of the Church of Christ are commanded to do such?

MY RESPONSE: First, you again bring up the incident with Jesus and Peter as you seek to make the point that you are imitating Christ… Unfortunately, you fail to see that you are comparing apples and oranges… To begin with, as sincere as Peter’s comment was it was obviously against the plan of God… Jesus, according to God’s plan would be turned over to the authorities and crucified – the salvation of man depended on it… That, my friend, is why Jesus strongly rebuked him… In stating that he would not allow Jesus be taken, Peter unknowingly joins Satan’s side. My questions, on the other hand --which still go unanswered by you, may or may not be sinful – that is why I asked them in this forum so that you self-righteous defenders of the faith could give me book chapter and verse for them being sinful since it is YOU that claims they are… YET, you refuse to do so…

To make it easier for you, here are the questions I asked – please answer them… You say I am afraid to stand up and tell it like it is – let me hear you do it… It appears to me that the reason you won’t is because answering these questions truthfully will make you look liberal and you can’t stand that… You would rather choke on your pride than admit that the position of a person’s arms and hands makes no difference while singing a song to God… By the way, what position are you in while singing a song??? Eyes open, closed??? Arms and hands stiffly tucked to your side??? What is the Biblical position for our bodies while singing praises to God??? PLEASE BE THE STAND UP DEFENDER YOU CLAIM TO BE AND GIVE ME A THUS SAITH THE LORD FOR YOUR BODY POSITION WHILE SINGING SONGS??? By the way, does your song leader use arm motion to direct singing??? Where is his authority???

Questions:

Is it a sin to raise “holy hands” to God during the singing of a song??
Is it wrong to have a men's prayer breakfast?
Is it wrong to have group studies in individual homes?
Is it wrong for women to minister (teach or serve) to women? or others?
Is it wrong to sing contemporary songs? If so, were any of the songs you sing at worship once contemporary?

YOU WRITE: Are you above them? Are we as the Church of Christ commanded to raise our "Holy Hands" to the Lord while singing his praises in worship service? These are your words Chris.. "Third, as far as reading my "parallel" Bible and looking for a passage that tells me the early church lifted holy hands while singing songs in a worship service is concerned, I admit I can't find such a passage…" If you can't find it, then LEAVE IT ALONE! Period! When we start adding stuff to God's Word we get in trouble. Re:22:18: For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book.

If the Church was/is not commanded or instructed to do so, then you need to follow suit and proclaim the truth to the Church when you address them as their preacher.

MY RESPONSE: SeekingtopleaseGodonly, open your eyes to THIS discussion and the comments you are making… WHEN did I ever say that raising hands during singing was a command of God??? I just reread all of my posts pertaining this discussion and discovered that I made that comment a total of ZERO times… Yet, you continue to address this topic as though I am advocating that raising hands during singing is a command of God… What I am advocating, and don’t miss this, IS THAT THE POSITION OF A PERSON’S ARMS AND HANDS DON’T ARE NOT IMPORTANT as long as those arms and hands are doing nothing vulgar or sinful… Yet, you are defending the idea that merely raising one’s hands toward God while singing a song of praise is sinful… Am I the ONLY one who sees the folly of his argument??? For all of you defenders of the faith who read this, please inform me what position I am to be in when I sing praises to God… Am I to sit, stand, kneel or lie down flat??? Should the congregation dog-pile in the center of the auditorium??? Someone HELP???

I had a lady tell me that whenever she visits Wal-Mart she prays that there will be a parking space close to the front for her to use… She said that if she finds no such parking space she knows it was not God’s will for her life that she have one… Personally, I have to admire her willingness to turn over every aspect of her life to God… However, it is my personal belief that God isn’t concerned with whether or not we have a parking space close to the front so that we won’t have to walk very far… I believe God is that way also about the position we are in during singing a song of praise to Him… Whether it be with arms stuck to our sides, in our pockets, glued to the top of our head or raised toward him; IT IS THE POSITION OF THE HEART AND MIND that God is concerned with, always has been… Just asked the Pharisees… Better yet, just look in the mirror…

Oh, and for your Revelations 22:18 comment, what am I adding to the word that you are not adding also because of your bodily position while you sing???

YOU WRITE: These are more of your words Chris… you've TOTALLY shown your ignorance (lack of education about Chris) because I DO NOT LIFT UP HOLY HANDS WHILE SINGING SONGS TO MY GOD, NEVER HAVE...

Don't be a Hypocrite! Speak where the Word of God speaks.

Col:2:20: Wherefore if ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances,
Col:2:21: (Touch not; taste not; handle not;
Col:2:22: Which all are to perish with the using;) after the commandments and doctrines of men?

