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  
Chris
(no login)
70.252.70.254

ONE MORE ATTEMPT

July 26 2006, 7:57 AM 

For those following this discussion, you are aware that my last response submitted to this site was "lost" in cyberspace. Due to this unfortunate and untimely glitch in the system, coupled with my failure to save a copy of my response, it will take me a short time to repost it. There have also been two others posted following the "glitch" that caused mine to be "lost." I will address those after I repost the original that was "lost."


 
 Respond to this message   
Chris
(no login)
70.252.70.254

RE: "The DELPHI Technique"

July 26 2006, 1:34 PM 

SeekingtopleaseGodonly,

I just finished rereading your submission entitled, "Introducing The DELPHI Technique". I honestly don't know what to think about it or about Donnie's applause of it. In my opinion it was one of your weakest arguments to date. In fact, your denial of God's existence and the inspiration of His word made me pity you. It is truly sad that someone would stoop so low as to pervert and twist the scriptures in an attempt to defend the scriptures. But, because I am concerned with truth and those seeking truth, I will respond to your comments in hopes that I can help you and others who read this discussion thread.

You begin your defense of the position that "lifting hands" during worship to God is sinful by attempting to mock me. Are you not aware of how ridiculous that made you look? Yet, your looking ridiculous is not the sad part of your mockery. The sad part is that in so doing you deny the existence of God and the inspiration of His word. With one careless wave of your fingers over the keyboard you place yourself in the same category as Madeline Murry O'hare and other athiests who deny God. The very verses that you attempt to use against me prove you to be the one in error. Let's consider your argument, see your denial of God and His word and then deal with the verses correctly.

First, you argue that my statement, "...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..." was a false statement. Your reasoning for saying such was that Paul didn't place those hand positions (in pockets, behind the back, clasped in front of the body or whatever position) in the verse -- 1 Timothy 2:8. You then proceed to reference Paul's statement found in Acts 17:24-25 to prove that "God is not worshipped with hands." In your opinion you forever sealed this argument shut -- raising hands in worship to God is sinful because God is not worshipped with hands. Well, that was where you messed up. Because, as you will see below, your argument denies the existence of God and the inspiration of His word.

How? You quote Paul in one passage saying that we are to "lift up holy hands in prayer" (which is part of our worshiping God) and in another passage saying "God is not worshipped with men's hands." You have Paul contradicting himself; which can't be the case if God exists and His word is inspired. Therefore, YOU have either proven all athiests correct or YOU are guilty of perverting and twisting scripture to justify a position. It doesn't take much to realize which is true -- God does exist and His word is inspired. You have dealt decietfully with the word of God and it has bitten your hand in return.

However, I don't believe you to be one who would do such a thing purposely. I feel you have simply forgotten the rules of hermeneutics (science of interpretation). I have heard it said, "A text without a context is a pretext for a proof text." YOU took Acts 17:24-25 out of context and made it your pretext to prove that "lifting hands in worship" is sinful. PLEASE consider the context of those verses.

Notice what J.W. McGarvey said about Acts 17:24-25: "He (Paul) endeavors to give them a just conception of this God, by presenting several points of contrast between him (God) and the gods with whom they were familiar. The first of these is, that, unlike them, "He does not dwell in temples made with hands." All around the spot where he stood were temples in which the gods made their abode, and to which the people were compelled to resort in order to communicate with them. But that the God who made heaven and earth does not dwell in temples made by human hands, he argued from the fact that he was "Lord of heaven and earth;" which implies that he could not be confined within limits so narrow. This was enough to establish his superiority to all other gods in power and majesty. The next point of contrast presented has reference to the services rendered the gods. His hearers had been in the habit of presenting meat offerings and drink offerings in the temples, under the superstitious belief that they were devoured by the gods. But Paul tells them that the unknown God "is not served by the hands of men as though he needed any thing; for it is he who gives to all men life and breath, and all things, and has made from one blood all nations of men," and appointed beforehand their periods, and the boundaries of their habitations. These facts demonstrate his entire independence of human ministrations, and exhibit, in a most striking manner, the dependence of men upon him."

The point of Acts 17:24-25 is NOT that lifting hands in worship to God is sinful, BUT that God is greater than all gods created by man. To answer your question, that is what Acts 17:24-25 means to me.

Second, you introduce something called "The DELPHI Technique." To be honest, I had never heard of that technique prior to your posting it on this website. But, I did notice something very interesting about it. What I noticed is that it outlines YOUR approach to this discussion. Consider the following:

[1] YOU stated that "the goal of the Delphi technique is to lead a targeted group of people to a predetermined outcome..." Isn't that exactly what you are doing in this discussion?? Aren't you trying to lead those who read this thread to YOUR predetermined outcome that lifting/raising hands during worship to God is sinful??

[2] YOU state that "If you can't prove the speaker's points are wrong or invalid, attack him personally." Aren't you the one who has called me "Satan's servant," said that I was not a truth seeker and called my motives into question??

[3] YOU state that "You've got to confuse the issue." Aren't you the one taking verses out of context and twisting them to mean something they don't mean??

[4] YOU state that the DELPHI Technique urges one to "Create his own reality". Again, you have your own reality about who I am and what my goals are in this discussion. And, repeatedly you have missed the mark with your accusations. But you continue to travel down your own reality road in spite of the evidence.

[5] YOU state that the DELPHI Technique utilizes the "everybody's doing it" argument. YOU are the one who claims that ALL faithful Christians reject lifting/raising hands in worship to God.

[6] YOU state that the DELPHI Technique encourages its supporters to "Ignore all questions that make you feel foolish or uncomfortable." YOU follow this one very well as YOU have failed to answer any of the questions I have asked.

and finally,

[7] YOU state that "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." IS that what happened when my first response conveniently disappeared??

IF anyone in this discussion is a proponent of "The DELPHI Technique" it is YOU... I simply asked you questions that you refuse to answer. You continually attack me as being a servant of Satan and not a seeker of truth. YOU are proving yourself to be what you accuse others of being -- yep, DELPHI at its finest.



 
 Respond to this message   
seekingtopleaseGodonly
(no login)
70.240.118.156

Same deceitful "Dead Horse":

July 30 2006, 4:16 PM 

Still riding that same deceitful "Dead Horse", Chris?

