...of Jim Jeffords. It is about time a Republican in Washington had the decency and morality to stand up to the God-awful agenda of our lame-brain President. (A president, who by the way, likes to say the American people elected him to get a job done. Wake up George, the Supreme Court elected you 5-4.)

Thank God also that every president who lost thepopular vote was a one-termer. So may it be with GWB.

-- Anonymous, May 24, 2001

Answers

CG....

Get off the minimum wage issue....it's tired!!!

The vast majority of minimum wage jobs are entry level jobs. No one plans on "flippin'" burgers the rest of their lives.

If you don't like the wages at one place....it's very simple....get another job.

Do I like big military buildups?? Yep!! Remember....big military Ronald Reagan buildups ended the cold war and brought down communism. An indisputable historical fact!!

Executions?? Love em!! My only complaint is....I wish there were at least 5 a week!!

Big tobacco?? Don't care for them one way or another. I just don't like the govt. restricting the ways I can kill myself.

-- Anonymous, June 20, 2001

Geez....I've been gone a week and Connie is still an idiot!!!

CG....try to let your hermeneutics come through some time.

God takes no pleasure in the "eternal destuction" of the wicked....but God takes a great deal of pleasure in justice which is why He ordained the govt. as an instrument of wrath (Romans 13).

I love executions because I love to see the govt. fulfill its God ordained role of carrying out His wrath against the evil doer (almost word for word from Romans 13).

-- Anonymous, June 20, 2001

And I mean it this time!! I really do!!!

-- Anonymous, June 21, 2001

CG.....may I suggest the following web site.....

www.dontbelievetheinerrancyofthebiblethereforeIquestionclearexplicitst atementsofthebible.com

-- Anonymous, June 21, 2001

"False doctrine it is, CG, and God will hold them accountable for lying to their congregants."

Connie....me thinks you should be more concerned about hugging up to someone who believes the account of Adam and Eve to be "a story"....and Jonah "a parable."

-- Anonymous, June 22, 2001

I see it differently Connie....and I hope one day your stiff necked attitude towards the word of God will be replaced with repentant submission.

-- Anonymous, June 22, 2001

A bad name to who Connie??

-- Anonymous, June 23, 2001

Connie.....you didn't answer the question....so I'll ask it again....

To who???

-- Anonymous, June 23, 2001

Bad answer Connie....because the fact is....I've won more people to Christ in the last month than you have in your lifetime probably.

Believe it or not Connie.....people today are acutally sick of the mamby pamby....ooey gooey....Christianity you espouse. In fact, it is that form of Christianity that has the church is such poor shape today. The world is no longer threatened by the church.....they just don't take it seriously.

They are looking for something that is real....and they are looking for leaders who take stands.....rather than ride fences....and have the courage and conviction to make those stands plain.

So as usuall.....you are off in left field.

-- Anonymous, June 24, 2001

Connie....

You are....the weakest link!!

Goodbye!!

-- Anonymous, June 24, 2001

Yeah Connie....tell that to a murderer who has a knife at your grandchild's throat.

-- Anonymous, June 24, 2001

Wrong again Connie....the text literally says..."Thou shalt not murder!"....It does not say..."Thou shalt not kill."

Study for yourself rather than something regurgitated from your pastor.

-- Anonymous, June 24, 2001

No problem leaving my church Connie....you would have never been admitted with your adhearance to false doctrine.

Murder.....is the taking of innocent life.

Killing....is not the same as murder. One kills in self defense....one kills game or livestock in order to eat.....one kills in defense of his country......the govt. is said to have the right to kill in order to avenge the Lord's wrath on the wrongdoer (Romans 13). The Lord sent many into battle to kill men, women, and children (see much of the O.T.) Would you suggest the Lord broke his own commandment?? Would you suggest that the Lord "murdered??"

So it is abundantly clear that there is a big difference between "murder"......and "killing."

-- Anonymous, June 25, 2001

You know...I think Jeffords may well be very much at home now in a party that kills babies and loves homosexuals. By the way CG...you are a complete moron for spouting such ridiculous drivel.

-- Anonymous, May 24, 2001

A--Jesus also loves homosexuals.

B--the Democrats do not kill babies. Many of them do not want abortions to occur, but they feel that there are gray areas and thus people should be free to choose, even if the choice is one which may be wrong. C--Nobody who is for guns, capital punishment, etc., is really "pro- life" Nobody who is for the big tobacco companies is "pro-life", and nobody who is for Bush's economics is pro-life because liberal economics is for people, but republican economics is simply for the rich and powerful. D--I am disappointed that people do not see the incongruity of hristianity and the Republican right.

-- Anonymous, May 24, 2001

A--Jesus also loves homosexuals.

B--the Democrats do not kill babies. Many of them do not want abortions to occur, but they feel that there are gray areas and thus people should be free to choose, even if the choice is one which may be wrong. C--Nobody who is for guns, capital punishment, etc., is really "pro- life" Nobody who is for the big tobacco companies is "pro-life", and nobody who is for Bush's economics is pro-life because liberal economics is for people, but republican economics is simply for the rich and powerful. D--I am disappointed that people do not see the incongruity of Christianity and the Republican right.

-- Anonymous, May 24, 2001

By the way, nine out of ten morons are Repbulican. Not all Republicans are morons, but nearly all morons are Republican.

-- Anonymous, May 24, 2001

How come it is OK for a Dem to switch to GOP, but you guys whine when the opposite is true. I think John McCain, who by the way is my first choice for president, is exactly right in the response he issued today:

“Tolerance of dissent is the hallmark of a mature party, and it is well past time for the Republican Party to grow up,”

The Republicans have nobody to blame but themselves. Shame on them-- every last one of them...

-- Anonymous, May 24, 2001

A. Love, in the mind of a Dem = acceptance, tolerance and education on why it is the "preferred life-style of choice."

B. You wrote: "B--the Democrats do not kill babies. Many of them do not want abortions to occur, but they feel that there are gray areas and thus people should be free to choose, even if the choice is one which may be wrong.

Where is the "may be wrong?" Murder is wrong. Dem's do kill babies. Just because Tom Daschle probably has never conducted a Saline abortion doesn't mean there is no blood on his hands. And, fortunately, God will hold him accountable for the shedding of that innocent blood.

C. You also wrote: "Nobody who is for guns, capital punishment, etc., is really "pro- life" Nobody who is for the big tobacco companies is "pro-life", and nobody who is for Bush's economics is pro-life because liberal economics is for people, but republican economics is simply for the rich and powerful."

