Friday, November 02, 2007

When enough really is enough

For those of you who aren't geeks (like me), I wrote this past July of the small anti-Bellevue virulence reaching "critical mass."

In physics, the term is used to describe achieving a necessary amount of nuclear material for the purpose of sustaining a fission reaction. In argumentation and debate, the term can be used to describe the assembly of sufficient information to come to a reasonable conclusion in a given area. Since so many of the regular posters here at TBR (I love the smell of an official acronym, don't you?) are observers of the events surrounding Bellevue Baptist Church in recent months, my attention is periodically drawn back to those who self-identify as "truthseekers," but are in point of fact naysayers.

Is that all, however? After over a year of nay-saying, are those who still participate in the attacks against a Christian church, her pastor, and her staff still deserving of the benefit of the doubt? Or have they, finally, reached a "critical mass" of evidence and vended that benefit away?

The only available conclusions are these: As general rules, they've spent all the considerations extended to them, done nothing to seek reconciliation, and done everything to injure those with whom they disagree. I am no less convinced that God can do a work in their lives, but I am persuaded by the evidence that it is no longer (and probably hasn't been for awhile) legitimate differences of opinion that fuel the anti-Bellevue cadre, but wrong attitudes of the heart.

In a word, sin.

"Oh, you're gonna get it now, Mike! You're judging! Judging, judging, judging!"

My best Gomer Pyle impression aside, it is responsible to encourage people to re-evaluate their behavior. However, it becomes irresponsible to just encourage, and not challenge people with regard to their behavior. And with regard to judging, I've not suggested (nor will I) that Christians cannot sin, that sin invalidates our salvation, or that people who sin cannot be Christians.

The so-called "Saving Bellevue" site, still published by Jim Haywood, has as its latest indictment the fact that Bellevue hosts (gasp!) a Fall Festival as a safe, non-occult alternative to traditional Halloween parties and trick-or-treating. This is something Bellevue has done for a number of years, yet only now is it worthy of the "Saving Bellevue" scorn. Haywood writes in his National Enquirer-esque headline style, "Tonight Oct 31st 2007 Bellevue hosted a carnival. Thousands came and rode rides. It was in the parking lot and on the ball fields. I am not aware of the Gospel being presented." To be blunt, it's obvious that the reason Haywood wasn't "aware of the Gospel being presented" was because he was too busy surreptitiously photographing the setup on the church grounds. Think it's possible that the Gospel might have been demonstrated in the lives of those serving the children and parents who attended? Having been a part of Fall Festivals in years past, I know as fact that many people who attend don't otherwise visit Bellevue--which is quite the point. It's an opportunity to show that Christian deeds can match Christian verbiage.

But if Christian verbiage is the sticking point, there are a few things Haywood would've known had he bothered to check. My friend on the ground (and working one of the admissions tables) Daniel McCrosky tells me that among the crowd were a number of Bellevue members whose job was to actively share the Gospel as they had opportunity, as well as the presence of an EE table setup and the presence of Christian music, plus the very mechanism for getting a wristband, which required filling out a card with information that will be used for follow-up visitation at a later date. The Gospel of Jesus Christ was actively, unashamedly shared during the festivities--and will continue to be shared in the near future with many of the over 8,000 who attended.

Jim, part of your so-called "Mission Statement" reads thusly, and like so: "Our sincere desire is to honor Jesus Christ, Truth Himself, through an improved measure of accountability within His church." Sneaking around and taking photographs of children's rides on church grounds honors no one, and particularly not Christ. This is not the first time you've posted scurrilous photography and inaccurate, baseless accusations on your website, and I fear it won't be the last. I ask you to remove that nonsense from your site, along with the vapid suggestion that local mission projects are somehow an unworthy goal of the 2007 Love Offering.

The critical mass, Jim, illustrates that you use your site to do as much damage as you think you can, rather than to attempt to "save" much of anything. In the name of Christ, I call you to repent. Delete your files, Jim, and shutter your site permanently. It serves no useful purpose except to bring notoriety to yourself.

Enough's enough.

Oh, and speaking of Bellevue's Halloween alternative, Haywood's nonsense isn't the only ugly upshot of the festivities. What is, only as a joke, referred to as the BBC "Open Forum"--the home of the anti-Bellevue faithful--has begun to indulge an element of bigotry, not to mention an element of inanity, into the mix. The disingenuous remarks expressing outrage at a Fall Festival ("How CARNAL! To have a carnival!") when Bellevue has done just that for as long as I can remember is pathetic. But what really is a scorcher is the bigotry, both subtle and overt--and not just of the racial variety: Thusly, and like so:

"The other lady Said: 'I hope they can help the neighborhood deal with all those people they are bringing in on Halloween night!' I kind of bet those 2 aren't the only ones..."

"What next.....Entertainment for Adults......Bingo, Strip Bars, or maybe even Slot machines...Gee....We could make lots of money for Missions...."

"I wonder if the meth-addicted carnies that run the rides were a part of the package?!"

"When I looked at the pictures from the BBC 'campus' and saw the carnival activity, it was very depressing...for what I saw was something that was once so beautiful and holy destroyed to something so ugly, degrading, and demonic."

"If you think the dress code at BBC is in bad shape now, just wait till the inner city crowd arrives with the baggy pants, boom boxes and the $500.00 sneakers. Oh by the way, this same crowd will really help the offering. If BBC wants to retain this crowd, they will have to serve breakfast and lunch. Also, don't forget metal detectors at all the doors. Way to go BBC."

(Oh, and on another matter where the truth suffers at the "Open Forum" for the sake of the group, their moderator writes this, containing a lie: "Colleges and Universities already have this. It's called the 'Baptist Student Union.' I know it's at the U of M, because that's where I was saved 18 years ago. Perhaps the BSU would accept a financial donation from BBC, but they are already doing this job. Next?" This is either a result of ignorance or willful misrepresentation, but the statement regarding Bellevue's U of M ministry and BSU/BCM activities is a lie. As a former president of the University of Memphis Baptist Student Union, I can tell you that Bellevue had a separate college-campus ministry there way back into the 1980s. If the Love Offering wants to extend and/or expand that ministry, people involved with the BSU/BCM work can only cheer. Implying that Bellevue is horning in on some other organization's "turf" is untruthful.)

And to the Forum's anonymous moderator, I say what I said to Haywood: Enough's enough. You help no one, and you go out of your way to hurt a great many. I call on you, in the holy name of Christ, to repent of your sins regarding your "Forum" and its activities, and to shutter it permanently.

Because I love you, I have to say this: You and yours, along with Haywood and his, have allowed disagreement to fester and mutate. As it stands, you are indulging--dare I say "harboring"?--hate.

Enough is enough.

--Mike

EDITED TO ADD: One more example of hate, written by someone I thought was a friend:

"9/11/05 was Steve's 1st day in the pulpit - coincidence or providence?

"God leaves nothing to chance - if 9/11/01 is deemed as a bad day in Amercian history, there is no way 9/11/05 will not be viewed (if it's not already) as a bad day in Bellevue history."

Comparing Pastor Gaines' first sermon to a terrorist attack has to be one of the most hateful things I've read in this entire saga, and one of the most irresponsible things I've read in my entire life.

I am crushingly disappointed, and genuinely hurt. I've asked the author of that statement to recant, and warned that author numerous times over the past year that associating with those who hate will precipitate hate in you.

For the individual who wrote that: In Jesus' name, you must repent of such hatemongering.

Today.

Now.

--Mike

EDITED TO ADD SOMETHING EVEN MORE DISGUSTING (IF POSSIBLE): This time it's Jim Haywood's turn to publish bile--from the mind of someone I used to respect, a man named Riad "Ray" Saba. Periodically, and for some unknown reason, Haywood lets Saba have a little column space on his vile "Saving Bellevue" site. There's a new article from Saba, innocuously titled "A Worthy Lesson to Learn," comparing Bellevue to Memphis' Temple of Deliverance Church, where G. E. Patterson preached until his death. The article purports to compare the status of Patterson's legacy at his church with Adrian Rogers' at Bellevue, and contains an astounding piece of hatred. Thusly, and like so:

"Many thoughts went through my mind as I considered and compared the situation of both these two wonderful churches. One thought blatantly stood out: One church honored her prophet; the other church killed her prophet! The result is certainly obvious!"

Don't pass that over: Bellevue Baptist Church "killed" Adrian Rogers.

Ray, that's a sick, demented thing to say--and Jim, that's a sick, demented thing to publish. You both must repent.

--Mike

575 comments:

«Oldest   ‹Older   201 – 400 of 575   Newer›   Newest»
WatchingHISstory said...

I am not scrolling way up anymore. It is a waste of my time.

Romans 11:33 (King James Version)
O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out!

When you interpret the Word you have to confess that you are a filthy rag and that the best you can do thru common grace that God gives is to treat your family right. You already know that you don't treat everyone equally, just read your own post. Your corruption affects your bias, Your confidence stops there.

Again your assumption is that I am saying, which I have never said, my vision is equal to the Bible.
Visions are measured by the Bible not the Bible measured by visions.

You shouled know that.

Charles

Today is my birthday and I took the day off just to be able to post to you before the grandkids come. Make my day post on!!

WatchingHISstory said...

JM

An achievement you are unashameably proud of.

Charles

John Mark said...

oc said...
First off, I am not anti Bellevue. You are mistaken, again.


That's not exactly true. It's sort of a half-truth. You're not only anti-Bellevue, you're anti every church in America that doesn't suit you. You agree with any and everything that's said, as long as it disparages established church leadership.

I read all about Willow Creek's 'confession' which your home blog seems to interpret as affirmation that they are right about everything they've said.

What Hybels said was simply that their belief that church involvement was a good indicator of long-term spiritual growth was mistaken, and that after a certain level of maturity is reached a believer something else is needed to foster growth. (I'm a little confused why he thinks the way to wean Christians from depending on church programs is another church program, but that's just me.)