I guess you plan on riding that deceitful "Delphi" horse until it is dead!

Well you can jump off that dead horse that you are still trying to ride, because that horse is now in the morbid state of FULL rigor mortis.

No honest person here will any longer fall for your evil, "Delphi" Truth Suppression Tactics.

You are busted!

Anyone who has been reading your deceitul post above can see that you have been using the "Technique" especially, "Truth Suppression". from the beginning.

In your very first deceptive post in which you first attacked me you used the "Delphi Technique":

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.

These are your words;

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

You actually accused me of doing what you had begun doing to me before my first reply to you!

I thought that was kind of strange at the time, but I did not know about the “Delphi Technique” and “Truth Suppression”, YET!

But you spelled it out here for us above almost verbatim!

The question has to be, "IF YOU DIDN'T KNOW ABOUT THESE TACTICS, THEN WHY ARE YOU USING THEM TO SUCH A GREAT EXTENT AND WHY DID YOU ACCUSE ME OF USING THEM BEFORE I EVEN HAD A CHANCE TO CONVESRE WITH YOU?"

Lying is just plain wrong Chris!

You really should seek professional help.

Then, you used # 5 (Also known as the "Ridicule rule" on the "TS" list in which you use one of your favorite ridicule where you accuse the "skeptic" of playing the role of God:


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.

Again, these are your words:


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]."



Next you use this part of the “Delphi”:


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


By making this statement:


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?????

(Hey, like I said, You’re good!!)

While at the same time using this technique # 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.


Then you conclude, but not without taking a parting shot by utilizing # 5 "the ridicule rule" again.

"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.


Now you are going to just sit there and:

-create your own reality (by saying my post was the weakest yet, and a bunch of other beyond reality statements)
-write all kinds of Confusing statements
-blatantly LIE by saying you have never heard of the “DELPI TECHNIQUE” before
-accuse me of doing to you what you have been doing from the beginning
-accuse me of denying God’s existence

(Btw, what in the world does this mean???)

The point of Acts 17:24-25 is NOT that lifting hands in worship to God is sinful, BUT that God is greater than all gods created by man. To answer your question, that is what Acts 17:24-25 means to me.)

-use all kinds of confusing statements that don’t have any substance thereby making your self the Author of Confusion.

Or

better known as numbers 5, 6, 11, 12, and 15.


If you are going to act like Satan:

-using subtility
-writing confusion
-using every deceptive technique you can think of including LYING

Then, I will continue address you as Satan.

Preacher, you need to repent!

You want to know how I found out about the "Delphi Technique" that you have been using all along?

It was quite co-incidental.

While preparing to answer one of your deceptive post above (July 19 2006, 2:17 PM). I was researching the topic of "Group Control" in order to find out more info on why all of these groups such as "Men's pray groups" and all the various "ministry groups" were necessary in "The Church of Christ".

"Delphi" came up during one of the searches.

So I begin read about "Delphi" and discovered one the best kept secrets of you Change Agents.

Then I went back and re-read some of your other deceptive post and discovered that you have been using "Delphi" all along.

But what is the most saddest fact is that you are still trying your "Change Agent" best to get away with still using "Delphi" to this very day.

It will not work.

HERE IS "One" example of you (Chris) using the "DELPHI Techniques" during you last post in which you accuse me of 'DENYING the EXISTENCE of God'.(BTW, your entire post is classic DELPHI):



You begin your defense of the position that "lifting hands" during worship to God is sinful by attempting to mock me. Are you not aware of how ridiculous that made you look? Yet, your looking ridiculous is not the sad part of your mockery. The sad part is that in so doing you deny the existence of God and the inspiration of His word. With one careless wave of your fingers over the keyboard you place yourself in the same category as Madeline Murry O'hare and other athiests who deny God. The very verses that you attempt to use against me prove you to be the one in error. Let's consider your argument, see your denial of God and His word and then deal with the verses correctly.

The 5 “Truth Suppression” tactics that you used in this passage are:



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


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. (Now you consider me an ATHEIST?)


11. Reason backward, using the deductive method with a vengeance. With thoroughly rigorous deduction, troublesome evidence is irrelevant.

12. Require the skeptics to solve the crime completely.


And last but certainly not least,

15. Baldly and brazenly lie.

(You love to use # 15, you lie with considerably ease for someone who considers themselves to be a Church of Christ preacher!)

These two passages do not conflict each other. And they certainly DONOT add up to or equate to 'the DENIAL OF THE EXISTANCE OF GOD'.

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

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


Go back and re-read the post again.

1Tm:2:8 does not state that it is the will of Paul (or the will of God) that men everywhere WORSHIP God in a worship service by "lifting up holy hands".

That is just your incorrect ASSUMPTION.

So when Ac:17:25 states that "Neither is worshipped with men's hands", THERE CAN BE NO CONFLICT between the two scriptures.

If will NEVER equate to the 'DENIAL OF THE EXISTANCE OF GOD' So do not lie by insinuating that is does.

DO Not take the WORD of God in vain!

These are more of your words:

Your reasoning for saying such was that Paul didn't place those hand positions (in pockets, behind the back, clasped in front of the body or whatever position) in the verse -- 1 Timothy 2:8. You then proceed to reference Paul's statement found in Acts 17:24-25 to prove that "God is not worshipped with hands." In your opinion you forever sealed this argument shut -- raising hands in worship to God is sinful because God is not worshipped with hands. Well, that was where you messed up. Because, as you will see below, your argument denies the existence of God and the inspiration of His word.

You quote Paul in one passage saying that we are to "lift up holy hands in prayer" (which is part of our worshiping God) and in another passage saying "God is not worshipped with men's hands." You have Paul contradicting himself; which can't be the case if God exists and His word is inspired. Therefore, YOU have either proven all athiests correct or YOU are guilty of perverting and twisting scripture to justify a position.


Paul does not contradict himself as you said above!

As a matter-of –fact, I have never read where it is stated that "Paul" wrote the book of "Acts".

Where did you get that fact from preacher?

Check out Act 1:1 and Luke 1:3.

You are trying to teach people about the bible and you don’t even know what you are talking about!

Preacher you need to STEP DOWN from the PULPIT!

You should not be preaching the word of God to anyone!

The last thing that the Church of Christ needs is another dishonest, deceitful preacher who doesn't know what he is talking about.