Are you fighting for the Lord or are you fighting for the right to do whatever you and the world see to be fit to do in the Lord's Church?

M't:6:24: No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.

MY RESPONSE: I appreciate your encouraging me not to be a hypocrite… I remember Jesus’ comments about those fellows and I want no part of their reward… or should I type, their punishment… BUT, your very statement beckons for you to do the same thing… Speak where the Word of God speaks and show me what position is God approved for singing praises to Him…

As far as whether or not I am fighting for the Lord and His church is concerned, you can be assured that the battle I am waging via this discussion is for the Lord and His church… Hopefully you will wake up and realize the folly of your argument…

YOU WRITE: I believe you are trying to do good things for the Lord. So was Peter when Jesus addressed him as Satan. Matt. 16:23. So was Moses when he lifted up his hand, and with his rod he smote THE ROCK twice: and the water came out abundantly, and the congregation drank, and their beasts also. Num. 30:11. These great men thought they also were doing good things for the Lord. But who were they serving during these instances. If you intend to be a soldier for Jesus, than be a soldier for Jesus!

Proverb:4:25: Let thine eyes look right on, and let thine eyelids look straight before thee.
Proverb:4:26: Ponder the path of thy feet, and let all thy ways be established.
Proverb:4:27: Turn not to the right hand nor to the left: remove thy foot from evil.

In Jesus's name.

MY RESPONSE: I agree with you, SeekingtopleaseGodonly, that both Peter and Moses were good men seeking to do good things but made mistakes… However, so was Saul of Tarsus… Fortunately God opened Saul’s eyes so that he could see the error of his ways… Perhaps, and hopefully so, the scales will be removed from your eyes so that you can see the error of your ways…

Since you claim to only speak where the Bible speaks, please answer ALL of the questions that I have asked in this post… Please supply book, chapter and verse… Give me the same respect by addressing all of my post as I have you…




 
 Respond to this message   
SeekingtopleaseGodonly
(no login)
65.65.183.60

Hear ye, Hear ye!

July 19 2006, 12:01 AM 

Hear ye, Hear ye!

From now on, everybody who attends a Church of Christ worship service are allowed to raise "Holy Hands", not only during prayers, but also during all songs, all scripture readings, all preaching, all during the Lord’s supper, all during the Sunday morning announcements and especially during the closing prayer.

(Whether your hands are "Holy" are not is your own business. Whether you are a member of the Lord’s church are not is your own business because who are we to judge you)

We are required to do this from now on, not because it was written to be the "will" of God, but because it was written to be the "will" of Paul and is ok with Chris.

This scripture is all the justification you need.


1Tm:2:8: I (PAUL) will therefore that men "pray" (during worship service also) every where, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting.

Also, from now on, whatever you want to do in the church service is Ok, just as long as there is no specific scripture written to prohibit that "specific" act and your heart is sincere. If you want to bring your evil brother-in-law who is strung-out on crack to service, it is ok for even him to raise his "Holy Hands" during "7-11 hypnotic songs" (even if his hands may still be holding a pipe at the time - {Well,there's no specific scripture against it right Chris?}) and every other part of the service ALSO, as long as he considers his hands to be "holy" during his state of highness from the crack, and (most importantly) he faithfully pledges big bucks toward the million dollar building projects of this high and mighty congregation of ours and if he doesn't question any thing that we do (who's running this outfit anyway?).

We have big money to make and big salaries to pay and nothing will hinder us from reaching our "secret" goal of getting rid of that dorn "Church of Christ" once-and-for-all (or at least corrupting it until it is unrecognizable any more as the Lord's true Church),no matter how many years of subtle, minor changes it might take, and as long as we can continue to fool any and every body who will fall for this "slowly boil the frog and he won't know it until it is to late "tactic ".

Chris and the Community Church (of Satan) movement has spoken!

(Oops! Sorry, I got carried away. I know this is suppose to be a secret, oh well!)

Futhermore, If you can not show Chris a Scripture in the Bible that can specifically dispute this "amendment" then let it be ratified from this day forward.

Chris has spoken.



Does this about sum-up your point-of-view on the matter Chris?



M't:13:22: He also that received seed among the thorns is he that heareth the word; and the care of this world, and the deceitfulness of riches, choke the word, and he becometh unfruitful.

In Jesus's name

 
 Respond to this message   
Chris
(no login)
70.252.70.254

RE: Hear ye, Hear ye! Seeking Strikes Again!

July 19 2006, 2:17 PM 

SeekingtopleaseGodonly...