He did not in any way confess that he had been serving the devil, and that his congregation was going to hell.

oc said...
Yep. A generation of church brats. Raised on easy believing, no repentence, feel good churchism.
Spoiled brats with no gratefulness.
Warren is the new Dr. Spock. Promoting another big mistake. But with even a bigger consequence. One that may have caused many souls to spend eternity in Hell.


What does Rick Warren have to do with Willow Creek? How many Willow Creek members have you met? They are NOT spoiled brats, and I think you should retract that statement.

Have you ever listened to one of Hybels sermons? I didn't think so. He and Warren are very different men. Personally, I think Warren is more grounded in the scripture than Hybels, but I also think that both of them will be much closer to the throne when it's all said and done than me.

You might want to talk to Mark Sharpe about that belief that men can send souls to hell. It sounds like you're becoming one of Steve Gaines' disciples. Germantown Baptist is right around the corner from Covenant, so you could probably catch him this Sunday.

David Squyres said...

Charles,

Your exegesis of Luke 16:23 is SERIOUSLY flawed.

Charles: "in Luke 16:23 which describes a man who along with all other people who have died is in hades, the place of the departed dead who await judgement."

That's wrong. Lazarus in the story is not in "hades." There is a gulph between him and the rich man.

Charles: "He is not in hell yet nor can we just assume that he is going to hell."

He wants someone to go preach to his brothers. He is in torment. Doesn't look like heaven to me. Fire. Thirst.

The angels carreid one man away to one place, and another man off to another place. Are you suggesting he can, now that he has died, get out of hades?

Charles: "But he is experiencing a justice commensurate with the life he lived on earth."

This is an enormous leap to get where you want with Dr. Rogers. It is shameful what you are doing to this passage.

The rich man who did not know Christ is being punished for his life.

Charles: "He calls Abraham father and likewise Abraham calls him son."

I'm not allowed to use language strong enough to express how much that repluses me. You are saying a man Jesus said went to Hades is a child of God? What twisted theology have you come up with to make this work?

David Squyres said...

He calls Abraham "father" because of his Jewish heritage. Not because he was a ginuine believer. His works did not bear the fruit of true salvation.

You are trying to say that Dr. Rogers is in Hades experiencing punishment for this life? Based on your vision? This is your scriptural support?! You were better with no Scriptural support than this stuff your twisting.

WatchingHISstory said...

Q. Did God, then, create man so wicked and perverse?

A. No, on the contrary, God created man good[1] and in His image,[2] that is, in true righteousness and holiness,[3] so that he might rightly know God His Creator,[4] heartily love Him, and live with Him in eternal blessedness to praise and glorify Him.[5]
[1] Gen. 1:31. [2] Gen. 1:26, 27. [3] Eph. 4:24. [4] Col. 3:10. [5] Ps. 8.

Q. From where, then, did man's depraved nature come?

A. From the fall and disobedience of our first parents, Adam and Eve, in Paradise,[1] for there our nature became so corrupt[2] that we are all conceived and born in sin.[3]
[1] Gen. 3. [2] Rom. 5:12, 18, 19. [3] Ps. 51:5.

Q. But are we so corrupt that we are totally unable to do any good and inclined to all evil?

A. Yes,[1] unless we are regenerated by the Spirit of God.[2]
[1] Gen. 6:5; 8:21; Job 14:4; Is. 53:6. [2] John 3:3-5.

Q. Is God, then, not unjust by requiring in His law what man cannot do?

A. No, for God so created man that he was able to do it.[1] But man, at the instigation of the devil,[2] in deliberate disobedience[3] robbed himself and all his descendants of these gifts.[4]
[1] Gen. 1:31. [2] Gen. 3:13; John 8:44; I Tim. 2:13, 14. [3] Gen. 3:6. [4] Rom. 5:12, 18, 19.

Q. Will God allow such disobedience and apostasy to go unpunished?

A. Certainly not. He is terribly displeased with our original sin as well as our actual sins. Therefore He will punish them by a just judgment both now and eternally,[1] as He has declared:[2] Cursed be every one who does not abide by all things written in the book of the law, and do them (Galatians 3:10).
[1] Ex. 34:7; Ps. 5:4-6; 7:10; Nah. 1:2; Rom. 1:18; 5:12; Eph. 5:6; Heb. 9:27. [2] Deut. 27:26

Mike, did AR ever diligently study Reformed Theology? Did he ever read the Heidleberg confession? If he did why didn't he understand it?

In Predestined for Hell! Absolutely Not! (P.16) He mistakenly says about Reformed views that God takes a little baby and says, "I'm going to harden your heart and then I am going to cast you into hell."

Now Mike listen to me, "do you think that is true?" Does anyone out there think that?

David Squyres said...

Charles,

As ususal you run to Calvinism after saying offensive things. Please explain your post about Hades. Are you saying that Dr. Rogers is in Hades?

David Squyres said...

Charles: "Luke 16:23 which describes a man who along with all other people who have died is in hades"

Check it out for yourself:
"The time came when the beggar died and the angels carried him to Abraham's side. The rich man also died and was buried. 23In hell,[c] where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side."

Abraham and Lazarus are "far away."
Lazarus is with Abraham.
The rich man is not with Abraham.
They are separated by a gulph! A pit. How in the world can yous say all the dead go to the same place?

In Revelation saints are pictured as being under the altar. Not languishing in a fire! They are not in Hades, they are in the presence of Christ (or so Paul says that not to be in the Body is to be with Christ).

Jon L. Estes said...

Charels said:

My vision is not my view but God's view.

What is there to make us believe this is true? Anybody could make such a statement and what makes it true, Charles?

WatchingHISstory said...

David said: "His works did not bear the fruit of true salvation"

This seem not to have a bearing on his place in hades. Hi lifestyle was the reason and there was a reversal of commensurate rewards given to him and Lazareth. This is not his ultimate destination.

Didn't Jesus say to the theif, "to day thou shalt be with me in Paradise (hades)."?

Now there are speculative views that Paradise has been moved since Christ death, but is more Schofieldian theory.

WatchingHISstory said...

jon

For me I know the voice of the shepherd and the shepherd knows my voice. However for you and David you will have to just wait and see.

Charles

PS Of coarse you could diligently seek the shepherd to hear from him yourself rather than rely totally on exegesis. I make that statement objectively and not subjectively. That is I do not imply what He will say to you.

Charles

Jon L. Estes said...

Charles, I know the shepherd and He does speak to me. Your inference that David and I do not know Jesus because we do not hear what you hear is wrong.

Let me ask you a simple question...

In your personal opinion what does it take for a person to go to heaven?

WatchingHISstory said...

jon
You read with your emotions and so you make inferences abvout what I say that are not true. Will this ever end?

When did I ever say this: "David and I do not know Jesus because we do not hear what you hear is wrong."

NMPO it is written Rom 5:1,2; Col 1:20 This needs no futher interpretation. The Word stands alone!

Charles

WatchingHISstory said...

jon

My 2:20 post was concerning the vision nothing more nothing less

Charles

WatchingHISstory said...

John Mark and gang

Thanks for the e-card great!!

Charles

WatchingHISstory said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
David Squyres said...

Charles,

Once again you get sloppy with Scripture, so you run back to either an argument about ole Calvin or your statement that the sheep know the Shepherds voice.

Why not admit you seriously mishandeled that Scripture?

I appreciate you questioning my salvation. "For me I know the voice of the shepherd and the shepherd knows my voice. However for you and David you will have to just wait and see."

That's what it always comes down to, huh Charles. First a guy with visions. THen anyone who doesn't agree with his visions, they're not saved. A lot of cults rely on this kind of tactic.

David Squyres said...

Charles, "The Word stands alone!"
Right next to the vision, right?

WatchingHISstory said...

Why David don't you believe that the Word stands alone?

Charles

WatchingHISstory said...

David said:
"1. You have discipline taking place off the earth. Or judgment taking place before the judgment."

The figure of speech: 'lifted up his eyes' is a common OT expression and particurlily interesting in Luke 16:23 which describes a man who along with all other people who have died is in hades, the place of the departed dead who await judgement.

He is not in hell yet nor can we just assume that he is going to hell. But he is experiencing a justice commensurate with the life he lived on earth. He calls Abraham father and likewise Abraham calls him son.


This makes it plain that at the moment of death we immediately lift up our eyes in eternity. We see clearly where we once saw thru a glass darkly.

Time is no more as we enter eternity. It continues for us who remain on the earth.

John Mark said...

Hi guys.

Just thought I'd stop by and see what OC had to say in his own defense.

What's that, OC? You say you've got nothing to say about calling 30 thousand Christians in Chicago "church brats" who are going to hell?

And no justification of your assesment that there is no repentance in the American church?

And nothing to say about your remarkably unobservant statement that none of us reveal our names, when a simple mouse click reveals more than just names? (Well, that is a bit embarrassing. I'd try to pretend I'd never said it, too.)

And no explanation of how you prefer the NBBCOF over Mike's blog simply because they're so much more tolerant of your carnal outbursts against the pastor of a church you've apparently never been to than we are? (They actually encourage such behavior, in fact.)

I'm actually quite eager to hear about the Warren/Hybels connection. Since OC is the first person to uncover the hidden influence of Warren at Willow Creek, he really should tell everyone what he knows.

Unless that's just some kind of fabricated nonsense thrown out to garner the approval of men (or women, in this case).

The silence is deafening!

WatchingHISstory said...

Mike, did AR ever diligently study Reformed Theology? Did he ever read the Heidleberg confession? If he did why didn't he understand it?

In Predestined for Hell! Absolutely Not! (P.16) He mistakenly says about Reformed views that God takes a little baby and says, "I'm going to harden your heart and then I am going to cast you into hell."

Now Mike listen to me, "do you think that is true?" Does anyone out there think that?

John Mark said...

jessica,

I hope you're happy. You've got me hooked on your TV show.

Sorry to see your little gal got skint. If you had a boy instead of a girl you'd be looking forward to stitches instead of skinned knees and elbows (and noses).

Be glad! (for now)

Jford said...