Are you kidding me? Is your Bible simply missing pages? You obviously didn't get very far in reading it if not then. If you had read even to the ninth chapter of Genesis, you would have seen the folly of your statements. Obviously, if you haven't read Genesis 9:6, it is ludicrous to think you would have read Romans 13:1-5. Oh well...keep reading and someday you may see how goofy you actually just sounded. Or are you the "scholar" who questions the historicity of Genesis? If so, cross your legs indian-style meditate and keep smoking whatever helps you attain these anti-Scriptural views.

D. You finally said, "I am disappointed that people do not see the incongruity of Christianity and the Republican right."

I do not believe that the Republican right (whatever that is supposed to mean) has a corner market on truth, but be that as it may, you have aligned yourself with the party of the Romans. The pagan Democrats have an agenda that is so contrary to the faith it is seemingly impossible to maintain a faith in Christ and vote straight Dem party line.

-- Anonymous, May 24, 2001

Michael you are correct when you say:

The pagan Democrats have an agenda that is so contrary to the faith it is seemingly impossible to maintain a faith in Christ and vote straight Dem party line.

I am only saying it is impossible to maintain faith in Christ and vote a straight Republican party line als, because of the issues I cited above.

By the way, as far as Capital Punishment goes, Genesis is suyperseded by the cross, Christ "tasted death for every one." (Heb 2:9) God allows the state to bear the sword, but no Christian should approve of that.

When you say:

. Oh well...keep reading and someday you may see how goofy you actually just sounded. Or are you the "scholar" who questions the historicity of Genesis? If so, cross your legs indian-style meditate and keep smoking whatever helps you attain these anti-Scriptural views.

Let me be clear that I hold absolutely no "anti-Scriptural views." The very basis of my views is the Scripture itself.

But hey, you don't have to agree with me...go ahead and be wrong, I won't stop you.

-- Anonymous, May 24, 2001

CG,

What little respect I had for your views (after learning you believe in Biblical errancy) is now gone. I usually avoid these kind of threads and this will probably be my only post in this one, but ...

A: You know, as well as everyone else, that Michael meant homosexuality. The Dem party is the home of the homosexual agenda. And before you end up saying something else foolish let me just say that I know of what I speak. In Fort Lauderdale I am literally surrounded by homosexuals. My landlady is one, and I have, as neighbors, a couple on three of the four sides of the house that I live. I have also counseled a few. And I was able to do so while explaining to them the awfulness of their sin and the love of God and their need to repent.

B: What is gray about abortion? Abortion is part of the Dem platform. What gray is there in the ripping apart of innocent children that have done nothing except be conceived?

C: God taught capital punishment (read Deuteronomy lately?). Is He not pro-life? Or is it possible that you do not believe that part of the Bible? The main reason I believe strongly in capital punishment is the fact that I hold life to be treasured. The one who arbitrarily takes a life forfeits his.

D: Sorry you're disappointed - I am too, in you.

I do not believe the GOP is God's gift to politics, but it is through them this country will take a more Godly stand, if it ever will.

-- Anonymous, May 24, 2001

Scott

I do not understand why you are disappointed. I am not endorsing all of Jeffords' positions. I am not saying the Democrates are all right. I am simply saying the Republicans have aspects to their policies which are also ungodly and I am trying to point that out. Nothing I have written on this forum is in anyway unBiblical or unChristian, and I resent how I get characterized.

-- Anonymous, May 24, 2001

CG...

You wrote: Genesis is suyperseded by the cross...

Is that so? Where, pray tell, is Genesis 9:6 ever rescinded in all of Scripture? Keep it very clear: All murder is killing, but not all killing is murder. God makes certain exceptions for the commandment to not murder. Namely pre-meditated muder demands the execution of the offender. That was not only condoned by the Apostle Paul, he is very glad that God established it to be that way. God even allows for the killing in self-defense. If someone breaks into my home to rob me, I can defend my family and possessions and if need be take the offenders life-Exodus 22:2.

You could not be more messed up in your views. Our culture wants to murder the innocent and protect the guilty. And you seem to think your Bible teaches that view is ok.

-- Anonymous, May 24, 2001

I do not want anybody to be killed.

But please read my post on "Hermeneutics" and I explain there how Gen. 9:6 is superseded.

BTW--even if not all killing is murder, God never delights in the death of the wicked.

You are the one mistaken in your views.

-- Anonymous, May 24, 2001

Michael.

I erred, I did not explicate how capital punishment is affected by Hermeneutics in that thread. Please let me try here.

Like I wrote in that thread, anything in the OT is valid in the NT unless the NT:

(a) overrules it, such as the dietary laws.

(b) subsumes it under a higher law, such as in the sermon on the Mount. When Jesus said each time, “You have heard it said...but I say to you...” He raised the standard in a way which did not overrule the Law, but applied it to the heart.

(c) sets it aside. I would put the religious festivals of the OT in this category.

Capital punishment relates to point (b).

The wages of sin is still death (Rom 6:23), and sin is still sin. And I agree with all the things this forum considers sin, but I guess there are more issues which I believe are sinful which most of you do not share. We all deserve to die because of sin. All have sinned. (Rom 3:23). But in going to the cross Jesus bore the punishment for all sin. When we approve of capital punishment we are in effect saying, “Jesus died for my sins...but you have to die for your own.” It is an inconsistency. At the cross that death sentence has already been carried out. It is not that I do not believe in capital punishment as much as I believe carrying it out now means we punish the same crime twice. I know you will not agree here, but please do not lambaste me for this view, I believe it is one which is biblical.

Two other points:

I do not think we should accept the party line of anything without critical analysis. Be it Quakerism, the RM, the Democrats, the Republicans, capitalism, socialism or whatever. None of these have the whole truth. It is dangerous to swallow any of them whole. but it is almost as if in this forum you must swallow the Republican party line to be respected. Don’t you guys know how to respect those who disagree with you? I made the same statement that I am glad the Jeffords thing happened to a preacher buddy of mine with whom I had breakfast this morning, He simply said, “I am not...” and then we talked about golf...why can’t it be OK that I hold the political views I do? I know I can be a hot- head. I have confessed to as much. But you did not have to call me a “moron.”

Second, I think the Jeffords thing is good because spit government is good. Both sides need limitations on their influence and power.