I appreciate your taking the time to address my last response... OOPS!!! I am sorry, I didn't mean to "thank you" for something you didn't do... Would that be for the fourth or fifth time now??? However, I will "thank you" for the contribution you have made to this discussion because you have proven without doubt the comment I made in my first post... If you have trouble recalling that comment, here it is: If you can't defeat the argument, attack the man!!! I am not a prophet, or the son of a prophet, but you have to admit I called that one correctly... As far as your comments are concerned, here is my response...

First, you would be more correct to say that people were free, from the first century, to raise their hands in worship to God, or to not raise them in worship to God; because either would be just as scriptural as sticking them in their pockets, holding them behind their backs, clapsing them together in front of their bodies or whatever position they chose to put them while worshipping God...

Second, I never said you were "required" to lift your hands in worship to God... If you choose to do so, I won't condemn you... I simply requested that someone answer the questions that were asked by "B" in his original post... One of those questions pertained to "holy hands"... You have taken the stance that such is wrong, but to this post have not offered anything in scripture to support your defense... You haven't even told me what YOU believe is the scriptural position of a person's hands and arms during worship...

Third, I didn't offer 1 Tim. 2:8 as authority for raising hands during worship service... What I said was that Paul spoke of "lifting up holy hands" in prayer... And, I asked you if you did that??? You, of course, did not answer...

But, as far as your comment inserted (below, in all CAPS) in that verse is concerned, it is in the wrong place... you wrote, "I (Paul) will therefore that men "pray" (DURING WORSHIP SERVICE ALSO) every where, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting... If you are going to add that phrase, at least put it behind the words "every where."

Fourth, I pray that you would invite your evil brother-in-law who is strung out on crack to join you at worship... Sounds like he needs the Father in his life... By the way, unless the law has been changed, possessing crack is illegal, therefore sinful... Are you equating lifting hands to smoking crack??? If so, put down your pipe, get on your knees and ask God to forgive your sinful actions, check yourself into rehab and clean yourself up... THEN, come back and let's address this issue...

Fifth, PLEASE provide for me, either from Scripture or from history, a detailed account of the activities when the church assemble to worship... I am sure you have one of these detailed outlines of a service since you know for a fact what position the arms/hands of worshippers were in... Otherwise, I am sure you wouldn't accuse me of trying to corrupt the church until it is unrecognizable as the Lord's TRUE church... Would you??? So, just produce the detailed account, including the position of worshippers arms and hands, and I will back off...

Sixth, your comments missed the mark as far as summing up my views... I would be happy to discuss my views with you or anyone who asks... But, don't expect me to do so UNTIL you begin addressing the questions "B" originally asked, you know, the ones I have repeatedly asked you to answer...

But, I honestly believe we will hear "The CUBS win the World Series" before you address those questions... Perhaps even the second coming of Christ...



 
 Respond to this message   
Lance James
(no login)
70.186.58.48

Finally, seekingtoplease(his own overbloated ego) said something that made sense

July 19 2006, 4:24 PM 

I have been following your ridiculous debate with Chris, and I have to acknowledge that you are correct.

Yes, bringing an evil, strung-out crack addict to service is a wonderful idea. Wow, what a novel concept, bringing the lost to Christ. That sounds awesome to me, I think I might just give it a shot.

Oh, but wait, you were being sarcastic weren't you?

Well was Jesus being sarcastic with the woman at the well? Was the parable of the Prodigal son just a funny joke? How about the good Samaritan? that was pretty funny too wasn't it? And I'm sure that he was kidding around with the thief on the cross!!

Bottom line is this...Jesus loves us all, even the lost, so guess what? I'm going to do my best to follow HIM!!!

Now, sir, I say this to you...quoting our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, "My grace is sufficient for thee: for my strength is made perfect in weakness."

I pray that you and your family will one day share the wonderful spectacle of Heaven, and I hope to hold you in a loving embrace as a brother would his own brother. You can find me hanging out with my fellow brother in Christ, his name is Chris.

Now, if you must assume things about me such as you have with Chris, please feel free to do so, but I may not be able to see them as I will be focused on the Light.

Blessed be ye.

 
 Respond to this message   
SeekingtopleaseGodonly
(no login)
65.65.183.60

Introducing "The DELPHI Technique"

July 21 2006, 2:29 AM 

You guys are good "Change Agents", ya'll should tell who ever is in charge of your autonomous Community Church to give ya'll a raise!

Right-out-of-the-Textbook how you guys are standing up for the "Community Church (of Satan) Movement". I bet that secret organization is proud of you.

BTW, I will take that as a "yes" in reference to the question I asked above,

"Does this about sum-up your point-of-view on the matter Chris?"