You are not ready.

Your knowledge of the Bible is lacking and you consistently seek to deceive instead of embracing the truth.

You need to repent.

Because you could not give an "honest" answer to the questions that I asked you, you created your own reality and posted another dishonest, deceptive and lying post.

Chris, no "honest" person believes you anymore, Sir.

You’re like the “Wizard of Oz”.

Your curtain has been drawn back and you are now fully exposed as the shameful fraud that you are.

Your whole response is just a big fat lie.

Sorry Wiz,

No sale!

Your reign of deception is over.

You need to fall down on you knees and ask God for forgiveness for the deceitful things that you are posting.

You are treading in dangerous waters.

I am afraid for you.

Please don’t let Satan continually use you to do his dirty work!

Repent before it is too late.

I will pray for you.

2Tm:3:1: This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come.
2Tm:3:2: For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy,
2Tm:3:3: Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good,
2Tm:3:4: Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God;
2Tm:3:5: Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.
2Tm:3:6: For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts,
2Tm:3:7: Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.
2Tm:3:8: Now as Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses, so do these also resist the truth: men of corrupt minds, reprobate concerning the faith.
2Tm:3:9: But they shall proceed no further: for their folly shall be manifest unto all men, as theirs also was.
2Tm:3:12: Yea, and all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution.
2Tm:3:13: But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived.
2Tm:3:14: But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them;
2Tm:3:15: And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
2Tm:3:16: All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
2Tm:3:17: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.


In Jesus name

















 
 Respond to this message   
Ken Sublett
(no login)
4.153.69.207

The GENDER trap?

July 30 2006, 11:39 PM 

When you lift holy hands make sure they are HOLY. Then, don't be a exegetice (same as musica or magica) and lift UNHOLY ARMS. See the difference?

The hands David lifted (never waved even though it seems he had an unnatural love) meant the PALMS or THAT WHICH GRASPS.

If you wave your hands over your head someone will call the GENDER COPS and assuredly mark you as having been "mixed at birth." Here is the way they did it in the temple where NO singer, speaker, clapper of musician could go on penalty of DEATH. This was a type of the church of Christ.



If you look at that little apron which was like a breech cloth, you know what David wore when he sang, played and danced and MADE SELF VILE with the camp followers. This was the apron of the Egyptian temple girls who were always prostitutes. Don't ever forget that because of the Musical Idolatry at Mount Sinai, god turned them over to worship the starry host (Acts 7, etc., etc.). That means that the priests were like the Canaanite or Babylonian (Goyim or Gentile) priests and the Levitical Warrior Music made WAR and not WORSHIP.

It is not possible to obey Paul in Romans 15 for the synagogue or SCHOOL OF THE BIBLE and get so sexually aroused that you bump and grind and wave. The word is SELF PLEASURE which is connected with the REPROACHES of Jesus which meant to MAKE HIM NAKED and abuse him. Then, with ONE MIND and ONE MOUTH you are to speak THAT WHICH IS WRITTEN in order to educate, comfort one another, glorify God and KEEP THE UNITY. Paul said "you are COMPETENT to teach one another." That pretty well leaves out the STIMULATOR who makes you want to wave your hands (as signals?) as well as ALL of the STAFF INFECTION. No preachers, singing as an ACT or collection plates for hundreds of years and the PAGAN PRIESTS came in for the dole.

To that ONE ANOTHER reading and dialoging (disputing) Jesus instituted the Lord's Supper which was to PREACH His death. To the school Paull commanded the Lord's Supper. To that the historic church observed the Lord's Supper. Their preaching or teaching was praising or praying through reciting the BOOK OF PSALMS.

Any one who claps or body-bumps or raises hands into the air INTENDS to be a worship sucker just as the Lucifer (Zoe) Principle was to BLEED OFF worship due only to God. That is why he/she is called "the singing and harp playing prostitute" even in the garden of Eden. Go ahead: make God's day. According to Isaiah 30 the only people Hell is said to be prepared for are those Lucifer leaders and their instruments and musicians. In Revelation 18 they are called SORCERERS.

 
 Respond to this message   
Judy
(no login)
70.253.59.243

RAISING HOLY HANDS

September 30 2007, 12:35 AM 

A LIBERAL is one who looses where God has BOUND. I would like to add that raising or the swaying of the hand(s) movement gets the person in the mood to do a dance which is a sin as well. This is what Liberalism is today. They deny the inspiration of the word of God, Teaching we are saved by grace only, without contributing one whit to our salvation, They believe in Open Fellowship with denominational bodies, denying the virgin birth of Jesus Christ, Women's role in the Church can include leadership roles (in mixed assemblies), Changing the worship from that authorized, Destroying the Lord's plan of salvation.
False teachers are promoting doctrines of Men.. Matt. 15:7-9 rather than of God. Someone asked me one time whether I believed God was serious. Why wouldn't he be serious. I told her that yes he is very much serious. He gives us a choice to make - heaven or hell.
Thank you Ken for standing up for the truth in God's word. We need more rightous men in the Lord's church to make a stand for the truth. People today need to do alot of soul searching before it is too late. I listen to as well support the work on www.GBNTV.org which teaches the truth and nothing but the truth 24/7.
In HIM, Judy

 
 Respond to this message   
Chris
(no login)
69.7.167.129

Question for Judy

October 19 2007, 9:20 AM 

Judy,

I have just finished reading your post. I appreciate your zeal and willingness to stand for what you believe. However, I do have a few questions regarding your post and would appreciate some clarification so that I may have a better understanding of the things you mention.

First, you mention that liberals teach that we are saved by grace only, without contributing one whit to salvation. If you would, please explain exactly what it is, the whit, that you contribute to your salvation.

The reason I ask is that perspective plays a major role in how we view things. Two people can look through the same stained glass window, one can see people wearing all red, and the other can see people wearing all white. Unfortunately neither can understand why the other sees it the way he does. Both see the same people, the problem is they are looking through different lenses.

Sincere Pharisees, including Saul (Paul) were eager to keep the commandment to tithe in its most minute of details. They gained a sense of rightness through doing so. Yet, Jesus informs them that they missed the purpose of the commandment. The purpose behind the commandment was to promote justice, mercy, faith and love, not blind obedience on the part of the one tithing. Yet, they obeyed the command thinking that mere obedience contributed to their right standing with God. This, in my opinion, was the one whit they sought to contribute to their salvation. Interestingly enough, it was rejected by God.