I am sorry I started a firestorm. Although if Danny or the Bat had written a post griping about Jeffords, it would have been OK. That’s a double standard.

One last thing...the inerrancy thing...is not as big a deal as some make it anyway for two reasons. (1) It only applies to the autographs, so in affirming they are inerrant you are making a statement about what is true concerning something which does not exist any longer anyway. (2) Even if the Bible were inerrant, our interpretations are not. I would think in RM circles a wide variety of views on inerrancy would be therefore welcome.

-- Anonymous, May 24, 2001

CG...

Okay, the moron comment was uncalled for. But spirited debate is perfectly fine.

Your point B is not something I would disagree with, but it does not explain any rescinding of capital punishment, in fact, it would merely state that murder is much more than a knife in the heart of someone, it is attitudinal. This says absolutely nothing concerning capital punishment.

And please don't assume that just because Danny Gabbard would say something that I would say "Amen." I greatly respect Danny but have had more "spirited" debates with him than I can count. I have disagreed with him on many subjects. (Anyway, he doesn't have anything to do with your misguided political views).

And I strongly disagree with your last statement. Your assumption concerning innerrancy implies that God can not oversee either the canonization process or even the translation process beyond the original documents (which we no longer have). You and I would also probably part ways on our understanding of innerrancy. I believe as a point of conviction that suspicion must not begin in the text but in our heart.

-- Anonymous, May 24, 2001

Michael, when you write:

Okay, the moron comment was uncalled for. But spirited debate is perfectly fine.

I reply: All is forgiven, Please forgive me as well. Spirited debate is fine, but I get too spirited!

When you say:

Your point B is not something I would disagree with, but it does not explain any rescinding of capital punishment, in fact, it would merely state that murder is much more than a knife in the heart of someone, it is attitudinal. This says absolutely nothing concerning capital punishment.

I guess we disagree. But it is not as if I am simply clipping passages out of the Bible. I am wrestling with them. It irks me when some people accuse me of not believing the Bible just because I try to apply the hermeneutic methods I have learned consistently.

When you say:

And I strongly disagree with your last statement. Your assumption concerning innerrancy implies that God can not oversee either the canonization process or even the translation process beyond the original documents (which we no longer have). You and I would also probably part ways on our understanding of innerrancy. I believe as a point of conviction that suspicion must not begin in the text but in our heart.

I do not disagree. I was simply trying to point out that the line inerrantists give has to do w/ the autographs. I am not one to look for errors in the Bible. I would assume, also, that our understanding is erroneous before I would argue that Scripture is errant. If you read what I wrote in the thread "hermeneutics", I said,

Inerrancy definition #2: Others define inerrancy as within the scope of the intended meaning the author (and ultimately God who inspired the Scriptures.) This I affirm.

What I am saying is that when we cannot reconcile things, we are misinterpreting, such as trying to force the Gospels or Gen 1 and 2 to harmonize. I think I have a high view of Scripture. I am simply not totally a literalist.

-- Anonymous, May 24, 2001

CG White,

You Wrote the following,

"Like I wrote in that thread, anything in the OT is valid in the NT unless the NT:

(a) overrules it, such as the dietary laws.

(b) subsumes it under a higher law, such as in the sermon on the Mount. When Jesus said each time, “You have heard it said...but I say to you...” He raised the standard in a way which did not overrule the Law, but applied it to the heart.

(c) sets it aside. I would put the religious festivals of the OT in this category.

Capital punishment relates to point (b).

The wages of sin is still death (Rom 6:23), and sin is still sin. And I agree with all the things this forum considers sin, but I guess there are more issues which I believe are sinful which most of you do not share. We all deserve to die because of sin. All have sinned. (Rom 3:23). But in going to the cross Jesus bore the punishment for all sin. When we approve of capital punishment we are in effect saying, “Jesus died for my sins...but you have to die for your own.” It is an inconsistency. At the cross that death sentence has already been carried out. It is not that I do not believe in capital punishment as much as I believe carrying it out now means we punish the same crime twice. I know you will not agree here, but please do not lambaste me for this view, I believe it is one which is biblical."

If what you say is true, then why is it that anyone would die, whether by natural causes, disease, war, disease, or any other cause. If Christ's substitutionary death is applied consistently, why does anyone die, whether by punishment or any other cause?

Your reasoning paints a broad stroke if you follow it consistently. If the substitutionary death of Christ, supercedes punishment by man, then you must (IMO), say that no man will be lost. You must conclude that even a sinner apart from Christ must be saved. Why? If Christ's death vindicates a murderer from being punished upon this earth by the legal authorities that God has placed in authority and which God has given both the right and authority to make and enforce law, then Christ's death must also vindicate the murderer eternally.

I know that you would not follow through in this manner with your thinking, but it seems the only conclusion possible. If, as you say, Christ's death vindicates one, then it has to vindicate the other.

Also, what is unscriptural about a man being punished twice, or in two ways of any kind,,, or more for that matter, for his sin? I know that there are some who think it 'unfair', but why does the OPINION of what is fair or unfair have to be the filter through which we speak of God's opinion?

Or should you rethink your statement about a person being punished twice for the same crime, and simply say a person should suffer the same punishment twice for the same crime. If you were to say that, I would still ask, why is your opinion true? Or you might say that (as you implied in your post) that man should suffer by death twice for the same crime. If that is your position, I refer you back to my original comments. It may seem unfair to some people, but that does not make it Scriptural.

I am obviously having a great deal of difficulty with your reasoning. It doesn't appear to hold consist with your reasoning of the subtitutionary death of Christ. Besides, His death is only a substitute for those who are being saved through the blood of Jesus Christ, not for those who are not covered by the blood of Christ.

Would you suggest that it is then ok to put to death the unsaved murderer? Should we immediately release the one who confesses Jesus Christ as Lord and calls upon His name. Hmmmmmmm. How are we to discern these matters? How are we to know who to punish and who not to? Why is death for a premeditated murderer so wrong, yet to imprison him for life is so right? What?, should we make them live in a horrible prison situation? Should we give them all the wonders of technology so their life might be like ours? Or should we find some middle ground and just give them some things based upon some subjective sence what is reasonable?

Why is it wrong for the God ordained authorities to impose their will upon the evil doer? (Note that I use the term, 'evil doer' as opposed to a government who sins against the innocent. There is clear Scripture about a government abusing its power against the innocent.) Hmmmm, as I am typing here, and trying to follow through with your reasoning as best I can, are we to assume that the government is abusing the evil doer, or should we consider him as an innocent.