Re-read the post above again and correct me on the part that is wrong because I see you miss the whole point.

I’m not surprise that you missed it.(DELPHI, RIGHT CHRIS)

These are your words Chris.

"First, you would be more correct to say that people were free, from the first century, to raise their hands in worship to God, or to not raise them in worship to God; because either would be just as scriptural as sticking them in their pockets, holding them behind their backs, clapsing them together in front of their bodies or whatever position they chose to put them while worshipping God..."

Hmm…

So raising "Holy Hands" in our worship service to the almighty God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob is now equivalent to "sticking them (holy hands) in their pockets, holding them ( holy hands ) behind their backs, or clapsing them ( holy hands ) together in front of their bodies" Chris?

Let's see here, hmm…

Raising "Holy Hands" in a worship service to the Lord while we sing praises to the Almighty God has now been put on the same level as raising your hand because you need to go use the restroom or putting your hands in your pockets.

Right, Chris?

Let's try something here.

Let's take this scripture and substitute Chris' suggested equivalent acts and see if it works.

Here's the original;


1Tm:2:8: I will therefore that men “pray” every where, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting.


Now the test versions;


1Tm:2:8: I will therefore that men “pray” every where, “sticking their hands in their pockets”, without wrath and doubting.


1Tm:2:8: I will therefore that men “pray” every where, “holding their hands behind their backs”, without wrath and doubting.


1Tm:2:8: I will therefore that men “pray” every where, “clapsing their hands in front of their bodies”, without wrath and doubting.



I don’t know Chris. It sounds kinda strange to me.



Well why don’t you try this and see if it works for your congregation?

Suggest this to your "worship leader". Suggest to him instead of having everyone in the praise team lift up their "holy hands" during the 7-11 hypnotic songs, maybe have the "praise team" lead the audience in sticking their (holy) hands in their pockets or behind their backs for the Lord; or maybe 'clapse their (holy) hands together in front of their bodies' in stead of lifting "Holy Hands" to the Almighty.

After all, what's the difference right Chris?


Chris, I have a question for you.

What does this scripture mean to you?


Ac:17:24: "God" that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands;
Ac:17:25: "Neither is worshipped with men's hands", as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things;


What exactly does this mean to you, Chris?

Who does the raising of the "Holy Hands" while singing praises to the Lord in a worship service to the Lord benefit?

Does it benefit our Almighty God?

Is everyone's hand holy all the time?


And what does this scripture mean to you?

Joh:4:24: God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth. (NOT DECEIT)

You can have whatever kind of service that you want to have. That is exactly what you are going to do anyway.

That's between you and the Father.

I write so that others can see the folly of your actions and the subtility of you tactics, and so that others might be able to avoid the trap that you guys are setting for them.

They say if you put a frog in boiling hot water that it will try to jump out quickly because it recognizes that the water is hot.

But it you put the frog in water that it is accustomed to and then very slowly turn up the fire little by little, it will stay there until it too late or until it boils to death!


It's the same tactic used by you Change Agents.

Raising 'holy hands' to God during the singing of a song
'men's prayer breakfast'
'studies in individual homes'
'women to minister (teach or serve) to women or others'
'sing contemporary songs'


(Using these practices to help control and brainwash the victims, while sucking every cents the leaders can get from the victim’s pockets with guilt ridden pledges toward million dollar projects)

A little change here, then wait until it becomes the norm.
A little change there, then wait until it becomes ok in the eyes of the victims.

A little change here and a little change there.
Here a change, there a change, everywhere a chnge, change!


(Some poor members of the Church of Christ are going to just sit there and boil to death because they can't feel the temperture rising.)


It's all part of "the Delphi Technique"

The Delphi Technique. What Is It?

"The goal of the Delphi technique is to lead a targeted group of people to a predetermined outcome, while giving the illusion of taking public input and under the pretext of being accountable to the public."

How Delphi Technique leaders - (& Some Church Consultants) are instructed to deal with opposition
Lights, camera, action!

architect_selection_concerns - If you can't prove the speaker's points are wrong or invalid, attack him personally,. Also, accuse him of doing exactly what you are doing.

public_input - You've got to confuse the issue, make it hard for the opposing speakers to get their points across. Remember that everyone has their own equally valid opinions and suggestions (that can be disregarded).

designer_selection_process - Create your own reality. Say what you need to say to achieve your goals, other people can check the validity of your statements later. If no one questions you, you must have been right.

delphi_technique_bandwagon - Everybody's doing it. It may not be right but everybody's doing it,. You should too. Help us achieve a comfortable consensus...

school_concerns_no_comment - Ignore all questions that make you feel foolish or uncomfortable. Meeting adjourned.