Why? Because, as Paul reminds us, law has no power to save. Those who seek justification through law keeping seek it to their own destruction. Salvation is by grace, period. There was nothing we did to initiate the plan. There was nothing we did to supplying the sacrifice. There is nothing we can do that will contribute to our salvation; for if it is by grace, and it is a gift, then all we can do is accept it. Accepting the gift is not contributing to the gift, even if there is a process of steps involved in order to receive it.

Second, you mention that liberals are changing the worship from that authorized. I think I understand the point you are seeking to make, however, I feel there needs to be some clarification so as to make the changes more obvious to those of us reading your post. Therefore, I will ask a few questions and await your response.

By your use of the phrase "from that authorized" am I to assume that you are referring to direct statements, examples and necessary inferences indicating how the early church worshipped? If so, could you provide me with statements indicating how the early church worshipped? By asking how the early church worshipped I am seeking direct statements, examples and necessary inferences that indicate how they worshipped. For example: [1] Did they pass the Lord’s Supper as we do in our services today? If not, how did they pass it and by whom was it passed? Are we sinning if we do not do it exactly as they did? [2] What songs did they sing? Did they have one song leader during each service, or did they have a variety of leaders? Are we sinning if we don’t sing the same songs they sang?

I could go on and on. The truth is that our services today, even in the most conservative of congregations, probably doesn’t look anything like the services in the first century and yet you claim that liberals are the only one that have changed the worship of the church.

As I said in the beginning, I appreciate your zeal and willingness to stand for what you believe. I simply think you need to look again at what you are saying, perhaps pick another piece of the window to look through, and try again.

 
 Respond to this message   
Judy
(no login)
76.212.48.25

The need to answer error by Tom Wacaster

October 3 2007, 1:50 PM 

The Need to Answer Error

by Tom Wacaster

Every child of God has the sacred obligation to "be ready always to give answer to every man that asketh you a reason concerning the hope that is in you, yet with meekness and fear" (1 Pet. 3:15). We are to "contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered unto the saints" (Jude 3). Our Lord told us to "beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly are ravening wolves" (Matt. 7:15). Our responsibility is no less than those Christians of the first century who were told, "believe not every spirit, but prove the spirits, whether they are of God; because many false prophets are gone out into the world" (1 Jno. 4:1). The past twenty years have seen an ever increasing defection of once-faithful, stalwart soldiers of the cross. Men who once stood in the gap and wielded the sword of the Spirit with skill and effectiveness have gone over to the enemy.

A once faithful brother wrote: "It is not possible to overemphasize the damage done by perverse preceptors. They not only cause division (a thing God hates), but the ultimate outcome of their treachery, whether that treachery be witting or unwitting, is eternal loss to all who are led astray by their influence." With regard to our Lord's admonition, "beware" is a forceful word. It is a warning. It says to us, "Look out, danger, peril, jeopardy, risk, hazard." It screams at us, "Pay attention. Be on guard."

We are locked in a battle with error. Truth will prevail, of that we are certain. But we must do our part to uphold that truth, moving neither to the left nor to the right. There is always the danger that a little compromise will eventually lead to wholesale apostasy. Hence the need to answer false doctrines forcefully, faithfully, and forthrightly. Time is of the essence; souls are at stake; the cause of Christ must not suffer! Unfortunately the ranks of those who will address the issues continue to diminish. But if we are to pass the torch to the next generation we dare not waver in our sacred duty to uphold the truth at all costs. The late F.B. Srygley was right on target:

"Fighting for the Truth is almost a lost art. Men who are enjoying the benefits of the Gospel unmixed with human error, are enjoying these benefits because our fathers fought for the Truth. Every inch of ground from that mysterious way of being saved, which was better felt than told, to the plain conditions of pardon as taught in the New Testament, was fought out for us by our fathers. If someone before us had not fought for the Truth, most of us might yet be in the fog of denominational teaching. This is not the time to temporize or make friends with error (F.B. Syrgley (Madisonville, KY: In Word and Doctrine, Oct-Dec, 1992), page 19; originally appeared in the Gospel Advocate, 1928)

False teachers have been tolerated, ignored, and in some instances embraced by unfaithful elders, preachers and members. Far too little has been done in answer to the false teachers presently assailing the walls of Zion. We only pray that it is not too late to take our stand and defend the truth.


 
 Respond to this message   
Chris
(no login)
70.252.70.254

RE: Same deceitful "Dead Horse"

August 1 2006, 12:15 PM 

SeekingtopleaseGodonly,

Once again, as I begin my response to your recent post, I must admit that your comments both humor and sadden me. I’ve always heard that “backing someone into a corner is a dangerous thing to do, because sooner or later he will come out swinging.” As we have just witnessed by the comments in your latest post, that statement holds true regardless of the arena in which the battle takes place. What humors me about your “swinging” is that your actions are so predictable. The sad part is that you are so blind to your own inconsistencies that you fail to realize just how much damage you are doing to the truth you claim to be protecting.

In this response, as I have done with all your previous posts, I will address your comments and questions with little or no anticipation of your doing the same.

First, in your initial “swing” as you come out of the corner, you referred to previous comments I had made in my original post and failed to keep them in context. As a new reader of this forum, I was very displeased with the attitude I encountered in your comments toward “B”. As you point out, I stated “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.” However, I did not make that statement without proof of your attacks on “B”. That is why the remainder of the comment was “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) and, "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).”

Following those comments, I proceeded to vent some frustration by being very sarcastic in the next couple of paragraphs. It was in one of those sarcastic paragraphs that we find the second comment you quoted, “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]." If you have trouble recognizing the sarcasm, just notice the way I used your comment to accuse you of the same thing of which you accused “B” – being ignorant. Interestingly enough, you failed to quote me when I “admitted” my need for prayer because of the poor attitude I displayed that part of my post. And yet, you continue to see all this as an effort on my part to suppress truth and purport a technique I had never heard of prior to your posting it on this site.

Second, you continue your move out of the corner by wildly “swinging” and accusing me of being a liar and suggesting that I need professional help. Your wild swing (and miss by the way) is based on my claim to have never heard of the Delphi Technique – a technique you claim you had never heard of prior to preparing an answer to one of my posts. Why is it that you allow for yourself something that you don’t allow for others? Obviously, you are struggling to defend your position and are seeking to take the focus off yourself by accusing me of being a liar.