Any way I try to twist this scenerio around, I still cannot see where you can say that capital punishment is wrong. I wonder if you are going to ask, well, should a child be put to death if they strike their parent? Doesn't the Bible say so? To be honest with you, I am not sure just how to answer that one. If in truth they are attempting to destroy their parent, (as Jesus said, you have heard it said, thou shalt not murder, but I tell you if a man is angry with his brother he has already committed murder in his heart, p.s. that is a memory quote) then maybe the child should be put to death. That is to say, if it is determined in keeping with God's intent when He commanded the Israelites to do that very thing. That would be a really, really tough call. PLEASE DON'T BRAND ME A RIGHT WING WACO WACKO! You would be hard pressed to find someone who is more compassionate toward children (and animals for that matter.)

In fact, it is because of my profound respect and appreciation for life that I speak these words. As life is so ultimately precious-- so it is that it should be protected by the most stringent of means. When we make it easier to destroy what is precious, that is exactly when we devalue what we say is precious. I know that people reason differently, but - for the life of me - I cannot fathom any other.

I suppose I could summarize with the following question, "Just how does the first part of your statement,

<“Jesus died for my sins...but you have to die for your own.” >

apply to the unsaved?

I considered the following response, that Jesus died for all man. Admitting that statement is true, it is not an arguement to use in answer to this question, because just because Jesus died for that purpose, and his death is able to cover all man's sin, it does not mean that it is or will be applied to all mankind.

There is so much more to say, but I will stop for now, Wrestling constantly that God's will be done,

-- Anonymous, May 25, 2001

David

You raise excellent questions, and I cannot answer all of them, I admit.

No, I do not believe all will be saved. But Jesus death is the propitiation not for our sins only but also for the sins of the whole world. (1 John 2:2) God was in Christ, reconciling the world to himself, not counting their sins against them. (2 Cor. 5:19) The issue is no longer a penal one, the issue is one of whether we accept the sacrifice Christ made on our behalf. We may not be reconciled to God, but God is reconciled to all of us, lost or saved.

When we find in Hebrews 2:9 that Christ tasted death for everyone, then it follows that the death penalty has already been paid. Opposing capital punishment is a witness to that fact. Yes, God permits the state to bear the sword--but if I approve of the execution of anyone it undermines my witness about the cross.

I would add that in Romans 13 where the state bearing the sword is mentioned, we are also told to submit to the government, and that was written in the context of one of the most anti-Christian governments ever known, maybe like the Sudan now. We are not to resist the government, even when they do wrong. It is more godly to allow your life to be taken than to rebel against any government. (That has nothing to do with your question, but since I was in the neighborhood of Romans 13, I threw it in.)

Let me say your sensitivity and tenderness come through. You are certainly no wacko! You, like I, are struggling with the texts, and I respect that.

-- Anonymous, May 25, 2001

Scott

You asked what is gray about abortion. How about rape, incest, and saving the life of the mother? You may not agree with these...but they account for only 2% of abortions and it would be a step in the right direction to permit these to eliminate the 98%.

I was writing basically from the standpoint that in a civil democracy such as ours, compromise is necessary. Not everybody believes life begins at conception. I do. But sometimes we need to work on the basis of a least common denomimator in civil legistlation, sadly. I just think that some pro-choice people, while wrong, are still people of integrity and principle. (When I used the term "may be wrong", I did not mean I had doubts, I meant that in spite of even so, people still make choices which I see as wrong.)

I would recommend Ron Sider's book, COMPLETELY PRO LIFE.

Also, I wrote President Clinton more than once to express opposition to abortion, and also my representatives and senators. I spoke of my opposition to abortion and homosexuality in an interview I gave to the WINSTON-SALEM JOURNAL. But for me these must be linked to opposition to war and capital punishment or it is hypocrisy on my part.

-- Anonymous, May 25, 2001

How about rape or incest? Firstly, it is not usual for a victim of such crimes to conceive. But even when it does, are we still to punish the children for the sins of their fathers? Can we know with certainty that the child of that unholy union may not himself grow up to be someone of great importance? Enough to end the child's life? (Beethoven, by the way, was conceived in a rape. Thank God there wasn't such a thing as abortion back then!)

-- Anonymous, May 25, 2001

John

I agree with you, but people of clean conscience can disagree.

-- Anonymous, May 25, 2001

Seeing that there is a lot of discussion on politics going on in here, how about your thoughts on the political party's of England, Israel, Australia, Canada, New Zealand etc. After all we wouldn't want the people from all over the world that wander in here to think that citizens of the USA are obsessed only with themselves, would we?

-- Anonymous, May 26, 2001

CG;

You said that Jim Jeffords had "courage", "decency" and "morality." Personally, I think what he did was gutless, indecent and immoral in the extreme.

Jim was voted in by his constituency, which elected him because they believed he would represent them in congress, because they believed he espoused similar ideals to their own. Then when he gets into office he switches to the party with the diametrically opposite ideology. The old Bait and Switch. He basically lied to his constituency, deceived them, and didn't have the moral courage to run for his office in the party he knew wouldn't win the seat. I believe they should recall him, if that's possible.

-- Anonymous, May 28, 2001

Good call Batman!

Jeffords is a traitor to both his constituancy and the nation. If he felt the need to change, he (as any man of honor would do) should have resigned his position and then ran for the office in his new idealogy....but then again, he never would have gotten elected that way - sure explains his actions, doesn't it?

As for Capital Punishment........it is indeed a lasting command of Scripture, both Old & New Testament. The Covenant of the Rainbow in Genesis 9 is still in effect as there is no New Testament reference to it being replaced. Do we still believe God will never flood the earth again? Do we still believe that "every moving thing that is alive shall be food for you" still applies (it better, since I just come back from Hog Hunting)? If so, then why would we dismiss the part about "Whoever sheds man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed"? A Covenant is either completely intact or completely broken - God made no provision for "line item vetos".

Also, Romans 13 does indeed back up this same support of the death penalty. Swords are not used to scare, spank, or rehabilitate. They are used to kill.....period.