Does this sound familiar Chris? It should because these are the evil tactics that you are using during your post !

I can see you are well-trained!


The goal of the Delphi technique

The goal of the Delphi technique is to lead a targeted group of people to a pre-determined outcome, while giving the illusion of taking public input under the pretext of being accountable to the public. For Delphi to work, it is critical that the targeted group be kept away from knowledgeable people who could lead them away from the Delphier's pre-determined outcome.

One variation of the Delphi technique is to use a series of meetings. The attendees are often given a number or a colored card when they enter the room, to determine at which table they are to sit. The purpose of this is to break up the groups of potentially knowledgeable people who arrive together so that they will be sitting with strangers and therefore be subdued.

"Typically, at each table is a facilitator, someone who will know which way to help "steer" the group. Usually, the people at each table are instructed to answer among themselves some of the questions and arrive at a table "consensus".






(Click here for the rest of the article,
http://www.exorthodoxforchrist.com/the_delphi_technique_and_rick_warren.htm)




These "groups" are being manipulated and brainwashed!

‘men's prayer breakfast’
‘study groups in individual homes’
an assortment of ministry groups

Divide and conquer!

In order to control and manipulate the members of the Church!

Then 10 to 20 years later what do you have?

You have Satan’s substitute.

Only a shadow of what use to be the Church of Christ!

Headed by a bunch of Satan’s soldiers checking the checklist to see what’s next on the list of changes.

Waiting for just the right time when they can finally bring in the bands and really jam.

Deceit, manipulation, corruption, subtility,

all in the name of God!


Seeing just how far they can go before God puts an end to it.


Re:2:5: Remember therefore from whence thou art fallen, and repent, and do the first works; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will remove thy candlestick out of his place, except thou repent.
Re:2:7: He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the midst of the paradise of God.


In Jesus's Name

 
 Respond to this message   
Donnie Cruz
(Login Donnie.Cruz)
ConcernedMembersMadison
65.1.221.16

REJECT Controversial and Unnecessary Changes!!!

July 21 2006, 8:22 PM 

Seeking,

I wonder if concentrating on an issue [e.g., men lifting up “holy hands”] among many issues is a good example of the Delphi Technique. The arguments for it, including the highly misunderstood and changed-meaning of “the law of silence” [“… that it’s OK when the Scripture does NOT say ‘NOT TO’”] are very weak

The church of Jesus Christ is constantly under attack by change agents operating in the brotherhood. And the attacks coming from other religious faiths against Christ’s church are almost negligible in comparison to those by those who apostatize and attempt to transform the church as though God’s directives for the church needed transformation.

Indeed, you are correct that gradualism [the “frog” illustration], subtlety [behind-the-scenes planning of activities] and incrementalism [a little here, a little there, a little bit more] are very significant in carrying out the agents’ change methodologies.

Thanks for your excellent presentation. “An ounce of prevention is worth [MUCH MORE THAN] a pound of cure

Donnie

 
 Respond to this message   
Chris
(no login)
70.252.70.254

RE: REJECT Controversial and Unnecessary Changes

July 27 2006, 7:59 AM 

Donnie,

I only have two questions regarding your post entitled "REJECT Controversial and Unnecessary Changes." [1] HOW do we determine what is constitutes a controversial and unnecessary change? And, [2] WHO determines what is a controversial and unnecessary change?
===================================
SORRY, THIS POST IS OFF SUBJECT AND HAS BEEN DELETED.
DR


    
This message has been edited by ConcernedMembers from IP address 70.149.151.197 on Jul 27, 2006 1:20 PM


 
 Respond to this message   
Donnie Cruz
(Login Donnie.Cruz)
ConcernedMembersMadison
68.19.204.4

How do we and who does determine “controversial and unnecessary” changes?

July 29 2006, 3:13 PM 

Chris,

I gather that only those 2 questions were relevant in response to my preceding post.

I’ll attempt to address your questions simply by citing an example: lifting arms during prayer or singing.

Until recently and only in a “FEW” congregations, such activity derived ["borrowed" or "imitated"] from TV scenes and Charismatic gatherings had been non-existent, not only among churches of Christ but also in many other fundamental churches.

With “non-existence” of such an activity or “practice” in mind, it would be fair to conclude that a particular congregation did not approve of such—in the first place. And with non-approval in mind, its introduction in the gathering would more likely than not spark controversy. There’s one—CONTROVERSIAL. [Whether it is scriptural or not, or whether it is a salvation issue or not, is a related but separate matter that even complicates the issue even more. This post is not discussing that at this time.]