Third, your out of the corner swinging continues as you assert that I systematically use the Delphi Technique by combining certain aspects of the technique to formulate my defense of my position. In making the accusation that I “deal only with the weakest aspects of the weakest charges” I believe you correctly imply that your arguments are weak. But, you are incorrect in your thoughts that I purposely used the Delphi Technique to formulate my responses. However, now that I write that, I realize that I did use it once – remember, I used it in the post prior to this one when I pointed out how that your comments followed the technique to perfection.

But, before I move on to my next point, let me address this one a little more. Your claim that I “dealt only with the weakest aspects of the weakest charges” is outright FALSE. Please go back to my original post in this discussion and see how many questions I asked you to answer. Which, if you recall, were the same questions asked by “B” in his original post in this discussion. I believe there were several questions asked by “B” and repeated by me. But, for easy reference, here they are again: [1] Is it a sin to raise “holy hands” to God during the singing of a song? [2] Is it wrong to have a men's prayer breakfast? [3] Is it wrong to have group studies in individual homes? [4] Is it wrong for women to minister (teach or serve) to women? or others? [5] Is it wrong to sing contemporary songs? If so, were any of the songs you sing at worship once contemporary?

In all honesty, I would love to hear your thoughts on all five questions above. Do you think you will ever grace us with those thoughts?

Fourth, your assault continues as you swing away and accuse me of creating my own reality, of writing confusing statements and blatantly lying. Obviously reality ends where your imagination begins. You, my friend, with your “Delphi Technique” message, twisting of scripture and my statements, as well as your accusations of me being a blatant liar are the one creating your own reality.

Fifth, you end your out of the corner swinging with an attempt to save face regarding your usage of First Timothy 2:8 and Acts 17:24-25. But, no matter how you try to twist the facts, the truth remains – you are the one guilty of mishandling those passages. Please go back and reread my post. I never said, or implied, that I thought Paul contradicted himself. I said that YOUR USAGE of the two verses implied that Paul contradicting himself.

Also, I NEVER attributed authorship of the book of Acts to Paul. Yes, I referred to Paul’s comments in Acts 17:24-25 but I never made the statement that “Paul wrote” when referring to the passage in Acts. Please provide the quote where I falsely stated that Paul wrote the book of Acts.

And, last, in spite of the fact that you keep referring to me as Satan and continue to claim that I am writing nothing but “big fat lies” I will pray for you.




 
 Respond to this message   
seekingtopleaseGodonly
(no login)
70.240.85.208

Your fruits are showing

August 6 2006, 9:06 AM 

Your latest post amounts to the equivalence of giving mouth-to-mouth resuscitation to a dead horse. That same dead DELPHI TRUTH SUPPRESSION DECEPTIVE HORSE that you have been riding from the beginning.

I've told you already that no honest person believes you any more Chris.

You have proven yourself as one who chooses to consistently use deceptive tactics just like your father Satan, just like the leaders of the organization you are working within called the Community Church Movement.

Every honest person who frequents this site knows the symptoms of the disease called the CCM.

They are the same symptoms that you are trying your DELPHI best to defend.

Birds of a feather flock together don't they, Chris?

Jesus said it best;

M't:7:15: Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
M't:7:16: Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?


Your fruits are showing, Chris.

When you defend the deceitful tactics used by the CCM to destroy the Lord's church we know you by your fruit.

You can try to use every deceptive Delphi tactic that you can think of, lie, cheat, and steal the word of God to prove a falsehood, but it won't change the fact that you are still fighting on the same side of that group who seeks to destroy the Church.

You show that you are a part of that great "evil grove of corrupted trees" called the "Community Church Movement".

Your efforts just show that you are a dedicated soldier of Satan.

So keep on defending the same tactics used by Satan (CCM) if you want to, that’s between you and the Father.

We know you by your fruit, Satan.

BTW, your horse is beginning to smell.

M't:7:17: Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
M't:7:18: A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.
M't:7:19: Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
M't:7:20: Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.
M't:7:21: Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
M't:7:22: Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
M't:7:23: And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.


In Jesus's name





 
 Respond to this message   
Chris
(no login)
70.252.70.254

RE: Your fruits are showing

August 9 2006, 10:21 AM 

SeekingtopleaseGodonly,

When I read your latest comments pertaining to this discussion I was totally amazed at just how little you had to offer. My first thought was to leave the discussion as it exist on this thread and simply let your name calling and refusal to answer my questions speak volumes regarding the type of person you are and the amount of truth you have on your side. Yet, the more I read your latest comments to see if I could actually find something worthy of a response, the more a certain phrase kept jumping out at me and begging me to respond.

The phrase I am referring to is “when you defend the deceitful tactics used by the CCM to destroy the Lord's church we know you by your fruit.” The reason this phrase kept jumping out at me is that it beautifully reveals your inability to comprehend the discussion at hand. If you go back and reread all of my posts in this discussion you will discover that I have never defended or even mentioned the CCM. From my very first post to this one, I have repeatedly asked for someone to answer the questions posed by “B” in his original post. Yet, to this very post, no “defender of the faith” on this site has stepped up to the plate and done so. Can you tell me why that is?

You make the comment “that no honest person believes” me “anymore.” I beg to differ. Any “honest” person reading this discussion will be able to see through your name-calling and question dodging tactics and understand that you are the one not worthy of believing. You can’t even deal with a simple question about your stance that “raising hands” is sinful without accusing someone of being a change agent who is seeking to destroy the church. YOU, my friend, are the one who is in need of professional help.

As far as “lifting hands” is concerned, I agree with following statement made by John Waddey in an article addressing the need for wisdom in discerning what are and are not issues. He stated that “lifting up of hands is an outward posture in prayer just as kneeling, standing or falling on ones face. It has no special spiritual value.” In other words, the “lifting of hands” during prayer or singing does not make the ones lifting hands any holier than the ones not lifting hands. It is merely outward posture or physical position. But, if a person feels that this outward posture helps him focus more on his worship to God, who are you and I to call him into question and accuse him of sin. SeekingtopleaseGodonly, the truth is that whether the hands are lifted, the knees bent, the eyes closed or the head bowed, the important part is that the heart must be submissive and reverent toward God. And, until I see the nail prints in your hands and see you walk on water, I refuse to believe that you have the ability to read the hearts of those who raise hands during worship.