Those who oppose Capital punishment have lost sight of the reason it exists in the 1st place. It was not designed as a crime deterrant (even though it can be one if executed in a timely manner). It was not just to "get even" with the criminal. Man was made in the image of God. Killing that image is a slap in God's face and in effect is a breaking of the Commandment of "not making any graven image"....as the murderer has disrespected God's image and elevated his own image above that of God. Could a Holy, Just, & Righteous God just wink at such behavior? Not if He wanted to continue to be seen as Holy, Just, & Righteous!

-- Anonymous, May 29, 2001

Hi Guys

I have been in sunny (and also overcast) Orlando for four days as a chaperone to about 90 seventh and eighth graders. :)

As far as Jeffords goes, his constituency does not think it is a bait and switch. Did Shelby of Alabama also bait and switch? Did Phil Gramm? What about our President, who ran as a moderate and is governing as a conserevative? That is also bait and switch.

If people elected Jeffords based on his party, then they are getting what they deserved. If they elected him on his political philosophy, then nothing has changed and he will still serve and represent them well. His philosophical views have not changed. He did not really leave his party--the party left him.

Isn't it funny that the party of Lincoln is now no longer the party of civil rights and equality? Isn't it odd that the party which originated based on all persons being created equal now only give a rip about the rich and powerful? Ironies of history.

As far as captial punishment--Killing humans is sinful and it offends God. Sin offends God so much that he took the punishment for all sin himself to remove that obstacle. THINK IN TERMS OF SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY FOR HEAVEN'S SAKE. You guys are simply wrong, no doubt about it.

When Mark writes:

Killing that image is a slap in God's face and in effect is a breaking of the Commandment of "not making any graven image"....as the murderer has disrespected God's image and elevated his own image above that of God

That is the biggest pile of manure I have ever read. It is crazy. (I am not saying Mark is...I am saying the idea is.) Both the murderer and the murdered are created in God's image. But on the one hand, you areequating the victim with God and saying that killing b reaks the first commandment, but on the other hand it is OK to kill the killer. So the victim is equated with God. IDOLATRY PLAIN AND SIMPLE. Jesus died for them both, and we have an obligation under grace to hold out for the redemption of both.

We are not under law, and Genesis 9:6 is abrogated at the cross, and anybody who says otherwise is incorrect. The wages of sin is death, and those wages have already been paid by the Lord Jesus Christ. No one who is his follower ever should favor putting anybody to death because THAT spits in his face more than the argument Mark tries to make does. That is all there is to it, and if you guys understood theology at all you would see that.

-- Anonymous, June 01, 2001

CG.

It is you that does not understand Theology.

NOTHING in the Old Testament is superceeded by the New UNLESS it is specifically mentioned in the new Testament. Any other interpretation of Old Testament can ONLY be speculation as there is no New Testament proof to the contrary.

Jesus said He came to Fulfill the Law (of Moses) and He did. Examples:

Matthew's multiple comments in his Gospel to the effect of "thus fulfilling the words of the prophets"

Matt. 5:21-48 "You have heard it said that thou shalt not murder (commit adultery, covet, make false vows,etc), but "I" say unto you......." Here Jesus specifically says He has superceeded the Law of Moses as spelled out in Exodus & Deuteronomy.

But NOWHERE in the New Testament is there a mention of repealing the covenant with Noah. In fact, the argument could be made that Peter might have re-affirmed this covenant in I Peter 3:20-22. (And don't forget about Noah's mention in the Faith Hall of Fame - Heb 11:7.)

And CG......answer my questions......."Do you believe that God will make good on His part of the Rainbow Covenant to not ever again flood the Earth?" (That is, assuming that you even believe that he flooded it the 1st time.)............."Do you believe that all living things have been given to man for meat?"

If you answer "Yes" to both - then the Dealth Penalty part must go along too - as God would never break any part of a Covenant.

If you answer "No" to either - then you have invalidated any Scriptural argument you may have on ANY subject. Because if you believe Genesis (our introduction to God & His plan) is either inaccurate or inconsistant - then you have no Theological leg to stand on.

That would leave you with only one "liberal" leg to hop on.

-- Anonymous, June 01, 2001

Mark that last post was what I call FOS (Full of...)

You could argue that in dying on the cross Jesus "fulfilled" the law and its demands and therefore capital punishment is not to be carried out because the demands of the law are already fulfilled. Now we are splitting hairs.

Besides, the covenant with Noah did not necessarily DEMAND CAPITAL PUNISHMENT. It did not PROSCRIBE it DESCRIBED.

Gen 9:4-5 NIV--5 And for your lifeblood I will surely demand an accounting. I will demand an accounting from every animal. And from each man, too, I will demand an accounting for the life of his fellow man. 6 "Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made man.

It could be taken as saying, this is simply how it will be insatead of some holy or righteous demand...It could be interpreted either way.

It is the mosaic covenant which really mandated capital punishment and the cross definitely abrogated it.

And what about Genesis 4, when God promised Cain he would not allow anyone to kill him??? (Doesn't look good for Genesis being the work of one author, does it???)

-- Anonymous, June 01, 2001

CG,

You answered my question when you said:

"And what about Genesis 4, when God promised Cain he would not allow anyone to kill him??? (Doesn't look good for Genesis being the work of one author, does it???)"

All you can do is hop on that Liberal Leg because you consider Genesis to be something other than what it is........the inspired and totally accurate Word of God!

Theological Discussion Over!

-- Anonymous, June 01, 2001

CG,

Now in a Non-Theological context, you asked:

"As far as Jeffords goes, his constituency does not think it is a bait and switch. Did Shelby of Alabama also bait and switch? Did Phil Gramm?"

Now there's a "FOS" for you! I, as a Texas Voter in his precinct back then, WAS victimized by Phil Gramm. He was & still is a turn- coat, a traitor, & a man of low standards & no honor!

Ok......back to Theology for 1 last second.........You said:

"As far as captial punishment--Killing humans is sinful and it offends God."

Now....I know that you don't believe in the Bible (since you deny inerrancy), but can you at least admit that the Law was perfect when God Instituted it? Since God is perfect & holy, how could anything He gave NOT be perfect. Yes, the Law was perfect....unfortunately, imperfect man was never able to keep it.

So HOW IN THE WORLD could God prescribe the Death Penalty in the Law (His Perfect Law) and thereby "offend Himself" and still be Holy & Just?

In trying to create multiple authors for the Torah.......you have created multiple gods instead!

-- Anonymous, June 01, 2001

Markwhiz asks:

So HOW IN THE WORLD could God prescribe the Death Penalty in the Law (His Perfect Law) and thereby "offend Himself" and still be Holy & Just?