“Lifting arms” is certainly prompted and motivated by one’s emotion or feeling and actually serves NO SPIRITUAL VALUE—it does not make a Christian more saintly or sinless (in fact, it can be a hypocritical impression to others)—therefore, the change being UNNECESSARY.

BTW, Chris, we’ve repeatedly heard all your arguments in defense of such a controversial and unnecessary practice; so, personally, I’m not interested in your re-stating them here. I’d be more interested in your understanding of what “controversial” and “unnecessary” mean to you.

Donnie

 
 Respond to this message   
Chris
(no login)
70.252.70.254

Mistaken assumption

July 31 2006, 10:39 AM 

Donnie,

I honestly don't know why the moderator decided to edit my post, or why he has chosen to reject my response to his editing my post. I can only make the assumption that he is trying to "prejudice" the readers of this thread. I certainly pray that is not the case. I am attaching the entirety of that post to this in hopes that you will be able to read all of the comments attached to the original. If not, perhaps he will at least post this portion of it to show his intent to silence me. Below are my comments that were deleted:

Donnie,

I only have two questions regarding your post entitled "REJECT Controversial and Unnecessary Changes." [1] HOW do we determine what is constitutes a controversial and unnecessary change? And, [2] WHO determines what is a controversial and unnecessary change?

Please don't misunderstand my questions; I assure you that my only agenda in this discussion is to get people to think. Last night, while at Bible study, the speaker told of a Baptist preacher who said the following in one of his sermons:

"There are three things that concern me about the Baptist church in ________ county. [1] There are 200,000+ people in this county who do not have Jesus in their lives. [2] The majority of Baptist churches in this county don't give [_____ _____]. And, [3] the rest are now more concerned with the fact that I used the [_____ _____ ] than they are about the lost."

There are many problems with the church today. Yes, liberalism is one of those problems, but it is only one among many. Lest we forget, it was the "religious elite" (Pharisees), the self-righteous of Jesus day who received the greatest condemnation. He said they were like tombs -- decorated on the outside, full of dead men's bones on the inside. Sometimes I wonder if we honestly took a look at ourselves if we wouldn't see the same. I know I did; and it frightened me. After all, who wants to be lumped in the same category as the Pharisees???

Perhaps, and this is only my opinion, we have imitated the Pharisees more than we have imitated Jesus -- all in the name of defending the faith. There is nothing wrong with defending the faith and I applaud those who do it wisely. But, remember, things aren't sinful just because they are different.

What saddens me, but humors me at the same time, is all of the uproar that we have seen in this discussion thread over the initial post about the Bammel church of Christ. I don't know the people -- they could be the most liberal group of people in the brotherhood BUT that was not the issue. The claim made in that initial post was that they were liberal because they [1] have a praise team, [2] have a power breakfast, [3] pray in a room called the "community" room, [4] have groups meeting in homes, [5] have a woman who ministers to the women, [6] have a class studying the book "Experiencing God", and [7] have a class where they sing contemporary songs and only have a very short devotional. All of the discussion that followed addressed none of those issues. "B" asked for someone to address those 7 items and he was ripped because of the NIV, which isn't even mentioned in this original post.

Well, I am tired of all the condemnation, name calling and no answers to those 7 items. Do all liberal churches participate in those 7 items?? Possibly, but, does that mean that those items are sinful?? NO!!! God forbid that we in the church take issue with how many people are used to lead singing. God forgive that we condemn Christians eating breakfast together before going to work. God forbid that we cry "apostasy" because people pray together in a room they have labeled the "community" room. God forbid that we withdraw from another church because they have a woman minister to women. God forbid that we are challenged to "experience God" and grow in our relationship with him. God forbid that we have a class to learn new songs. God forbid that we have short devotionals.

SERIOUSLY, people, what are we defending? While it is true that there are people out there who take these items to extremes and sin in so doing, that does not mean that everyone who does them sins. Perhaps we need to pray, as did Solomon, that God grant each of us the wisdom we need to discern between those things that are truly sinful and those that aren't.

Note in closing: I have never seen or read the book "Experiencing God." I don't know who the author is or what he teaches in that book. BUT, how many of us can say that we have not taught a class on a book and in the course of teaching that class emphasized the good and discredited the bad???

==========================

Chris,

I deleted certain words/phrases that were in one of your beginning paragraphs.

It appears that you were able to find the original copy of the deleted post or that you had no trouble “reconstructing” the post as written above. The fact remains that the rest of the original post was deemed irrelevant and deleted. I would have to respect that decision, keeping in mind that anyone who posts is a guest—conservative or liberal or in between—and the guest can participate but does not dictate the direction of any discussion.