When we “inspect fruit” we need to make sure we are coming up with the correct conclusions. The Pharisees considered Jesus to be a sinner because he ate and spoke to tax collectors and prostitutes. They were wrong!! Apparently, not everything that looks, smells and sounds like a dog is not always a dog. You do basically the same thing. You assume that because something looks, smells and sounds liberal that it is liberal. You, too, are wrong!!

I asked you earlier in this post if you could tell me why no one has stepped-up to the plate and addressed the questions I have repeatedly asked. My opinion is that no one has done so because they can't give book, chapter and verse for why any of those items are sinful. And, in stating that [1] lifting hands, [2] men eating breakfast together, [3]praying in a room labeled "community room", [4] women ministering to women, [5] wednesday night class for singing songs, and [6] having short devotionals are NOT sinful they would be placing themselves in the same category as the "liberals" they oppose. I can only imagine how well that would settle in their stomachs.

I still await your response to the questions asked by “B” in his original post and repeated by me in my posts. Please step-up to the plate and address these questions.

 
 Respond to this message   
Donnie Cruz
(Login Donnie.Cruz)
ConcernedMembersMadison
68.19.221.28

No one is required

August 9 2006, 12:29 PM 

Chris,

Please stop your persistence. That doesn’t mean for anyone to “stop posting” unless he/she is banned from ConcernedMembers—it simply means that you cannot impose your will for anyone to respond to a specific post of yours. It follows that the reader may see it as “just not worth the time” or as having no merit or as being “the same ole stuff” that leads the discussion to nowhere. You have exemplified this attitude already in several of your posts. How many times in your posts here and there have you mentioned “lifting hands”? Is this the one thingy that has preoccupied your mind? In fact, your solution to this particular issue will not work any more than the problem its implementation has created.

If I were in Seeking’s place, I would do the same thing. You’re fixated on the same CCM (contemporary or charismatic) and how its beliefs and practices should be subtly implemented in churches of Christ. You do not necessarily have to mention or reference CCM to prove where you stand on issues. It’s no wonder Seeking is responding with consistency to the same questions you [“U”] and “B” are asking. Don’t forget the fact that the initial thread mentioned these items—not as questions, but—as EXAMPLES among others, right or wrong, of the nature of what goes on in the congregation that has been infiltrated by change agents. Examples, Chris, examples….

Your assumption that Seeking has not accurately stated that “no honest person believes you anymore” is itself inaccurate. Believe me, most of the thousands of congregations of the Lord’s church have not succumbed to the desires of the change agents operating in the brotherhood. Yes, a few mega churches in the brotherhood have deviated and have been perverted because their own leaders have deviated from the principles of what the church of our Lord should be in accordance with New Testament teachings—and that’s hardly the fault of the members. Just because there are dissidents out there doesn’t mean that Christ’s church is dying or that the Contemporary/Charismatic Movements have “converted” the church into something else it shouldn’t be.

Please do not misuse brother John’s Waddey’s message to prove you are correct in your assumptions and in what you are trying to teach. He is simply saying that certain non-issues ultimately become issues when they are imposed upon congregations that “DO NOT HAVE THEM IN THE FIRST PLACEWhen they are or become CONTROVERSIAL and/or UNNECESSARY, avoid them.

Donnie

 
 Respond to this message   
B
(no login)
70.232.91.1

Thanks

August 9 2006, 3:11 PM 

Chris,

Thank you for the kind words in mid-July. I just saw them.

I still believe that it is best to study several versions, and the KJV still holds a spot on my bookshelf next to an NIV, NASB and Greek New Testament (among others). In reality, the best translation is probably the one people will actually read and understand.

 
 Respond to this message   
seekingtopleaseGodonly
(no login)
70.240.118.235

Re: Bammel Church of Christ in Houston, Tx

August 9 2006, 9:42 PM 

He doesn't know what else to do!

Hey Donnie,

I believe that Chris knows all too well what John is saying in that passage that John wrote. The problem is that Chris is so used to using deception, corruption, and subtility, that it has become natural for him to take some ones words and try and make them in to something that will support his evil views.

He has consistently and purposely used deception and DELPHI Tactics during almost everyone of his post.

I say that he is doing it purposely because I don’t believe anyone (especially a so-called preacher) can be as stupid and uncomprehending as his post is showing him to be.

I have grown to expect that from him.

He is probably getting paid well to do his job of defending the scripted tactics of that satanic group that is behind the Community Church Movement.

Corrupt trees will bear corrupt fruit.

Like a "broken record" he keeps bringing up the same tired questions.

That's because he is applying the evil rules and tactics that he has been taught to use like;

#12. Require the skeptics to solve the crime completely.

He doesn’t know what else to do. He wouldn't dare deviate from the book.

He's following the "PURPOSE DRIVEN" PLAN!

So he repeatingly tries to;

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

and he has no problem using the following tactic;

#15. Baldly and brazenly lie.

I don't think that he is as stupid and clueless as he is portraying himself to be during his post. He is probably just following the #1 rule on the "Truth Suppression" list;

#1. Dummy up

But, I do think that he is being evilly deceptive while trying to defend the tactics of the CCM.

One good reason why he is being so persistent is that he may feel the need to protect his monetary interest, including the vast monies and fringe benefits that he and his "partners in crime" are possibly enjoying by manipulating the Lord’s church.


I believe that Chris (or Satan's soldier) knows why these 'Small groups' that he consistently and persistently defends are being utilized by the Community Church Movement, because he seems to be "in the loop".

He is a preacher.

He should know to some extent what is going on although at the same time he himself is also being deceived by those who are closer to the top of that evil organization.

Why else would he so persistently defend the tactics used by that "evil grove of corrupted trees" called the CCM unless, of course, he is firmly planted within that evil forest.

Just like a tree planted by the waters, it seems Chris, "shall not be moved".

Chris, why don't you take some time to read the editorial,

"S E C R E T C O N V E R S I O N"?

http://www.concernedmembers.com/editorials/secretconversion.htm


The information you find there should sound very familiar because it is describing the same road map that you are defending.