CG replies:

By not only prescribing the penalty but by bearing it for all of us Himself at the cross. The death penalty for every capital crime that ever has been or ever will be committed was paid when Jesus died for us. Why re-enact the penalty and re-punish the same crime? Was it not Gamaliel who said "It is better for one man to die for the whole people?" (I think that is right--don't have a Bible handy)

Why should two people die for the same crime?

-- Anonymous, June 19, 2001

CG,

I am a little confused here. Maybe it is the manner is which this forum follows. But I attempted to deal with some of these arguements early in this thread. You kindly responded to some, but the ones that you didn't respond to, you bring up again toward toward Mark.

Am I reading this thread incorrectly?

-- Anonymous, June 20, 2001

Christ may have died for the sins of all, but his death only applies to those who have repented their sins and appropriated it by faith. It does not apply to unrepentant murders, their blood is on their own heads.

-- Anonymous, June 20, 2001

Once again, Batman is correct.

As I previously stated, murder is akin to destroying the image of God, since man is made in that image. A willful, murderous act denies the blood of Christ - therefore blood is required of them.......not only as recompense to God, but to mankind as well - as murder is a twofold sin, against both man & God.

CG.......to refute your own statement, "Why should two people die for the same crime?"........let me ask the following questions:

WHY Did God Himself, Strike Ananias & Sapphira dead in Acts 5:1-11?

Was this not God executing the Death Penalty AT HIS OWN HAND?????

And this was just for lying about their giving, not murder..........how much more then would God want murder punished?

(And remember, Ananias & Sapphira were killed under the NEW TESTAMENT Covenant - not the Old)

The Death Penalty is one of the MOST CONSISTANT models in the Bible:

GOD.....Flooded the world and killed all but 8 people in Noah's Day.

GOD.....Killed all the inhabitants in Sodom & Gomorrah (except Lot & his daughters) when He wiped those cities from exsistence.

GOD.....Made the entire generation of the Exodus (except Joshua, Caleb, & maybe some of the Levite priests) to die in the wilderness, killing many BY HIS OWN HAND due to different rebellions in those 40 years.

GOD.....Commanded Joshua to kill every man, woman, child, & beast in the city of Jericho.

GOD.....Commanded Saul (via the prophet Samuel) to attack the Amalekites and kill every man, woman, child, & beast (I Sam 15:3).

GOD Himself......killed 185,000 Assyrians as they camped against Jerusalem (2 Kings 19:35).

To deny the death penalty as being Scriptural........is to deny ALL Scripture, both Old & New Testament; as inconsistancy in one part makes the entire document inconsistant and therefore null & void. One really has to be "DAFT" or really blinded (by false doctrine) to miss this.

-- Anonymous, June 20, 2001

Markwhiz:

To deny the death penalty as being Scriptural........is to deny ALL Scripture, both Old & New Testament; as inconsistancy in one part makes the entire document inconsistant and therefore null & void. One really has to be "DAFT" or really blinded (by false doctrine) to miss this

CG:

No mark you are 100% wrong. I am not saying it is not scriptural. I am saying that because of Christ's death, His followers should oppose the implementation of it.

Why can you not respond to me w/o insulting me?

-- Anonymous, June 20, 2001

Batman says:

Christ may have died for the sins of all, but his death only applies to those who have repented their sins and appropriated it by faith. It does not apply to unrepentant murders, their blood is on their own heads.

CG says:

Look at 1 John 1:2--Jesus is the atoning sacrifice, not only for our sins, but also the sins of the whole world.

Look at 2 Cor. 5:18-19. God waqs in Christ, reconciling the world to himself, not counting men's sins against them. The lost are lost because they have not been reconciled to God, but God is fully reconciled and no longer angry at our sins...But you guys make God out to be blood-thirsty!

Give it up guys, admit that one can be liberal and still biblical, liberal and still love the Lord. Why does that idea hurt and offend you?

-- Anonymous, June 20, 2001

Liberal & Biblical are oxymorons..........just like Military Intelligence.

"Daft" wasn't a put-down, just a statement of fact.....as you you keep missing the big picture........you keep making God inconsistant, which is just not possible if God is really God.......which is why Liberal & Biblical can't go together.........Liberalism by its own very nature is inconsistant.

-- Anonymous, June 20, 2001

And CG.........

Why can't you respond to me by ANSWERING MY QUESTIONS?

If God opposes the Death Penalty....WHY DID HE KILL ANANIAS & SAPPHIRA?????????????????????????????

WHY DID HE KILL THEM UNDER THE NEW COVENNANT??????????????????????

-- Anonymous, June 20, 2001

Mark 00 God can take a life as He chooses. But I believe in light of his death for us, He calls us to NEVER take a life. Who beside God is righteous enough to decide when a life should end. (YOU DID NOT NEED THE ALL CAPS.)

As far as oxymoron goes, I agree about Military Intelligence. I think our president coined an oxymoron with Compassionate Conservative.

Sometimes I feel like you guys hate me...maybe I am wrong...but it seems that you equate liberal with evil and conservative with rigbhteous, when most of our differences probably fall under Paul's maxim, "let each man be fully convinced in his own mind."

I live a very conservative lifestyle. A preacher friend once told me it amazed him that I held the views I do and lived my Christian life so much like he does. I also know I have used poor rhetoric at times. I regret that.

But please explain to me why you see me as evil incarnate? Is it because I oppose the death penalty? Is it because I think the wealthy are not taxed enough? Is it because I am pro-labor? Which of these disqualifies me from being a Christian?

Like you, I oppose aboriton and homosexuality and promiscuity and gambling and blasphemy. Like you I believe that Christ alone brings salvation. (My view of Scripture is different from yours, but that does not make me unChristian. One could be a literalist and still be neo-Orthodox, that is a matter of methodology rather than belief.)

So, to quote the great philosopher Dave Thomas, where's the beef?

-- Anonymous, June 20, 2001

Conservatism is also by nature inconsistent.

Let me give one example:

The tax cuts which recently passed, even though the top bracket should have not been lowered, are justified on the basis of saying that high taxes punish hard work. But a low minimum wage punishes hard work too. It should be raised but the very people who do not want to punish the hard work of the rich have no qualms about the inconsistency of not demanding that all working people make a living wage.

Another: The same people who claim to be pro-life FAVOR big military buildups, executions, and big tobacco.