IF I may jump in on this not using your name thing for a minute...I do not use my real name for personal reasons, but there are people on here that do know me. If one is going to make attacks and threats to people, then yes I think you should use a real name or take it up with that person. I ave never not told someone my name that has asked, well not true, there is one person that asked from the other blog, but trust issues kept me from sharing.


Besides, Isee it everywhere that "Bellevue Loves Memphis"

WatchingHISstory said...

Mike, Didn't AR know Reformed Christians believe that because of the fall and disobedience of our first parents, Adam and Eve, in Paradise, our nature became so corrupt that we are all conceived and born in sin.
Gen. 3; Rom. 5:12, 18, 19; Ps. 51:5

Sinners are cast into hell because they are sinners, born and conceived in sin.

Jessica said...

JM,

that show is soooo good. I am going a little crazy over this writers strike thing. They got me hooked and now they are going to take it away!!!!!!!!!

David Squyres said...

Charles,

You have argued often that there is no “time” in heaven. This strikes me as something from Star Trek more than the Bible. It is a modern idea that God has nothing to do with “time” and those in heaven do not exist in “time.”

You stated: “Time is no more as we enter eternity. It continues for us who remain on the earth.”

Actually, that is a mistake that comes from misunderstanding the KJV translation of Revelation 10:6. It says time will be no longer, when a correct translation is that there will be no more “delay.”

We do see time taking place in heaven more than once.

First we see time when the fifth seal is opened. The saints under the altar call out “How long...” (A time reference) and they are told to “wait a little longer” (another time reference). Revelation 6:9-11

Then we have Revelation 8:1. It states plainly that when the seventh seal is opened there is silence “in heaven” for about half an hour.

There is more, but this should be enough to show you that there is indeed “time” in heaven. Not only is the Bible not silent on the issue, it specifically illustrates time in heaven.

David Squyres said...

Charles,

Let's deal with the situation you raise with Luke 16, since you're about to pull a nasty on Dr. Rogers using this passage.

Charles: “in Luke 16:23 which describes a man who along with ALL other people who have died is in HADES.”

Actually, Lazarus is taken to “Abraham’s Bosom” and the rich man is taken to “Hades.” He is in torment, while Lazarus is “comforted.”

Charles: “He is not in hell yet nor can we just assume that he is going to hell.”

Did you even read the text your building your theology on?
“And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been fixed, so that those who want to go from here to you cannot, nor can anyone cross over from there to us.” Luke 16:26

No crossing over. Once he’s there... he can’t be moved! It has been “fixed” and then the Bible gets explicit to stop people from suggesting the VERY THING you are suggesting: “so that those who want to go from here to you cannot, nor can anyone cross over from there to us.”

Charles: “But he is experiencing a justice commensurate with the life he lived on earth.”

Correct, Charles.


Charles: “He calls Abraham father and likewise Abraham calls him son.”

Because he’s JEWISH! This isn’t speaking of our sonship in Christ, it’s talking about the Jewish family.


Here’s where you’re taking your theology. I’ll just call your hand on it now. You want to put Dr. Rogers in the place of this rich man and say that Dr. Rogers is being judged in the afterworld. That dog won’t hunt, Charles.

I've asked you one too many times about the order of judgment on the saints. How can the saints recieve judgment in heaven? So you've come up with this passage, suggesting the rich man is actually saved! And of course, if he's saved and being punished, you can with slide of hand slip Dr. Rogers on in to his place.

WatchingHISstory said...

David said:
"The rich man who did not know Christ is being punished for his life"

And where do you know this from scripture?

If you say that; then Lazarus must have accepted Christ and where do you know that?

Luke 16:25 gives the plain explanation. Reversal justice commensurate with the lives they lived on earth. Luxury vs poverty simple explanation.

Lazarus was comforted and all the humble on earth should not despair and the rich man's torment should cause the proud to not presume.

In anthropomorphic language they await the final judgement and resurrection where they will be judged according to the reconciling work of Christ. Col 1:20-23

oc said...

John Mark:

Junkster said:
Can someone give me some examples of this racism on the "other" blog that I've been reading about here? Mike quoted several things in his original article as examples of "bigotry, both subtle and overt--and not just of the racial variety". Where were the racial remarks?

12:35 PM, November 10, 2007




Uh. The silence is still.... deafening. :)

David Squyres said...

Charles,

You have moved from calvinism to reimagining the afterlife.

This is pretty simple:

--With Christ you are saved.
--Without Christ you are lost.

The story is not about "rich" and "poor" it's about REPENTANCE.
"if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent." Luke 16:30

The story is about being CONVINCED to REPENT. "If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be CONVINCED even if someone rises from the dead.'" Luke 16:31


You seem confused on simple issues of heaven and hell, Charles.

WatchingHISstory said...

Lindon said...
"If all of Memphis loves Steve and BBC then there MUST be something wrong with you all."

"Get it? This is about rehabilitating Gaines' reputation from a pro pedophile minister supporter to a great guy who really does love and want to help people. I say, clever indeed. Especailly when you can do it with OPM." (other peoples' money)
3:14 PM, November 10, 2007

I'm confused, is she talking about Steve Gaines or Adrian Rogers? The pro-pedophile was there for 17 years. Did she forget this?

Charles

PS Mike I know you don't like personal attacks, but I'm just sarcastically responding to Lindon's unkind comment to Steve Gaines. What is good for the goose is good for the gander.

WatchingHISstory said...

In anthropomorphic language they await the final judgement and resurrection where they will be judged according to the reconciling work of Christ. Col 1:20-23

Is this confusing to you, David?

John Mark said...

If amazed's remark that by reaching out to the inner city Bellevue would be getting 'more than they bargained for' and the 'boom box' statement are too subtle, nothing I can say would make the point any clearer.

And his statement about poor people not being worth reaching out to because they can't fill the offering plate doesn't just apply to the inner city.

Just keep your eyes wide shut, and be happy.

Junkster said...

Ok, so I am guessing this remark is the supposedly racist one:

If you think the dress code at BBC is in bad shape now, just wait till the inner city crowd arrives with the baggy pants, boom boxes and the $500.00 sneakers. Oh by the way, this same crowd will really help the offering. If BBC wants to retain this crowd, they will have to serve breakfast and lunch. Also, don't forget metal detectors at all the doors. Way to go BBC.

Maybe there were more remarks that were considered racist, but so far I haven't found them. Even if one accepts the claim that this was a racist remark, I'd hardly call one remark evidence of rampant racism. "A vast right-wing consipiracy", perhaps?

I asked about this because I thought maybe I missed something, if this one remark is the extent of it. I'm not defending the remark, but the last time I checked, the "inner city" was not composed of one particular race, nor does one race have a monopoly on the sort of dress and social habits common to the inner city.

Yeah, I know there is a majority of a particular race there. But what was described in the supposed "racist" remark is by no means exclusive to one race. When someone assumes that people of a certain location or lifestyle or socio-economic group must be of a particular race, I think there is a word for that -- oh, yeah, it's called racism.

That's right, I just said it is racist to assume that that the words "inner city", "baggy pants", "boom boxes" and "$500.00 sneakers" automatically must be referring to a particluar race. If you disagree, how about you ask Mayor Herenton what he thinks about Mike's condolences to his Memphis friends upon Herenton's re-election by a majority of Memphis voters? Was Mike being a racist? (For the record, I don't believe he was -- the point is that it is easy for anyone to claim a remark is racist based on their own biases.)

David Squyres said...

No Charles, it's not confusing. I believe the judgment happens at the END of time. As you rightly placed it in your most recent statement. But you, both in vision and intrepretation of Luke 16, have judgment on believers taking place BEFORE judgment day.

What you're trying to prove is unbelievable. You are using Luke 16 to claim Dr. Rogers is being punished, like the rich man! Another poor showing of theology, Charles.

David Squyres said...

Charles,

You need to check your dictionary for what anthropomorphic language really is. You keep misusing the word.

Mike Bratton said...

Junkster said...

...

Maybe there were more remarks that were considered racist, but so far I haven't found them.


Then you're not looking very hard, or else refusing to look at all.

And the collective Forumite yawn at such a warped mindset is nothing short of stunning.

Even if one accepts the claim that this was a racist remark, I'd hardly call one remark evidence of rampant racism. "A vast right-wing consipiracy", perhaps?

No, the accumulating evidence illustrates the desire to either ignore or, as you have done, soft-pedal bigotry in general and racism in particular.

--Mike

WatchingHISstory said...

David said: "Another poor showing of theology, Charles."

How did you come to this conclusion? Are you a judge to determine a poor showing? What are your credentials? Weren't you a liberal seminary dropout? How did you become such an expert?

Charles

oc said...

I live in a city. But my sneakers only cost 20 bucks. Prefer boots though. I have a boom box. I like it loud Got a motorcycle. Wear leather and a 'do rag'. I also live in a "community". Nope. Don't own a house. I do have a job though. Does that count? What color am I?


By the way Mike, once again you are doing what you do best. Selective memory.


You said:

And the collective Forumite yawn at such a warped mindset is nothing short of stunning.

Interesting. What is stunning is all the poop you let run on this blog. Including the watching "f word" fest and pornographic pedophile postings, and the allowing of the ravaging of a dead man's reputation which still continues under your watch.
Lots of people see that buddy.

So should the world decide that your little blog is a pornography fest? It sure was for a while, wasn't it? We forget so easily. You are good at judging, and forgetting your own faults. THAT, my friend, is really what is STUNNING. What kind of "YAWN" did you display then?

Junkster said...

Mike Bratton said...
Then you're not looking very hard, or else refusing to look at all.

By all means, illuminate me. I looked, honest. So far there's the one remark, which I demonstrated (I see you ignored my points) was not inherently racist, but rather it is racist to assume it was. You can tell me to go look again; I have, more than once. You can say I must not be looking hard enough; perhaps not -- or perhaps no one can point out this hotbed of racism because it is a fiction.

Bigotry? Perhaps ... but no more than I saw at BBC when I was a member there, or most other churches I have attended.

oc said...

Junkster says:
Maybe there were more remarks that were considered racist, but so far I haven't found them.