Here's a piece of the passage:

The Bible warns us about these people. They could have easily formed their own church, but they have chosen to take yours. They meet in secret among themselves. They read books and attend seminars that teach them how to practice their charade against their own members. Something evil is astir here.

These wolves have become so brazen that they have begun to run in packs for all to see. They are taking over the Christian schools, and churches. Those that dare to stand in their way will be ridiculed and belittled as troublemakers and accused of being sources of division within the church.

How can those that standup for truth be called dividers? Why is it that the "Change Agents" can't see the reflection of the dividers image in the mirror? Have they been deceived?

The church Elders will roll out a whole bevy of changes, each with their own catch terms, or names and each almost identical to what's used by other "Change Agents" across the country. "Corporate Worship", "Unity In Diversity", "Shepherds", "Worship Leaders", "Covenants", "Small Groups", "Classes 101,102, 103", "Praise Teams".

When confronted or asked about the changes taking place in the church, The Elder's (Shepherd's) common response is first one of denial, then they will accuse YOU of division. Many will say; "If you don't like it, then leave"

If you haven't guessed yet, we are not talking about something Holy here. In my humble opinion, this process is straight from Hell. It's been planned for a long time. We are now living in an era that is seeing the result of the seeds sown thousands of years ago.



Does this info sound familiar, preacher?

It should because it was taken from the same "playbook" that you are using.

BTW, aren't you one of those "SHEPHERDS" Chris?

*UPDATE on that dead DELPHI Horse that Chris is still trying to riding. (Geez!)

"THE BLUE AND GREEN COLORED FLIES ARE BEGINNING TO GATHER AND LAY THEIR EGGS UPON THE CARCASS OF THAT ANIMAL."

Words of advice Chris,

DISMOUNT the horse, and walk away,... just dismount, TURN, and walk away…..

2Tm:3:13: But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived.
2Tm:3:14: But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them;


In Jesus’s Name


 
 Respond to this message   
Chris
(no login)
70.245.213.115

RE: no one has to...

August 12 2006, 10:17 PM 

Donnie,

I really appreciate the offering you brought to this discussion. Unfortunately, I'm disinclined to acquiesce to your request that I cease my persistence.

The initial post by anonymous that started this entire discussion stated that change agents have hit the Bammel Church of Christ in Houston, Texas. Anonymous also stated that he/she could not believe how people could be so blind and deaf to what is going on in this church. And, in closing, he/she plainly states that what is taking place is nothing but the devil’s work.

Even you, Donnie, must admit that those are some pretty serious accusations. In fact, those statements border on being slanderous – especially if the reasons for anonymous making those statements are not supported by scripture.

Therefore, we must ask two questions: [1] what are the reasons anonymous had for making those statements, and [2] are those reasons valid according to scripture.

Answering the first question is relatively simple. For all we have to do is reread that initial post and make note of anonymous’ reasons for making those statements. When we do that, we discover that anonymous believes: [a] Bammel is performing the devil’s work because they have a praise team, [b] Bammel is performing the devil’s work because they have power breakfasts, [c] Bammel is performing the devil’s work because they have a men’s prayer time in the “community room,” [d] Bammel is performing the devil’s work because they have “connection groups” that meet in homes, [e] Bammel is performing the devil’s work because they have baby dedications once a year, [f] Bammel is performing the devil’s work because they have a woman ministering to women, [g] Bammel is performing the devil’s work because they are teaching a class on “experiencing God,” [h] Bammel is performing the devil’s work because they have a class where they sing contemporary songs and have only a short devotional.

What we don’t discover in that original post, Donnie, is the answer to our second question above – are those reasons valid according to scripture. The reason we don’t discover whether or not those reasons are valid according to scripture is that anonymous doesn’t use scripture to validate his statements. He simply claims that Bammel is guilty of performing the devil’s work. The sad part is that for almost 2 ½ years not one person questioned anonymous about his/her lack of scripture to validate those accusations.

In his initial post in this discussion “B” addressed this lack of scriptural validation and requested that someone provide scriptural reasons why these items mentioned by anonymous were sinful. Sounds like a simple request to me. Yet, another year passed before I joined this discussion and discovered that “B’s” questions were still unanswered.

I could not believe that one defender of the faith wouldn’t step up to the plate and address those questions one by one and supply an answer proving that anonymous’ statements in the initial post of this discussion were valid. So, I decided to join the discussion and seek an answer to “B’s” questions.

During my involvement in this discussion I have been called Satan’s servant, a big liar, one not seeking the truth, a supporter of the Delphi Technique and many other things. Yet, I have continued to press and seek scriptural validation for those original statement by anonymous.

Now, Donnie, you have requested that I stop my persistence. Why? Because, as you put it, “I can not impose my will for anyone to respond to a specific post of mine.” You implied that answering those questions asked by “B” and continually repeated by me were “not worth the time” and “had no merit.” In making those comments you basically imply that scriptural validation for the statements that started this discussion are not important.

I am confident that my assessment of your implications are correct because according to your recent post you jump in and defend his lack of scriptural validation for making those statements. If you recall, you made the statement that “the initial thread mentioned these items … as EXAMPLES … right or wrong, of the nature of what goes on in the congregation that has been infiltrated by change agents.”

According to you, anonymous can make all the accusations he desires because he uses examples of what goes on in a congregation that has been infiltrated by change agents. Interestingly enough, you point out that the correctness of his accusations does not matter. Remember, according to you -- right or wrong, they are only examples.

Want to know why I am so persistent? Because I want to see someone answer the questions asked by “B”. When someone does that, according to scripture, I will gladly bow out of this discussion.

In all honesty, I hope it happens in the near future.

 
 Respond to this message   
Chris
(no login)
70.252.70.254

RE: Dismount and walk away..

August 14 2006, 10:53 AM 

Seeking,

I am amazed and amused every time I read one of your posts. Amazed at your ability to make certain accusations and comments about me as though you know that much about me. Amused because your accusations and comments are SO FAR FETCHED that I am left wondering how you came to your conclusions.

For example, you claim that I am “probably getting paid well to do my job of defending the scripted tactics of that satanic group that is behind the Community Church Movement.” And, you state that “one good reason why I am being so persistent is that I may feel the need to protect my monetary interest, including the vast monies and fringe benefits that me and my "partners in crime" are possibly enjoying by manipulating the Lord’s church.”