These are the reasons I am not a Republican.

-- Anonymous, June 20, 2001

CG,

I don't see you as evil incarnate, I just cannot understand the inconsistancies of your liberlism.

Maybe I just see things as black or white.........but at least that IS consistant with Scripture as God says, "you are either for Me or against Me"........"choose you this day whom you will serve".

Since God is the same, past, present, & future, I just can't understand how you can just dismiss things like baptism (as a part of the Salvation process) and the death penalty which are prevalent throughout all the Scriptures.

Trying to understand you, is somewhat like trying to understand the man who has spent his entire life in church and yet still cheats on his wife & taxes............ The teaching is obviously there, but what about true comprehension and consistancy with that comprehension.

Oh....as far as inconsistant politics go:

I'm not a Democrat because they are Pro-Death (abortion), and are willing to allow our servicemen to be placed in jeopardy in matters that do not concern the US, yet they are willing to allow this country to be overrun & killed by invading armies (by weakening our defenses). And yet, while killing babies who have no choice, they are also willing to take your choices away, such as your right to defend yourself from harm. Actually..........I guess that kinda makes political Liberals consistant afterall............they want everyone either dead or subserviant to THE PARTY.

That would make Hitler, Stalin, & Castro all Liberals, wouldn't it?

-- Anonymous, June 20, 2001

Mark, when you write:

I'm not a Democrat because they are Pro-Death (abortion), and are willing to allow our servicemen to be placed in jeopardy in matters that do not concern the US, yet they are willing to allow this country to be overrun & killed by invading armies (by weakening our defenses).

I agree totally...that is the main reason I was for John McCain...I thought he would be the LEAST llikely, given his POW experience, to get into war or conflict.

Mark says:

Trying to understand you, is somewhat like trying to understand the man who has spent his entire life in church and yet still cheats on his wife & taxes............ The teaching is obviously there, but what about true comprehension and consistancy with that comprehension.

And I ask--what have I advocated that is equivalent to cheating on my wife or my taxes? (neither of which do I do.) My personal morality is no different than most of yours.

Danny writes:

Executions?? Love em!! My only complaint is....I wish there were at least 5 a week!!

And I ask:

Isn't it funny that you love em and God says He takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked?

-- Anonymous, June 20, 2001

That's psychopathology for you ~ a Christian 'preacher' who totes a gun to church and loves death.

-- Anonymous, June 20, 2001

You misunderstand CG..........

I make no comment as to your morals......I only used the adulterous analogy to show the inconsistancy of your theology..........the Bible clearly says 1 thing, while you are adamant about doing it a different way.

Besides, sin is sin.......whether it be murder, adultery, lying, or false doctrine. Morals mean nothing when there is sin in the camp.

Connie.....make that 2 gun-totin' preachers in the pulpit. Yes I am licensed by the State of Florida to Conceal Carry a weapon, and I do so often.

"This congregation protected by Sturm-Ruger Corporation (especially since the Liberal Govt is trying to put the Church out of business)"

Yes, I love the Death Penalty........just like I love ALL THINGS God has said to do:....I love taking Communion.........I love forgiving my brother.......I love the wonderful wife God blessed me with...........I love the saving water of Baptism........and I really love the Word of God, which says to Obey the Gov't or FEAR the Sword of God's Wrath held by that Govt.

Deal With It !

-- Anonymous, June 20, 2001

Mark says:

Yes, I love the Death Penalty........just like I love ALL THINGS God has said to do:....I love taking Communion.........I love forgiving my brother.......I love the wonderful wife God blessed me with...........I love the saving water of Baptism........and I really love the Word of God, which says to Obey the Gov't or FEAR the Sword of God's Wrath held by that Govt.

cg asks--

how can loving the death penalty bbe consistent with loving forgiving your brother?

I don't agree with the saving water of baptism part--it is just water. I think the RM position can avoid being "ex operae operato." (To use the phrase Danny used.)

Danny

Don't you see the hermeneutic principles are WHY I take the views of both baptist and capital punishment I do. I have more than substantiated that Biblically. I could say, for once, opoen your minds and not prejudge me as wrong.

-- Anonymous, June 20, 2001

Mark said:

Besides, sin is sin.......whether it be murder, adultery, lying, or false doctrine. Morals mean nothing when there is sin in the camp.

I ask:

Wherein have I sinned? You may say in my theology, but I could say the same about you? Who is right?

You could say you are right and I am wrong. I could say I am right and you are wrong. We both could cite Scripture. We could charge the other with twisting Scripture, AD INFINITUM. What's the point?

Realizing I am a guest here, I have said if you want me gone, just say the word...but no one has. But I think accusing me of false doctrine is a stretch. Nothing I advocate is contrary to the Scripture as God intends it to be interpreted. Nothing!!

Sin is a lack of morality, false doctrine (whatever the particulars) is a lack of clear thinking. Let's not confuse two.

-- Anonymous, June 20, 2001

Again you misunderstand CG....

I did not say you sinned (necessarily).

But now that you brought it up: YES.....false doctrine is sin. Read Paul's Spirit-inspired words to those in Galatia:

"But even though we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to that which we have preached to you, let him be accursed" (anathma in the Greek - literally "consigned to Hell"). Gal. 1:8

How can one be consigned to Hell without unforgiven sin being imputed to his account?

So YES, false doctrine IS sin and it may well be the most pernicious of sins.........hence James' warning, "Let not many of you become teachers, my brethren, knowing that as such we shall incur a stricter judgment." James 3:1

So............if your doctrine is false, you HAVE sinned. And if you teach or promote that false doctrine..........you will incur stricter judgment.

Not thus saith Mark...........but thus saith the Lord God Almighty via the Spirit-inspired Words of Christ's Apostles. (that is if you actually believe the Bible to be the literal and reliable Word of God)

-- Anonymous, June 20, 2001

Mark

If you are correct you guys are in trouble because of your Stupid, idiotic false doctrine about Baptism

I am through here folks, and I mean it this time. You folks are fools with darkened consciences..

-- Anonymous, June 21, 2001

Promises....promises

Methinks a chord has been struck !

-- Anonymous, June 21, 2001

I re-post to comment:

Mark If you are correct you guys are in trouble because of your Stupid, idiotic false doctrine about Baptism

I am through here folks, and I mean it this time. You folks are fools with darkened consciences..

-- (Whitecg@juno.com), June 21, 2001.

---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------

And I mean it this time!! I really do!!!