Mike says:
Then you're not looking very hard, or else refusing to look at all.


oc replies:

Mike, why are YOU looking so hard?
I don't think I need to say anything else. You condemn yourself.

Jon L. Estes said...

This is racist...

amazed said...

Hey folks...If you think the dress code at BBC is in bad shape now, just wait till the inner city crowd arrives with the baggy pants, boom boxes and the $500.00 sneakers. Oh by the way, this same crowd will really help the offering. If BBC wants to retain this crowd, they will have to serve breakfast and lunch. Also, don't forget metal detectors at all the doors. Way to go BBC.

7:52 AM, October 31, 2007


To not see this is willing blindness.

WatchingHISstory said...

oc

that pedophile was Paul williams, an ordained associate at Bellevue Baptist Church, the flagship of the SBC and under the WATCH of Adrian Rogers for seventeen years.

It's hard to clean up a story that contain sodomizing one's own son.
Which does not affect your sensibilities at all. It's just fodder for your anger against Mike.

Now there is a real insult to the victims. You are pathetic!

David Squyres said...

You know, I just sat down this Sunday afternoon and thought: Maybe Charles could throw some more names. WOuldn't that make it a great day. Maybe we could have some more labeling. When you run out of ammo, Charles, you return to good ole name calling, don't you. Have you relied on this tactic your whole life? Is this what you did on the shool yard? Someone said: Sorry, Charles, 2+2 is not 5... did you say: You liberal! Who made you the boss! HOw do you know truth!?

Since you think I'm being unfair, would you like to cite ONE credible scholarly source (commentary) that would agree with your view of that Scripture? I'm curious, anyway. Are you making this up, or getting it from somewhere. Just one source that agrees with this view of LUke 16.

By the way, we Baptized 3 today. 2 of them homeless. guess they don't rise to the anti-groups view of a good conversion since they won't be able to put a lot in the plate. Oh, and they don't wear suits and ties.

WatchingHISstory said...

David

You and oc have the same problems you react from your emotions and not your head.

You misread my label. You are a 'weak conservative' who could not withstand a liberal seminary.

Charles

oc said...

jon estes said:

This is racist...

amazed said...

Hey folks...If you think the dress code at BBC is in bad shape now, just wait till the inner city crowd arrives with the baggy pants, boom boxes and the $500.00 sneakers. Oh by the way, this same crowd will really help the offering. If BBC wants to retain this crowd, they will have to serve breakfast and lunch. Also, don't forget metal detectors at all the doors. Way to go BBC.

7:52 AM, October 31, 2007

To not see this is willing blindness.

3:19 PM, November 11, 2007


oc says:

Jon Estes:
Get a grip brother. May I ask how and where you were raised? It seems you may have had a soft childhood, which matches other soft aspects I have noticed about you.

I have a boom box. I told you already that my sneakers are cheap.
I wear leather,and prefer boots, and ride a motorcycle. I don't give much to the offering plate. Cause i don't earn much. But I give of myself instead. I bet you think I am white. Do you?

Could it be that you are racist, but think you are so "holy" you don't even know it?
Come live in my neighborhood, white boy. You will get an education. And a tail kickin'.

Just sayin'.
oc.

oc said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
David Squyres said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
David Squyres said...

Charles, "You misread my label. You are a 'weak conservative' who could not withstand a liberal seminary."

I appreciate YOU telling ME why I left seminary. Actually, two thing:

1. I did not not want to sit around and learn why they didn't believe the Bible. Not worth my time or money.

2. I left the area and accepted a church in 29 Palms; not exactly next door to a seminary, Charles.

But please, call me weak. When I am weak, then I am strong. (:

David Squyres said...

OC: "Come live in my neighborhood, white boy. You will get an education. And a tail kickin'"


"Brothers, do not slander one another." James 4:11

"If you really keep the royal law found in Scripture, "Love your neighbor as yourself," you are doing right. But if you show favoritism, you sin and are convicted by the law as lawbreakers. James 2:8-9

Mike Bratton said...

oc said...

Jon Estes:
Get a grip brother. May I ask how and where you were raised? It seems you may have had a soft childhood, which matches other soft aspects I have noticed about you.


More Internet smack-talk from a Forum standout.

My, my, my.

Who, exactly, is supposed to be impressed, swayed, persuaded, or intimidated by such empty words?

You reinforce my original post, OC, and I encourage you to repent of your hate-mongering and seek sound Biblical counseling as soon as possible.

I have a boom box. I told you already that my sneakers are cheap.
I wear leather,and prefer boots, and ride a motorcycle. I don't give much to the offering plate. Cause i don't earn much. But I give of myself instead. I bet you think I am white. Do you?


Until you brought it up, the subject hadn't come up. But, for the record, other ethnicities than Caucasian are home to folks with hate-fueled worldviews. Including racism. It really doesn't matter if your skin color is purple-and-green polka-dots, OC, hate is hate. And you pump out an unhealthy amount of it.

Could it be that you are racist, but think you are so "holy" you don't even know it?
Come live in my neighborhood, white boy. You will get an education. And a tail kickin'.

Just sayin'.
oc.


What a laugh. Is Jon supposed to be frightened of you now? Quaking in his boots at the mere thought of you and your "neighborhood"?

You intimidate no one, but you do indict yourself. I can understand why your posts fit in so well with the Forumite hate-fest.

And also for the record, I didn't have to "look hard" to find the hate you and yours at the Forum produce. Why, it's even found its way to this thread via your posts, OC. How is it that you think it's a good idea to say what you say, and to believe what you believe?

--Mike

Jon L. Estes said...

OC,

I have not thought about what color or gender you are. It has not crossed my mind and it matters little. Whether the words I copied were about for from a little green man from mars or a Hollywood hills beauty queen or anyone in between it does not matter, they were racist.

When you have walked the dangerous streets I have walked and loved the forgotten people I have loved of all colors (speaking as a former missionary to Nigeria) your words are empty.

Are you the one thinking about giving me a tail kicking or is it you and your buddies? I've been threatened before and probably will be again so I am not worried about your attempts to be tough. I've had bigger men make broader threats so don't get to full of yourself.

But for your peace of mind, I have never started a fight, not in my whole life. I have no reason to toss empty threats at anyone. Of course it is easy to do this under the cloak of anonymity.

Even little girls can act tough in such situations.

Just saying...

Mike Bratton said...

oc said...

...

By the way Mike, once again you are doing what you do best. Selective memory.

You said:

And the collective Forumite yawn at such a warped mindset is nothing short of stunning.

Interesting. What is stunning is all the poop you let run on this blog. Including the watching "f word" fest and pornographic pedophile postings, and the allowing of the ravaging of a dead man's reputation which still continues under your watch.
Lots of people see that buddy.

So should the world decide that your little blog is a pornography fest? It sure was for a while, wasn't it? We forget so easily. You are good at judging, and forgetting your own faults. THAT, my friend, is really what is STUNNING. What kind of "YAWN" did you display then?


Oh, look. An old-fashioned lie. Several of them, as a matter of fact. Glad I scrolled up, because it's not a good idea, in my view, to let lies like yours go unchallenged.

The untoward language was deleted as soon as I became aware of it, and I believe Charles understands that he's on awfully thin ice in that area. As for his remarks concerning Pastor Rogers, those that I feel are unnecessarily harsh are deleted--again, as soon as I become aware of them. If I thought Adrian Rogers' reputation was actually being damaged to any real extent, do you honestly think I'd allow any of it? (Remember, I asked for what you "honestly" think.)

By contrast, your Forumite host has had lots of opportunities to remove the racism, bigotry and all-around hate I've quoted in my original article. We haven't seen any movement in that area, have we? Hey, even Haywood has modified his Fall Festival slur, trying to be even more subtle in the falsehood he publishes. But I guess it's easier, in your case, to lie about someone who has standards than to tell the truth about someone who has an agenda.

It's sad to see you reinforcing the worst aspects of your Forum friends. Please stop.

--Mike

oc said...

OC: "Come live in my neighborhood, white boy. You will get an education. And a tail kickin'"


And david said:
brothers, do not slander one another." James 4:11


oc says:

What?

Slandering? What does that have to do with you getting your butt kicked in my neighborhood?
It's just this kind of non responsive horse poop that real people around here won't respond to. Come and start their car, help them bring their groceries in. Break up domestic violence, with your face as a target also. Stand there in the night, making sure they get into their cheap apartment safely. Then give them the Gospel.

I have always wondered how it is on your side of the world. Must be nice. And very soft.

Just sayin'.
oc.

Jessica said...

Good thing CW lived in a "safe" neighborhood.

Nothing bad ever happens out here in the "white" suburbs.

To be honest, you are essentially arguing that because you live in a rougher neighborhood that somehow makes you more knowledgeable and excuses away your ridiculous stereotypes.

Do you seriously believe their aren't children standing in between their parents so they won't get beat out in Germantown? And wives taking the abuse to spare their children in Collierville?


And is sharing the gospel with the people you describe any more godly than if I share with my white affluent neighbor? The Bible tells us not to show preference, and that goes both ways.

David Squyres said...

OC,

"I have always wondered how it is on your side of the world. Must be nice. And very soft."

http://www.29palms.usmc.mil/

Tough isn't beating each others faces in. Tough is a Maine preparing or war and seeking to be right beore God. Tough is a wife who had endured 2,3,4 deployments and is left to care for her children. Tough are seniors who plant their life next to a Marine base so they can be grandma's and gandpa's to military who are far from family.

David Squyres said...

Jon,

Thank you or serving in Nigeria!

oc said...

Mike said:
The untoward language was deleted as soon as I became aware of it,


Right. Agreed. And it was me who made you aware of it. Guess I was your friend that day. Maybe I am again today. :)

oc said...

David,
You have no need to speak to me of military procedures or preparation, or pain. Been there, done that, have deep scars. You have no idea. Keep your self righteousness to yourself, I'm not impressed.
I bleed for those who sacrifice. Anyway, thanks.

David Squyres said...

"I have always wondered how it is on your side of the world. Must be nice. And very soft."