Where in the world you came up with those ideas are beyond me.

You also claim that I am a preacher and possibly a shepherd. If you go back and read all of my posts on this site you will not find me claiming to be a preacher. However, at one time I was, but I haven’t been a preacher since 2001. And, to answer your question, no I am not a shepherd either.

Perhaps now you can see why I get so amused at your posts.

Also, your comments regarding this so-called dead horse I am riding are hysterical. And, in all honesty, when you told me to dismount and walk away I actually laughed out loud.

But, I will tell you the same thing I told Donnie in my response his request that I stop my persistence. I'm disinclined to acquiesce to your request that I dismount and walk away.

However, I can promise you this, if you will only answer, according to scripture, the questions asked by “B” and continually repeated by me, I will gladly bow out of this discussion.

 
 Respond to this message   
Donnie Cruz
(Login Donnie.Cruz)
ConcernedMembersMadison
68.154.169.36

The numbered list of B's questions ... again?

August 17 2006, 1:20 AM 

Chris,

I really think you should re-read your posts and see how repetitious you’ve been—that’s what I meant by “stop your persistence.” I even said it earlier—that no one is going to stop you from posting. Let me mention now, too, that I have a secular job, have to work to make a living. That means that my time is limited … in as much as I would like to be able to spend much of my time reading posts and posting.

Did I notice your same list of B’s questions derived from SOME of the original poster’s comments? Yes, I did. The only difference is that the numbered list became a “lettered” list: [a] thru [h].

All I would like to say now is that you shouldn’t be holding back. While you keep saying that you do not do arm-lifting and/or that you have no desire to arm-lift, I think you should give it a try—i.e., arm-lift in your congregation … better yet, if no one arm-lifts in your congregation. Then, you can write about that experience in your next post.

Donnie

 
 Respond to this message   
Chris
(no login)
69.149.255.226

"Shifting focus"

August 19 2006, 6:54 AM 

Donnie,

I also have a secular job and fully understand what you mean by having limited time to read and post on this site. And, in all honesty, I have struggled at times with the question of whether or not I should continue participating in the discussions. Especially when I am constantly portrayed as a big fat liar, a servant of Satan and one not seeking the truth. Yet, I am here. And, you can be assured that I appreciate your taking time from your busy schedule to engage me in this discussion.

So, in the interest of making progress in this discussion, let's shift our focus just a bit and address the phrase "controversial and/or unnecessary changes." Because I am very interested, Donnie, in what type of change you would call non-controversial or nesessary. Afterall, by definition, isn't change controversial?

Perhaps you can define the terms and scope of our "shifted focus" so that we can apply them to the discussion at hand and make positive progress to discovering what the real issue is and is not.

Thanks.




 
 Respond to this message   
Donnie Cruz
(Login Donnie.Cruz)
ConcernedMembersMadison
70.149.147.218

Controversial or unnecessary change: an example

August 22 2006, 1:12 AM 

Chris,

I commented to you earlier:

    “All I would like to say now is that you shouldn’t be holding back. While you keep saying that you do not do arm-lifting and/or that you have no desire to arm-lift, I think you should give it a try—i.e., arm-lift in your congregation … better yet, if no one arm-lifts in your congregation. Then, you can write about that experience in your next post.”

I was trying to illustrate my point of what could be a controversial issue or an unnecessary change. Please re-read it. You noticed that I did not use a hand-lifting [let me add: dancing and swaying-to-the-music “charismatic”] congregation as the setting or the environment in which hand-lifting was already a “pre-existing condition,” correct? Why? You should know.

Instead, the congregation, in this example, has NOT practiced hand-lifting or any related activity that’s normally associated with charismatic behavior. That simply is the history of this particular congregation—it isn’t a Pentecostal church—and lifting arms is just a “no-no” … like it or not. In other words, it’s not any more practical for a hand-lifting church to change its practice against hand-lifting than for a non-hand-lifting church to change its practice otherwise.

So, then, Chris, a member of this church, is aware of its history—no lifting of hands. Chris is AWARE that the moment he begins this practice, he is going to offend others in the assembly, whether or not their reasoning against the practice is valid—and that it would be considered an intrusion or interference. This incites controversy. Question: Should Chris continue to satisfy his desire without regard for any adverse effect? Or, should Chris be considerate enough to just seek to go somewhere else where such a practice is not offensive or intrusive?

 
 Respond to this message   
Anonymous
(no login)
208.46.106.17

Re: Controversial or unnecessary change: an example

August 22 2006, 11:48 AM 

Donnie,

Maybe you should try raising your hands for the promised joy God promises us Christians instead of being so accusatory.

Psalms 134

1 Behold, bless ye the LORD,
all ye servants of the LORD,
which by night stand in the house of the LORD.

2 Lift up your hands in the sanctuary,
and bless the LORD.

3 The LORD that made heaven and earth
bless thee out of Zion.

Please note the KJV instead of the "evil" NIV.

 
 Respond to this message   
Donnie Cruz
(Login Donnie.Cruz)
ConcernedMembersMadison
70.146.131.35

No ... maybe ... yes: but not to imitate or perform

August 23 2006, 1:17 AM 

Hello,

And where is the sanctuary?

What about this from Psalm 25:1, and how would you do this—“Unto thee, O LORD, do I lift up my soul”? Psalm 86:4—“Rejoice the soul of thy servant: for unto thee, O Lord, do I lift up my soul.

Psalm 74:1-3—“O God … Lift up thy feet unto the perpetual desolations; even all that the enemy hath done wickedly in the sanctuary.”

Psalm 93:3—“The floods have lifted up, O LORD, the floods have lifted up their voice; the floods lift up their waves

O.K., just a few verses on lifting up my soul … my head … my eyes … my hand(s) … my heart…. And how would you know that I haven’t done or don’t do any of these?

Really, I think you missed the point I was trying to convey in regard to an issue that may be controversial or unnecessary in that particular setting. Please reread the post, and put yourself in Chris’ place—you know … where one does it matters … unless s/he does it in private or alone where no one might be offended or disturbed ... or where no one would be inclined to be a spectator or to question what might be perceived as a show or performance or an attention-getter. Do you see my point?

Donnie

 
 Respond to this message   
 
< Previous Page 13 4 5 6 7 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