-- Danny Gabbard, Sr. (PYBuck12pt@cs.com), June 21, 2001.

---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------

Promises....promises Methinks a chord has been struck !

-- Mark Wisniewski (Markwhiz@aol.com), June 21, 2001.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

God will hold all of you accountable for every word.

False doctrine it is, CG, and God will hold them accountable for lying to their congregants.

The perniciousness of baptismal regeneration is so evil that it can be compared to the way satan masquerades as an angel of light.

-- Anonymous, June 22, 2001

Danny, I have nothing to fear; 'Perfect love casts out fear'.

I am safe in Christ's eternal care. You, however, are perhaps facing a different outcome because of your completely unChristlike behavior, belief, words, and teaching.

-- Anonymous, June 22, 2001

I do not have a stiff-necked attitude toward the Word of God, nor to anything concerning our Lord, our Father, His Holy Spirit, and His Precious gospel. I feel very tender and receptive and obedient to His will, and believe His every utterance.

I love Him, in all Three Personages, and His Holy Word in every aspect.

What saddens me is that there are so-called 'preachers' of another gospel, giving Him a bad name.

-- Anonymous, June 22, 2001

You give the Name of Christ a bad connotation by claiming to be a Christian when you are so far from it, it is mind-boggling.

No fruit; only leaves. You will be cut down.

-- Anonymous, June 23, 2001

To people who might be considering becoming Christians, but who decide that if you are an example of a Christian, they'll take vanilla.

Also for people who might be weak Christians who might (God forbid) follow your example.

Respectfully,

-- Anonymous, June 23, 2001

Danny,

Maybe that should be the "Missing Link"...........Ha!

-- Anonymous, June 24, 2001

'When I am weak, then He is strong!'

That's why I don't need to carry a gun. My weapon is the 'Sword of the Spirit, which is the Word of God'.

I war not against flesh and blood, but against principalities and powers.

And I leave avenging to My Heavenly Father.

In Him, and He in me.

-- Anonymous, June 24, 2001

My prayer is that the Lord will spare me from making any decision which would be contrary for a Christian ~ 'thou shalt not kill' ~ but should I have to experience such horror, I pray that I will glorify God in whatever I do.

Respectfully,

-- Anonymous, June 24, 2001

It's funny.....so very funny, to watch you, the "Men & Women of God" go at each others' throats over semantics!

It's really strange, how differences in interpretation can lead to such profound (and passionate) differences of opinion.

Call me a Pagan, or a Devil-Worshiper, but my confidence in the Bible being 100% inerrant is simply not there. How can I be confident that it is? Because some human says that it is indeed the inspired word of God? How am I to know that person is not mistaken? Or worse, lying?

Even if it is the Word of God, how can I be assured of the integrity of a collection of over 60 documents that are anywhere from 2000 to 5000 years old and that have been through countless numbers of translations and transcriptions, and for which many, if not all the original documents are lost?

Excluding the excrable possibility of people deliberately tampering with the documents to suit their own ends, there is still the possibility (a very big one) that well-meaning scribes may have made inadvertant errata that could obscure the original meaning of the text. If you stop to think, one mispelling or poorly chosen word could alter the meaning of the entire sentence, or even an entire paragraph. This is especially true in translations. This can easily obscure the original writer's intents and lead to arguements like the one seen here.

Fortunately, I believe large sections still do retain their integrity, but when vagueness due to a mistranslated or poorly chosen word creeps in, that leaves plenty of room for those who would use that vagueness to twist the Word to their advantage. People of European descent are masters at twisting interpretation of the written word to suit there own ends and I believe that type of verbal contortion continues today, such a dangerous thing to do with something as important as the Word of God!

Do I know the True Word of God? No..I don't. Maybe I heard it in the past and missed it? Maybe, but most likely it was chucked out along with the never-ending plethora of man's lies. Who amongst you is right? Who amongst you is wrong? How am I to know? So far, The Big Guy Upstairs hasn't given me any clues. Maybe you're BOTH wrong!

Maybe you have already been deceived by the words of the False Prophets. What makes you so sure that you haven't been? Maybe you HAVE been deceived! How would you know? If you're convinced you're not, then chances might be pretty likely that you are deceived. People were are deceived are convinced that they are not deceived, if it were otherwise, then the deception was not effective, for in order for deception to work, a person has to buy the statement on some level, and the people who are convinced those words were not lies have fallen for the deception hook, line, and sinker. Deception successful.

Some of you may believe that you have it all figured out. You have the Direct Line on the Truth, so you believe. The problem with thinking the terms of Black and White, Right and Wrong could, by its nature, exclude possibities from one's awareness.

What a rude shock it would be for people who think that they are in tight with the Almighty, when it comes Judgement Day, find themselves becoming the targets of God's Wrath rather than being admitted to the Kingdom of Heaven! Will you be one of these unfortunate saps? You'd better double or even triple check....

Then again, maybe there won't be a Judgement Day or a Kingdom of Heaven. Maybe it was just another lie....

-- Anonymous, June 25, 2001

I re-post to comment:

Wrong again Connie....the text literally says..."Thou shalt not murder!"....It does not say..."Thou shalt not kill." Study for yourself rather than something regurgitated from your pastor.

-- Danny Gabbard, Sr. (PYBuck12pt@cs.com), June 24, 2001.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Oh, I do, Danny, I do. That is how I can tell if he's preaching from the Word. I'd have left your church in a tinker's minute, had I entered it unknowingly.

What about the Beatitudes? ~ or do you not consider that a part of what Christ meant for us? What about Galatians 5? ~ The 'Fruit of the Spirit'? What about I Corinthians 13 ~ 'The Love Chapter'? Which of those are not for us? Do you just embrace Acts (parts of it) and parts of James? What about the Old Testament story of the Good Samaritan? Not only were they different nationalities, they had different gods.

I know that if I were hurt and dying on the side of the road, you would leave me there. In the same circumstance, I would help you, even if I thought you were my enemy. Repent, Danny! For your eternal salvation.

By the way, can you give your definitions of 'murder' and 'kill'?

Respectfully,

-- Anonymous, June 25, 2001

Do people enter your church with signs on them which state their doctrinal beliefs?:

No problem leaving my church Connie....you would have never been admitted with your adherence to false doctrine.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I imagine it's advertised entirely by word of mouth and they already know whether they agree or disagree.

-- Anonymous, June 25, 2001