Then when someone tells you what it's like in this part the world you declare them self righteous.

YOU are the one who asked. You "always wondered" how it was on my side of the world.

BTW: I wasn't out to impress you! Who cares if a nameless keyboarder somewhere is impressed.

OC, are you a follower of Jesus?

David Squyres said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
oc said...

Jessica says:

Do you seriously believe their aren't children standing in between their parents so they won't get beat out in Germantown? And wives taking the abuse to spare their children in Collierville?


oc says:
Oh Jessica. You just don't know what I've seen, what I have lived through. Those things you express?
Made me who I am today. I was the little guy watching momma get punched, nose broken, thrown down the stairs, tail bone broken and gettin her head rubbed into the carpet until her face bled. I was the little guy who watched helplessly while 'daddy' threw the spaghetti around the room because we had spaghetti every Friday, and punched momma into unconsciousness. I was the little fella that decided he needed to get big, lifted weights in order to stop things. I was the little fella who got kinda big, and beat his dad at his own game. And that presented another whole different set of problems. That's as much as I can say right now. It hurts a little. Anything I have gone through, I praise the Lord for it. Because it was a Romans 8:28 experience for me. I am partly the result of my experience. But I am also the result of the grace of my Lord. It's all been for the good of me.
Maybe you should accept me that way.
Whether you like me or not.
Love you anyway.
oc.

oc said...

BTW: I wasn't out to impress you! Who cares if a nameless keyboarder somewhere is impressed.

OC, are you a follower of Jesus?



Wow David. Maybe you should look at you just said. Sure glad you are so Holy. Pray for us regular people, please.

Jessica said...

I am not trying to say that I don't love anyone. That is a huge stretch. I think you totally missed the point of what I was saying.

oc said...

Jessica,
No. Not sayin' that you don't love anyone. Or that you don't love me. I'm just sayin' that I have been some places that some people don't know about or have any idea about. or don't know that I've traveled that road. And I know, I've been told, that my speech isn't 'lovely'. In fact, it is as abrasive as sand paper. I am still working on that.

But I didn't mean to say that you don't love. I believe you do.
oc.

David Squyres said...

OC,

It's a simple question: Are you a follower of Jesus.

And it's not arrogant to say that my life is not based on your opinion of me. We are called to live for an audience of one.

I was sitting here working on home group lesson when I realized how comical it is for someone using a screen name to accuse others of having it "comfortable." You're the sniper. Snipers don't get in and actually express any conviction, they just take cheap shots. Which you do a lot, OC.

oc said...

David said;

It's a simple question: Are you a follower of Jesus.


oc says:
I love you. Does that answer the question?

David Squyres said...

Hosea 6:4

My question is simple: Are you a follower of Jesus?

Mike Bratton said...

My original article is updated. I'd like your thoughts on the update.

--Mike

WatchingHISstory said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
WatchingHISstory said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
WatchingHISstory said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
oc said...

David,
I thought my answer would be good enough for you. Hear me again. I love you.

You are an irritating punk. I could not love you without me and you being a follower of Jesus. Love you anyway bro. Get it?

John Mark said...

Are Ray and Haywood members of GBC? Is their new pastor courageous enough to address these two loud mouthed cry babies, or will he be intimidated by the threat that Haywood will start taping him and putting him on the web? He needs to show himself to be a strong leader and quit allowing these kinds of troublemakers a safe haven. They'll turn on him sooner or later, regardless.

This is an interesting part of Ray's deep ponderings:

While I am not privy to the operations of T of D, I, after 30 years in Bellevue, am aware of the workings and developments that took place there after the home going of her beloved and unforgettable pastor, Adrian Rogers.

Translation: I don't know jack about T of D, but I'm still able to accurately compare them to Bellevue.

WatchingHISstory said...

Some help for Ray's research

Police Called to Church After Dispute Over Bishop G. E. Patterson's Property
from The Belle Report
Memphis, TN.-- Police were recently called to the Temple of Deliverance after a dispute over the property of the late presiding Church of God in Christ Bishop G.E. Patterson. Patterson's things were packed into boxes and the locks were changed on the door to his office.

Bishop Jerry Maynard, the regional leader of COGIC, is behind the changes. He said he needs to use the space as a study. Patterson's widow Louise objected to the move and the authorities were called.

Sister Louise Patterson was surrounded by family and friends for support. She went to the office of her late husband of nearly 40 years and found that the locks had been changed.

Maynard changed the locks and packed Bishop Patterson's belongings into boxes, according to his Nashville P.R. representative. She said everything was done respectfully.

Louise Patterson said she thinks the matter can be resolved within the church.

WatchingHISstory said...

"One church honored her prophet; the other church killed her prophet! The result is certainly obvious!"

This is an opinion spread so thin as to be meaningless. It assumes you already know the inside info and understand the message. But no one really does.

Ray and Jim are outsiders left in the dark as to what is really going on. That may be what they are really upset about!

Charles

WatchingHISstory said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
WatchingHISstory said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
WatchingHISstory said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
David Squyres said...

David,
You are an irritating punk. I could not love you without me and you being a follower of Jesus. Love you anyway bro. Get it?

.....

OC,

Are you a follower of Jesus? Why is it hard to give a straight up answer?

God to OC:
"Is your name in the book?"
Well God, I loved David... that should be good enough for you.

HEY, I have an idea: Let's make the new rule: You don't have to follow Christ, you just have to love David! Ahhh, this is going to be sweet. Go ahead, OC, you're kind of love just makes my day.

David Squyres said...

It is interesting that the Savingbellevue and crew object strongly when Bellevue puts up Billboards proclaiming "Bellevue loves memphis." And television ads to the same effect. However, when another church puts their old preacher on billboards, Bellevue is told to get in the pupils seat and learn from them.

As if the way to honor a former pastor is with pictures along the side of the road. I thought the best way to honor the former minister is by preaching the Gospel.

Jon L. Estes said...

Mike,

Your update it deeply saddening. There is something deeply wrong with the person so engrossed with bitterness they must spew venom for a living.

I wonder if the person knows Jesus. I hope he does.

WatchingHISstory said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
WatchingHISstory said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
solomon said...

I don't know why I went and got my blood pressure up, but this gopher person really takes the cake.

gopher said...
At the PM service Brian Miller, (chairman of the Deacons, President of ECS, etc) , who Steve says " ... has upheld him through this last year......crying together, laughing together, praying together..." then prayed before communion with these words
".... Lord you break things to make them new..."

hmmm,,,, still talking about breaking Bellevue Baptist Church are we???

Wasn't the Bible referring to Jesus's body "... which is broken for you..."
1 Corinthians 11:24

10:20 PM, November 11, 2007


Let me get this straight (gopher's opinion, not the logic). Brian Miller prayed 1 Cor 11:24 before the Lord's Supper and it was infuriating for him to do so because the verse referred to the last supper??? What kind of sense does that make?

If praying 1 Cor 11 before the Lord's Supper is offensive to someone in the pew, I think they are probably in the wrong church.

Jessica said...

Solomon,

At least very least, the way it sounds to me is he was referring to SG being "broken before he was made new". I don't see how you can think they are alluding to BBC?

Oh well, I give up trying to understand it. When you are looking for trouble you can find it. People have even managed to warp the Bible so I guess it stands to reason that they would warp the words of others and add meaning that isn't there.

also, did you ever see the wolves? They were still there Sunday morning when we drove by.

solomon said...

Jessica,

Yes, I finally saw them! I spotted one from the car, but my 10 year old made me drive up by the big lake to see the 'gross' one.

From the photos I was expecting some kind of giant monster, but those things aren't even as scary as the geese. No wonder the goose population is still booming.

Jessica said...

Yeah, I think even my one year old can tell they are not real! They are pretty sad looking. I think they were working for a while, but maybe you have to move them around or something because the geese were back in full force it seems.

WatchingHISstory said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
David Squyres said...

Solomon,

I didn't understand that post, either. (I only read what you quoted...) Is it wrong to ask God to continually break us? Once he has broken us, it's good to stay in that state lest we get hard again and require a fresh breaking.

Yes, Christ Body was broken for us, that we might be broken before God and made whole by Jesus.

WatchingHISstory said...

I found this which seems to be on topic.

On Anonymity
I suppose, in some very rare instances, there is a reason for men to be anonymous in their writing. I suppose if a fatwah was proclaimed upon someone so that for the safety of one's family one had to remain anonymous, that would be perfectly acceptable. But in the vast majority of instances, there is only one reason for anonymity when writing upon theological subjects: refusal to be held accountable for what one says.

It is not that they do not know there is another side. They just refuse to acknowledge it or deal with that it says. This makes for "easy" theology: by remaining anonymous and refusing to do the work required of a sound theologian, you can say what you want and ignore its utter decimation in the marketplace of ideas. Who cares if the other side shreds your arguments with regularity? You just have to live on the "margin" of folks who either 1) do not know how to find out what the other side is saying, or 2) have such a strong desire to continue believing what you are teaching that they will join you in willfully ignoring the refutation of their own beliefs. And there is an amazingly large audience to be had under those two heads.

Refusing to hide behind the cloak of anonymity requires one to be held accountable for what you say and how you say it. If you engage in the use of double standards, that will be made clear through the examination of your known writings. But if you hide your identity, you can speak out of both sides of your mouth with impugnity.

There is no room for Christian cowardice in "speaking the truth in love" and even in addressing things which are difficult and divisive. The only reasons they could possibly have would be 1) they know they cannot defend their positions and hence avoid all challenges by remaining unknown; 2) they could lose financially if their one-sided, often grossly erroneous, writings were exposed, or 3) they are double-minded and double-tongued in that they act/say one thing in "real life," but write/speak otherwise on their website. In any case, none of these constitute a meaningful defense for Christian anonymity in the promulgation of falsehoods.

Mike Bratton said...

Marvelous observations, Charles. Thanks for sharing them.

--Mike

WatchingHISstory said...

David

John 21:25 (King James Version) And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.