It is common knowledge that certain folks either lack or have no interest or simply do not have the time to discuss certain subject matters, such as, maybe, the points that you keep bringing up. Perhaps, they’re best discussed specifically in “Sunday School in Exile.”

I would like to suggest that if there’s no expressed interest on the part of the respondents, then, you could take the initiative to express your own view points … and better yet with scriptural support and historical evidences.

My own observation is that the initial thread that listed a number of items or factors or issues was intended to point out there were obvious signs that this particular congregation was going a different direction. Really, praise teams, small groups, dedication of babies, etc.—right or wrong or neither—are visible signs that in such a congregation, the “Change Movement” is in progress. No doubt.

Finally, It is not difficult to determine when posted messages are FOR or AGAINST one side or the other or NON-COMITTAL.

Donnie


    
This message has been edited by Donnie.Cruz from IP address 68.19.253.202 on Aug 2, 2006 3:22 AM


 
 Respond to this message   
Chris
(no login)
70.252.70.254

You GATHERED incorrectly...

August 1 2006, 7:16 AM 

Donnie,

I will respond to this post in more detail in the near future.

But, for the moment, you have gathered incorrectly as I have already submitted TWO responses after I discovered my original was edited and deleted. I would think that some explanation would be forthcoming since they refuse to post my responses, but the only explanation recieved thus far is "Sorry, this post is off topic and has been deleted."

What humors me in all this is that Ken Sublett can venture off into his own fantasy world and discuss dancing, prostitutes and sex AND ACCORDING TO THE MODERATORS it must always be ON TOPIC because they post it.

I thought this was a discussion group -- not a post only those side we agree with group.


 
 Respond to this message   
SeekingtopleaseGodonly
(no login)
65.65.183.60

re: REJECT Controversial and Unnecessary Changes!!!

July 22 2006, 8:22 PM 

Donnie,

Yes, we definitely should REJECT Controversial and Unnecessary Changes!


Thank you for your words of encouragement.

I applaud you, and certain others wonderful members, who have diligently defended the Lord's Church against those who seek to destroy it on this site.

Those who have found it not robbery of themselves to dedicate their time and efforts to defend the Lord's Church against the wiles of Satan and his soldiers.

God bless you for the excellent job that you do on a daily basis.

Please continue to fight the good fight of faith because you are a most able soldier of God.



You were absolutely correct when you suggested the following:

I wonder if concentrating on an issue [e.g., men lifting up 'holy hands'] among many issues is a good example of the Delphi Technique. The arguments for it, including the highly misunderstood and changed-meaning of "the law of silence" [" that it's OK when the Scripture does NOT say "NOT TO"] are very weak


You hit the nail right-on-the-head with that statement!

One of the techniques that Chris and basically all Change agents use is to pick a topic that seems to be a weak issue like "lifting holy hands".

That tactic is taken right from the "17 techniques of Truth Suppression" ( technique # 4 ) listed below.

"Deal only with the weakest aspects of the weakest charges".

This technique is used a great deal of the time by the various "Change Agents" and "plants" on this very site!

Read the list and re-visit various curious postings that are here on this site.

You will see many of these techniques being employed by these "plants",
especially Chris and Lance above.

I just sit back and wonder how anyone can stoop so low as to deal with the Lord's Church in such a disgraceful manner.

But the Word of God said this would happen. I guess we should not be too surprised.


There's a wealth of information on this site that all members of the church need to know
Including:
Seventeen Techniques for Truth Suppression by DCDave

The list is using "Governments" for an example, but as you have seen demonstrated on this site, these techniques work also with "Churches".

(Just substitute the word CHURCH in place of the word GOVERNMENT and you will see how Truth Suppression is being used by the many Change Agents who frequent this site!)

Truth Suppression is part of the "DELPHI TECHNIQUE".

Thanks again and God bless!

Here's a link to sire:http://www.iror.org/delphi_info.asp

Strong, credible allegations of high-level criminal activity can bring down a government. When the government lacks an effective, fact-based defense, other techniques must be employed. The success of these techniques depends heavily upon a cooperative, compliant press and a mere token opposition party.

1. Dummy up. If it's not reported, if it's not news, it didn't happen.

2. Wax indignant. This is also known as the "How dare you?" gambit.

3. Characterize the charges as "rumors" or, better yet, "wild rumors". If, in spite of the news blackout, the public is still able to learn about the suspicious facts, it can only be through "rumors." (If they tend to believe the "rumors" it must be because they are simply "paranoid" or "hysterical.")