Al Mohler said: “All of the Bible is true, but not all truth is in the Bible.”

Jesus in Luke 16 is telling an account He personally heard (not an allegory or parable)) as the preincarnate Son Of the Father. Abraham, 1900 BC, was in Paradise and he held Lazarus in his bosom.
We assume that the same way that he was in Paradise was the same way Lazarus was there.

We have the actual words from Christ himself that Abraham said to the rich man. (This is a direct glimpse into the after life)

"Thou in thy life time receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented."

An interesting aside here is that Lazarus is seemingly so comforted that he is detached from any compassion for the rich man nor is he interested in seeing any of his earthly friends advised. He has the detatchment that that the rich man had on earth. His is a "holy detachment"

The rich man has "holy attachments" now but aggravated by the detachment of Lazarus.

He gave Lazarus crumbs on earth but now Lazarus wil not even give him so much as a drop of water. He couldn't if he wanted to!

They are so separated so as not to be abnle to go to each other but close enough to see and talk to each other, Close enough to carry water, if even a drop but far away in estrangement and darkness.

This division is not rich and poor but proud and humble. Those in Christ are humble and those without Christ are proud.

Charles

John Mark said...

The only reasons they could possibly have would be 1) they know they cannot defend their positions and hence avoid all challenges by remaining unknown; 2) they could lose financially if their one-sided, often grossly erroneous, writings were exposed, or 3) they are double-minded and double-tongued in that they act/say one thing in "real life," but write/speak otherwise on their website.

OOOOOHHHHH! OOOOOHHHH!! I know the answer!!!

It's number 3, right??? Why else would someone like mole girl (or was it gopher?) keep going to Bellevue? Or why would 'been redeemed' show such bitterness toward SG but remain in a situation where the pastor thinks he's a friend?

Acting like a happy camper in public but grumbling in the tents? Number 3, definitely.

David Squyres said...

Charles,

“Jesus in Luke 16 is telling an account He personally heard (not an allegory or parable)) as the preincarnate Son Of the Father.”

You are giving commentary that I’ve never heard. Jesus does not often tell stories of his “preincarnate” works. There is certainly nothing in the text suggesting such.

Almost every time he speaks of something that happened in the OT, it's not "new" information, but something that was written already in the Scriptures. He does say he saw Satan fall like lightening. And I can think of a few other intances, but not many. The text does not indicate that he is saying this took place in preincarnation. (But it is an interesting thought).

I would challenge you again to reference your theology on this. Where are you getting these conclusions from? What scholars have wrestled with this text and come to similar conclusions?

Anyway, make your point on the story. What are you driving at? I’m not a mind reader. I can guess where you’re going with this, but why don’t you assume I’m not that bright.

David Squyres said...

Charles,

"There is no room for Christian cowardice in "speaking the truth in love"

SLAM DUNK! Amen. You are right on.

John Mark said...

From the FBC Jacksonville blog:

Monday, November 12, 2007
Farewell For Now

Well, the blog will stay down for the time being. There isn't much sense in beating the same drum beat over and over again.

We wish the fine people at FBC Jacksonville all the best.

Farewell.

For now.


Maybe the NBBCOF should have a corresponding post just to reassure it's readers:

You're stuck with us, world.

As long as we have something to gripe about (concerning BBC or not) we'll keep carping on the same tired junk over and over.

We hope all the fine people at Bellevue suffer calamity and plagues.

Farewell.

NOT!

David Hall said...

"Don't pass that over: Bellevue Baptist Church "killed" Adrian Rogers."

It is plain from reading the context of the whole article that Saba (whom I don't know) was saying that the present Bellevue has killed the legacy of Dr. Rogers--a notion that is held by those you loath over at NBBCOF.

But it is your soapbox, so you may forward any of your own hyperbole and reaching arguments you wish. Everybody knows it was illness that cut Dr. Rogers' life short. Likewise, NBBCOF is not a hotbed of bigots and haters, but folks who shared of that legacy that was destroyed by the craven actions of the new leadership--as is plainly described in Mr Saba piece. But pluck away--that is your way.

And Arniminimum, the pastry here has no victim mentality, I'm a survivor and nothing I've ever written suggests otherwise. But I appreciate you constantly goading me after I've sought to wash my hands of this charnel ground. On the other hand, aren't you the one who dropped out of church because someone (sniff) mistreated you?

Ah, irony is still not grasped here at the anti-NBBCOF.

Keep cracking me up, y'all.

Cakes

Jessica said...

I knew you couldn't resist it Cakes.

John Mark said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
John Mark said...

It is plain from reading the context of the whole article that Saba (whom I don't know) was saying that the present Bellevue has killed the legacy of Dr. Rogers--a notion that is held by those you loath over at NBBCOF.

Saba is supposedly knowledgeable about scripture, and you didn't take that into consideration as you contextualized his musings.

The reference was to the murder of God's prophets (men sent by God) by the enemies of God to kill God's message. This is a very serious statement, one that goes far beyond the passing away of a worldly legacy. Such statements aren't made lightly by Bible 'scholars' like Saba, and I'm sure he meant it as harshly as he could. Sort of like the time he said that he wouldn't cast pearls (himself) before swine (Bellevue members) when he went to lunch instead of the business meeting.

This curse that Saba has angrily hurled at Bellevue carries condemnation, too. "Therefore this generation will be held responsible for the blood of all the prophets that has been shed since the beginning of the world, from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah, who was killed between the altar and the sanctuary. Yes, I tell you, this generation will be held responsible for it all."

That's why this man's words are an offense, and that's why people are angry. Saying that every member of BBC is guilty of the blood of the prophets and have willfully rejected Christ's sacrifice (since they are still guilty) is about as ugly a thing as a Christian could say.

You shouldn't defend it unless you concur.

David Hall said...

Who are you talking to--me or amazed?

"You come over here ranting about how we're all a bunch of pedophilia supporting, ring-kissing, padre-worshiping, mindless, shallow George W. Bush groupies."

No, you're a liar (since calling people liars is big with the host, why shouldn't I call a spade a spade?). There's a big difference between what I have argued--that Gaines has destroyed his own credibility and integrity in the pedophile scandal--and saying his loyal are pedophile supporters. I've warned folks at NBBCOF that such intimations are wrong, period.

From where I sit, you're the one ranting. As to the level of discourse over here--yes, it is very lowbrow, lumping people together, finding fault with people for their post while lifting the dude that coddled the pedophile on a pedalstal. And yes, that defies reason and ridiculous.

Also, Mike cuts the windbags on his blog slack for there hateful and disreputable posts because he mentions Elvis and Celine Dion from time to time, while castigating the lot of NBBCOF. That is two-faced, and pathetic I might add. I would love for him to explicate the distinction as he promised, but I figure that is even too much for his broad lexicon. You cannot make a plausible argument with $5 words alone.

You folks operate on the principle that if you repeat something long enough, then you'll smear all of us with the reputation. That too is lowbrow, and doesn't contribute to meaningful discourse. It merely closes it, because it makes you look foolish and desperate to harm others.

In my 45 years, I've been around "christians" like the regulars here, and you may be comforted by being in the right club, but the spirit of Christ and his unconditional love are so lacking in this place.

It is too bad you all cloak your contempt for others harmed in religion. But I believe it is never too late for hearts to soften.

Jessica said...

JM,

I do still wonder if there is another "secret" Bellevue that I don't know about. Maybe that is the one they went to?

Bellevue has always been full of hypocrites and country-clubbers and people that were just plain mean and snotty. I still love it there though. It isn't perfect, but I don't really know why we have this illusion it should be.

Marriage is designed by God to be a Holy union between two people. Yet not one of us has the standards for ourselves or our spouse that they expect for their church.

It really is fascinating to me.

Jessica said...

Cakes, you are accusing us of lumping people together... as you lump us all together...


I don't have contempt for anyone.
I don't lift SG up.
I don't call people "christians" while telling them not to hide their contempt.

John Mark said...

Did you post this on the wrong blog?

You folks operate on the principle that if you repeat something long enough, then you'll smear all of us with the reputation. That too is lowbrow, and doesn't contribute to meaningful discourse. It merely closes it, because it makes you look foolish and desperate to harm others.

Wrong blog, definitely!

In my 45 years, I've been around "christians" like the regulars here, and you may be comforted by being in the right club, but the spirit of Christ and his unconditional love are so lacking in this place.

What, should I try to convert you? I thought you didn't appreciate that. Oh well. Cakes, YOU TOO can be a saved-ah!

And you need to quit projecting the behaviors of others onto the people here. I don't write what I do out of contempt for you. I'm just speaking to you in your own language.

John Mark said...

Here's a good one!

MOM4 said...
I just read this post on the U-Tube bit where Senator Grassley is calling for an investigation into the unethical/unlawful expenditures of some of the psudoministers called televangelists.

"For those who refused to believe that "Pastors" are never wrong, you are WRONG. If you read "Ezekiel" 34th chapter (Old Testament) God deals with the Shepards (sic) who MISLEAD the flock. Open your eyes people, Satan is not attacking them, they are being exposed by God. You can support this behavior, but as the WORD says, BE NOT A PARTAKER IN ANOTHER MAN'S SINS. Stealing and embezzlement is a SIN!!!!!! When will you ever learn that they are "people" first. They are not beyond chastisement."

Sound familiar?

2:23 PM, November 13, 2007


Doesn't really sound familiar... No, wait! I know!! It's about Steve Gaines!!! Of course!!!! Since I don't like him, I can say whatever I want to, and make whatever innuendos I choose! And even better, since I'm anonymous, I'm accountable to no one! (Well, except God, but he's my cosmic big buddy who'll forgive me. That's years away, anyhow.)

SIN! STEALING! EMBEZZLEMENT! Oh, how fun to say things like that without any consequences whatsoever!

I can't wait to tell my friends!

David Hall said...

"Saba is supposedly knowledgeable about scripture, and you didn't take that into consideration as you contextualized his musings"...

"This curse that Saba has angrily hurled at Bellevue carries condemnation, too"...

"Saying that every member of BBC is guilty of the blood of the prophets and have willfully rejected Christ's sacrifice (since they are still guilty) is about as ugly a thing as a Christian could say."

And maybe racist, to boot.

I gotcha. Is that the Da Vinci code? Keep'em coming.

"What, should I try to convert you? I thought you didn't appreciate that. Oh well. Cakes, YOU TOO can be a saved-ah!"

You've got nothing I need or want. But thanks for the smirk.

WatchingHISstory said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Mike Bratton said...

Hello, David.

I thought "farewell" meant something else, but apparently I was wrong. Or, perhaps you just couldn't stay away. Whatever the case, glad to see you back.

Noticed that you hit your favorite topics, which is cool.

1) You like the Forum, and anybody who operates as they do, because you presume they dovetail with the issue of most interest to you.

2) Anyone who calls them to task on anything else cannot be conscienced, and must be forcefully slammed and ridiculed.

3)You don't like Christianity, and take what you consider to be every available opportunity to insult Christ and His followers--unless those followers, in your opinion, agree with your stance on your single issue. Then you'll be their buddies, but they'd better not be so intolerant as to bring up Christ.

4) Elvis and Celine Dion had to be brought up. I noticed you didn't cite anything I'd written about Memphis politics, Washington politics, Catholicism, Islam, or popular entertainment, but it's harder to mock me for being so horribly focused on your associates if the list gets longer than Ms. Dion and Mr. Presley.

Never mind that you know for a fact that people can disagree with the mindset and actions of the Forum and their comrades, yet have great compassion for your single issue. Your association with people you won't allow to speak with you about what's supposed to be nearest and dearest to them leads you to actually try and either ameliorate or otherwise defend racist and bigoted remarks, hate language, and obvious lies.

I would think such a stance to be uncomfortable, at the very least.

And I find it more than interesting that someone antithetical to Christianity feels qualified to discuss where the spirit of Christ might or might not be found.

--Mike

WatchingHISstory said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
David Hall said...

Yo Mike,

No, couldn't stay away. I think it's Arniminimum's charm. Plus all this talk of racism.

1)No, I'm afraid that is your own judgement (small j) based on previous presumptions about my character. I hope you won't minimize my involvement as "single issue," as that too is your perception with little relationship to reality.

2)I think I give as good as I get, sir. I think No. 2 describes perfectly to my reception here; or have you noticed.

Otherwise, when an argument is really stupid or braided, then it is ripe for ridicule. I make cogent arguments, demonstrate openess to debate, and folks would rather make it personal. I got reams of unanswered queries all over your blog and lots of tinkle contests otherwise.

That's a blog, love it or hate it--yours, NBBCOF and otherwise.

3)You don't like Christianity, and take what you consider to be every available opportunity to insult Christ and His followers--unless those followers, in your opinion, agree with your stance on your single issue. Then you'll be their buddies, but they'd better not be so intolerant as to bring up Christ.

I think Christ is just fine, but most (for you Jessica) of His so-called followers scare me--especially fundementalists. But I don't discriminate in that fear of fundementalism--Christian, Muslim, Buddhist or otherwise. It is fundementalist who draws the line in the sand, intellectually and spiritually speaking. I could care less who or what you worship.

I've met plenty of christians who live by their faith, are infinitely loving and compassionate--like my wonderful mom. I have no contempt for Christ or Christians, just self-righteous-types who stick in it your face, condescend to you, while not showing many expressions of the genuine article. I make a distinction between the path and the club, so to speak.

My path promotes compassion over being right about who God is; and I have no investment in a theological argument or in destroying a church--this too resides in your perception and blog clippings.

4)I've been asking you to explain your lame excuse for not holding the Bratton Report to the standard of behavior that you do for NBBCOF since back when you could only rely on Elvis and Celine Dion to prop the notion that your's wasn't "single issue," and not a "movement" like NBBCOF. Yeah, I laugh every time I read it too.

"Never mind that you know for a fact that people can disagree with the mindset and actions of the Forum and their comrades, yet have great compassion for your single issue."

Not when you minimize it that way, dude.

"Your association with people you won't allow to speak with you about what's supposed to be nearest and dearest to them leads you to actually try and either ameliorate or otherwise defend racist and bigoted remarks, hate language, and obvious lies."

Excellent summation of your totally erroneous judgement.

"I would think such a stance to be uncomfortable, at the very least."

Do you attribute such a self-righteous judgement to being tall or being religious?

"And I find it more than interesting that someone antithetical to Christianity feels qualified to discuss where the spirit of Christ might or might not be found."

I find it interesting that someone who doesn't know jack about me would presume what I do or don't know about Christ or his so-called followers.

But hey, How's the family? :)

David Squyres said...

“My path promotes compassion over being right about who God is; and I have no investment in a theological argument or in destroying a church--.”

You have found compassion without God.
“all our righteous acts are like filthy rags” Isa 64:5

Where do you practice this compassion? Do you show compassion toward the church? How about in your words? Are you compassionate toward Christians? What great works of love have you accomplished that promotes your “path”? Or were you just bragging?

David Hall said...

David,

No bragging; that's just the long and short of it. My path promotes compassion over being right about who God is--that says nothing of my achievement or realization of that premise. I mean what I say and I didn't stutter.

As to your other questions, if I answer, will I be bragging? I'll just let your intimations stand, as it looks like I'll be damned either if I do or if I don't (pun intended).

Your Bible verses don't mean anything to me since I'm not following your rubric.

It is hard for a fundementalist to understand how an individual might not take their path--original sin, the virgin birth, the inerrancy of the Bible (like, which one?)--because he knows it is true. Yet if it is so obvious, then no one would choose to go to hell; not to mention faith is superfluous? If it is not so obvious, and the faith required in your beloved scripture is required for transcendence.

Basically, the fundementalist says his God is true, and the only bar to me knowing it is true is the willingness to believe it. He or she will seek to convince me with rhetoric, but if rhetoric is used at the service of reason to refute the claims, then reason is suspect,no?

Mike Bratton said...

Charles, you vended your right to apoplexy about what you can and can't post here when you decided to post guttural language and personal bombardments. It's a little hollow to worry about how "shuttered" a blog is when only those of your posts which aren't on-topic and/or which contain abusive language don't make the cut. And, when you have your own blog to publish whatever epistles you care to write, however pristine or putrid they might be.

David, I see that you're back to your pre-Huey's setting of "full-throttle animosity," and that's very disheartening. You like who you like, apparently, and if someone doesn't agree with your subjectivist view of the universe, under the bus they go. I still pray for you, and am compelled to remind you that anyone who has never entered into a saving relationship with Jesus Christ can have the most allegedly "enlightened path" known to history and, apart from Christ, walk that path straight into an eternal, wretched separation from God in a very real place called Hell.

You mock me as supposedly being "self-righteous," when such a statement is (as I suspect you know) a lie on its face, and rather a precise description of how you live your own life. You look to develop your righteousness through your own personal perspective, while those of us who are Christians have abandoned such futility for the righteousness of Christ Himself; your hurling it as an epithet at others is, to be kind, ironic at best.

Oh, and with regard to something you mentioned, quoting thusly and like so: "I have no investment in a theological argument or in destroying a church--this too resides in your perception and blog clippings." We established quite awhile back from your own "blog clippings" that (apart from your single-issue backing of people who otherwise express racist, bigoted, and violent notions) you were interested in dissent. Quoting thusly and like so: "Basically, I’ve ingratiated myself there to swat at flies, or gigging toadies, that constantly launch broadsides against a faction that finds the pastor has been proven incompetent to reestablish the trust and confidence of the BBC flock. I think this will eventually split the church. Stay tuned."

No perception, torque, or spin involved--just your own clear words, David. I believe I asked you quite awhile back if the Christians you have in your family and circle of friends are aware of the anti-Christian writings you've produced; honestly, I don't recall getting an answer to that question.

Some more reportage, also from back in March: "You've had the opportunity to see what he thinks of the local church: 'Beware of organized religion, or any other meddling corporation.' You can see a picture he likes, one that uses a painting of Jesus on the cross as the 'Y,' as three people stand next to the painting and spell out the 'M,' the 'C,' and the 'A.'"

David, without Christ you have no bona fides, because you have no hope. At the end of the day, you're giving us your opinion--are you not? You cannot appeal to anything objective, anything beyond yourself, because you don't admit that there is anything of real substance beyond yourself. You can't answer basic questions like "Where did we come from?" or "Why are we here?" because you reject the only Answer that makes any kind of rational sense. I understand that the instinct is to lash out at anyone or any group you perceive as insulating someone who did to his child what someone else did to you, but all that lashing out does is keep you away from the only real way to heal, which is through God's love.

You keep telling yourself how horrible I am, and compare that to what you know to be the truth. The two don't match up.

And personally, I don't mind telling you that the dichotomy between your face-to-face bonhomie and your online vituperation is disappointing.

--Mike

WatchingHISstory said...

Mike
You have the ability to determine what is pristine or putrid!

Did Christ ever say anything putrid? (as you define putrid)

Why would you delete something that I say that is uncorrupted by human soil and decay and perhaps something that someone needs to hear?

Charles

WatchingHISstory said...

cakes

Mike said: "I understand that the instinct is to lash out at anyone or any group you perceive as insulating someone who did to his child what someone else did to you,"

Cakes since you must have already implied this about yourself and if it is not too painful to repeat it, it would help the rest of us to hear it from you.

Mike, please don't delete this until cakes responds if he wishes, afterall you reintroduced the comment.

Chareles

David Hall said...

Charles,

Mike is refering to the fact that I was the victim of sexual abuse as a child. He wishes to marginalize me as driven by this "single issue."

But life is a continuity, and the unfolding of actions after the pedophile scandal--and no real or conclusive investigation, just face-saving measures--demonstrate not the a single issue, but the craven and self-absorbed careerists perpetuating more suffering at the expense of folks who gave their live to this church. This matter has many ugly facets, and Mike may try to minimize the culpability of leadership, but he just looks once again like an arrogant bully--collecting dirt on people and repeating it...for Christ.