4. Knock down straw men. Deal only with the weakest aspects of the weakest charges. Even better, create your own straw men. Make up wild rumors (or plant false stories) and give them lead play when you appear to debunk all the charges, real and fanciful alike.

5. Call the skeptics names like "conspiracy theorist," "nutcase," "ranter," "kook," "crackpot," and, of course, "rumor monger." Be sure, too, to use heavily loaded verbs and adjectives when characterizing their charges and defending the "more reasonable" government and its defenders. You must then carefully avoid fair and open debate with any of the people you have thus maligned. For insurance, set up your own "skeptics" to shoot down.

6. Impugn motives. Attempt to marginalize the critics by suggesting strongly that they are not really interested in the truth but are simply pursuing a partisan political agenda or are out to make money (compared to over-compensated adherents to the government line who, presumably, are not).

7. Invoke authority. Here the controlled press and the sham opposition can be very useful.

8. Dismiss the charges as "old news."

9. Come half-clean. This is also known as "confession and avoidance" or "taking the limited hangout route." This way, you create the impression of candor and honesty while you admit only to relatively harmless, less-than-criminal "mistakes." This stratagem often requires the embrace of a fall-back position quite different from the one originally taken. With effective damage control, the fall-back position need only be peddled by stooge skeptics to carefully limited markets.

10. Characterize the crimes as impossibly complex and the truth as ultimately unknowable.

11. Reason backward, using the deductive method with a vengeance. With thoroughly rigorous deduction, troublesome evidence is irrelevant. E.g. We have a completely free press. If evidence exists that the Vince Foster "suicide" note was forged, they would have reported it. They haven't reported it so there is no such evidence. Another variation on this theme involves the likelihood of a conspiracy leaker and a press who would report the leak.

12. Require the skeptics to solve the crime completely. E.g. If Foster was murdered, who did it and why?

13. Change the subject. This technique includes creating and/or publicizing distractions.

14. Lightly report incriminating facts, and then make nothing of them. This is sometimes referred to as "bump and run" reporting.

15. Baldly and brazenly lie. A favorite way of doing this is to attribute the "facts" furnished the public to a plausible-sounding, but anonymous, source.

16. Expanding further on numbers 4 and 5 (e and f), have your own stooges "expose" scandals and champion popular causes. Their job is to pre-empt real opponents and to play 99-yard football. A variation is to pay rich people for the job who will pretend to spend their own money.

17. Flood the Internet with agents. This is the answer to the question, "What could possibly motivate a person to spend hour upon hour on Internet news groups defending the government and/or the press and harassing genuine critics?" Don't the authorities have defenders enough in all the newspapers, magazines, radio, and television? One would think refusing to print critical letters and screening out serious callers or dumping them from radio talk shows would be control enough, but, obviously, it is not.


Ti:1:10: For there are many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers, specially they of the circumcision:
Ti:1:11: Whose mouths must be stopped, who subvert whole houses, teaching things which they ought not, for filthy lucre's sake.
Ti:1:13: This witness is true. Wherefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith;
Ti:1:14: Not giving heed to Jewish fables, and commandments of men, that turn from the truth.
Ti:1:15: Unto the pure all things are pure: but unto them that are defiled and unbelieving is nothing pure; but even their mind and conscience is defiled.
Ti:1:16: They profess that they know God; but in works they deny him, being abominable, and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate.
Ti:2:1: But speak thou the things which become sound doctrine:
Ti:2:13: Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ;
Ti:2:14: Who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works.
Ti:2:15: These things speak, and exhort, and rebuke with all authority. Let no man despise thee.


In Jesus's Name

 
 Respond to this message   
Donnie Cruz
(Login Donnie.Cruz)
ConcernedMembersMadison
65.1.221.16

The new thread at the Madison forum

July 23 2006, 4:47 AM 

Seeking,

Thank you, my fellow soldier of the Cross.

I have now posted "Truth Suppression Is Part of 'The Delphi Technique'" on ConcernedMembers/Madison. This idea is greatly appreciated.

Please feel free to e-mail me if you wish.

Again, thanks for contributing so much to CM. Your constant valiant efforts for the Master are not unnoticed.

Donnie

 
 Respond to this message   
Chris
(no login)
71.143.180.15

Did the moderators refuse to post my latest reply???

July 23 2006, 4:05 PM 

I submitted a response on Saturday morning, approximately 6:30, and it has not been posted... Am I to believe this is a site dedicated to seeking truth or just supressing those that disagree with the moderators position???


 
 Respond to this message   
 
< Previous Page 12 3 4 5 67 Next >
  << Previous Topic | Next Topic >>Return to Main 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