Well, this is not the first time I've faced Christian bigotry. I cannot even represent my purpose and concerns without the big guy throwing a hissy fit and repeating his desperate mantra that I am merely "lashing out." Dude should get the 2x4 out of his own eye before he works on the splinter in mine.

Mike is so thin-skinned for such a perveyor of labels upon others, but the big guy is never wrong in his judgement of other and one best not argue or he'll be emailing you to demand an apology. I could just as easily say he has a vendetta against NBBCOF because he thought he could bully folks over there and was shown the door.

But I think his issues are deeper than that.

Mike Bratton said...

WatchingHISstory said...
Mike
You have the ability to determine what is pristine or putrid!


Yes. As do you, though you choose not to exercise it when you feel the occasion warrants it.

Tirades that make your posts read like a Howard Stern transcript are, in a word, putrid.

Did Christ ever say anything putrid? (as you define putrid)

Of course not. And when your words line up with His, neither will you be saying anything untoward.

Why would you delete something that I say that is uncorrupted by human soil and decay and perhaps something that someone needs to hear?

Merely because "you say" something is valuable does not make it such. And as I've reminded you more than once, you have your very own place to publish anything you like. When you're here, you're a guest, and my guests don't get to sound like Lenny Bruce at the Fillmore.

--Mike

Mike Bratton said...

Cakes said...
Charles,

Mike is refering to the fact that I was the victim of sexual abuse as a child. He wishes to marginalize me as driven by this "single issue."


Specificity is not marginalization, regardless of your mischaracterization, David.

Do you honestly think you'd be associating with the Forumite nucleus because of, for example, their collective position against "the inner city crowd" and "meth-addicted carnies"? No, of course not. An issue they used to slash and burn was an issue close to your core. And since, by your own admission, you're not a fan of organized Christianity, you hooked up with people who favored division over healing; as a result, you're in the unenviable position of having to turn a blind eye to the violence, bigotry, and general hate they publish on what was purportedly an "open" Forum.

But life is a continuity, and the unfolding of actions after the pedophile scandal--and no real or conclusive investigation, just face-saving measures--demonstrate not the a single issue, but the craven and self-absorbed careerists perpetuating more suffering at the expense of folks who gave their live to this church.

Ah. At what point did you consider it noble to invest one's life in the service of Christ through His church?

This matter has many ugly facets, and Mike may try to minimize the culpability of leadership,

Never mind what I've said and written to the contrary, of course...

but he just looks once again like an arrogant bully--collecting dirt on people and repeating it...for Christ.

You lied, David. How is it either arrogance or bullying to produce evidence from your own blog that what you said here simply wasn't true?

Well, this is not the first time I've faced Christian bigotry. I cannot even represent my purpose and concerns without the big guy throwing a hissy fit

Yes. Right after I held my breath and stamped my foot, I threw a "hissy fit."

and repeating his desperate mantra that I am merely "lashing out."

What was it I said? Oh, yeah: "I understand that the instinct is to lash out at anyone or any group you perceive as insulating someone who did to his child what someone else did to you, but all that lashing out does is keep you away from the only real way to heal, which is through God's love."

A real fit, eh? A desperate hissy mantra, or something to that effect...

Dude should get the 2x4 out of his own eye before he works on the splinter in mine.

Always interesting when non-Christians quote those words of Jesus that they feel will help their stance, but avoid those words that might convict them of their need for Him. I'm not working on a splinter, David, I'm concerned about your relationship with Christ.

Mike is so thin-skinned for such a perveyor of labels upon others,

Something else that comes up in the written word, but didn't come up in person. Again, I'm more than a bit disappointed at the dichotomy.

but the big guy is never wrong in his judgement of other

Where am I engaging in subjectivist judgement, David?

and one best not argue or he'll be emailing you to demand an apology.

It's generally best to deal with people privately before dealing with them publicly. I take it you don't agree, or do you feel you're revealing some deep, dark secret?

I could just as easily say he has a vendetta against NBBCOF because he thought he could bully

There's that word again. Tell a lie often enough, and some people just might start to believe it, hmm?

folks over there and was shown the door.

So much for being an "Open" Forum, right? Mischaracterize me all you like, David--people who've been following along for the long haul realize you're lying yet again, and people who haven't will only see that you attack people who attempt to be congenial with you.

If this is the best you have, you've returned to the discussion empty-handed.

But I think his issues are deeper than that.

You're right. I don't want to see people like you go to Hell. I also don't want to see people like Haywood, Saba, and the Forumites seeking to injure the body of Christ rather than promoting healing.

Those are my "issues."

--Mike

David Squyres said...

I grow weary of people anxious to tread on the Church, God’s Bride, for their own cause.

In Cakes case for the purpose of making Christians look foolish. I am sorry, Cakes, that the church is not unified. Our unity is supposed to show you the nature of the Godhead and the love of Christ.

Charles takes stabs at the church to promote a theological agenda. For him the church’s disunity is a proof his particular brand of Calvinism is proved right.

And the open forum throws stones at the Bride because they don’t like the present preacher. And so they sink to a pretty deep low. Not only attacking the pastor and leaders, but even those they seek to win! It is reminiscent of Jonah who hated Nineveh.

Is there ever enough fear of God not to throw stones, mud clods, punches at his Bride? It is one thing to “speak the truth in love” and quite another to mock the very people the church is seeking to reach.

The Church is precious. It was worth the blood of Jesus. How will our God respond if that which he died for is treated with scorn? I know that when Paul attacked the church, Jesus asked him: “Saul, Saul, why do you persecute ME?” To dishonor the Church is to dishonor He who died for the Church.

Note the image of the Church:
It is Christ BUILDING. Would you tear down that which Christ built?
It is Christ BRANCH. Would we uproot that which God made grow?
It is Christ BODY. Would you punch Christ?
It is Christ BRIDE. Would you bloody Jesus wife?

This is not to say that it is wrong to seek to correct the Church. Paul certainly did this. But he managed to do it without becoming unGodly in his own behavior. His goal was not the promotion of his own agenda but the betterment of the Bride.

“Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless.” ephesians 5:25-27

Notice that the church is already “holy.” The work of Christ in her sets her apart for service to God. How will God respond to those who do not share his love for that which he died for?

They will say: Oh, we love the church, that’s why we’re doing this. But do they? Does their fruit bear out love, or racism?

David Hall said...

Whatever, Mike,

Bark, bark, fellow. And pluck, pluck, attribute to others what you do repeatedly--call people liars, bigots and reachingly misrepresent the words of others.

As to the Hueys meeting, I plainly mentioned every issue that have articulated here; it was rather you who had to sit on it and then come up with your reaching explanations long after you got back to bama.

Yes you were a kitten face-to-face; it is only behind your keyboard that you talk to everyone like you're their daddy.

I don't believe you have one concern for my immortal soul. So call me a liar all day, everyday, nothing seems so important to you as being right and slashing and burning (ironic that you know the expression) the reputations of those with whom you disagree.

Back to the inane theological discussion, already in progress.

David Squyres said...

So Cakes, how could anyone show a concern for your immortal soul?

WatchingHISstory said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
David Squyres said...

Charles,

this is SICK! You are imagining the molestation of a child, even inventing what words his father would say. This is not the “mind of Christ.” This borders on pornography. Only, it’s worse. You are using a CHILD, and using his rape as a springboard for your imagination.

Please memorize Ephesians 5:12. “For it is shameful even to mention what the disobedient do in secret.” Your behavior is shameful.

solomon said...

WHS,

Your goal is apparently to use this particular case of abuse as a tool to destroy Christian fundamentalism. Not to get into the practicality of such a strategy, your attempt makes you as much a cheap opportunist as anyone who has tried to use it to destroy Bellevue.

If you have any true concern for abuse victims you'll stop.

WatchingHISstory said...

David

The shame is that there is not any outrage against the ordained monster but at me because I use graphic language. You say I am sick without any shame as to what this monster did to his son.

If I am sick then what words do you have for this monster? Probally compassion!!

David, you are self-righteous in your reply to me and I'll bet you are proud of yourself, puffed up with your pride! You should have shame and sadness on behalf of the amn who disgraced his (Christ's) church. Not only should he be expelled from the church (he surrendered his credentials, probally to save face and keep his retirement funds)) he should be rotting in a jail cell for the rest of his life.

No thank you Ephesians applies to an outsider who is in darkness.
We are talking about an eternally secure minister who has been able to deceive us all. I am focusing on Hebrews 10:26-31. I suggest you do the same.

Charles

WatchingHISstory said...

solomon

"Your goal is apparently to use this particular case of abuse as a tool to destroy Christian fundamentalism."

Now what can I do that American fundamentalism hasn't already done to itself.

I am telling you that I have heard from God and He is angry. Don't focus on me but on why God is angry.

You just keep driving around Bellevue looking for the fake wolves, that is a good distraction!!

Charles




Charles

David Brown said...

Mr. Page: I have been waiting for you to go off the deep end and now you have.

Long ago I put a label on you that took you off on a sick tanget. Well I am about to send you there again because you earned it.

You keep talking about what GOD has told you. I asked if you very kindly but firmly if you were certain it was God talking to you. Your replies were less than kind.

So here it is. If your God is telling you that CW was raped he is a liar! So stop of all of your foul, filthly talk. Let me make it clearer. CW was never raped. You know that I know the facts much to your dismay and anger.

What happened to him was horriible regardless of the act. See that is what your narrow mind cannot seem to grasp. Sexuality or in your words homosexualtiy has NOTHING to do with pedophilia. NOTHING. It is simply abuse of power of the worst kind. Why, with the converstaions you have with GOD he doesen't share that with you.

I pray after your last putrid post that Mike finally does what should have been done long ago. I do not like moderation but in your case it is a necessary evil. You being the evil.

All those arugments you make on behalf of Calvin just go right out the door when you post the filth you just did. I feel that if Calvin was alive today he would go off on you too. You sir are a disgrace and in much need of serious help.

Those words sound familar? Mr. Page please get help before you really go Postal on someone.

David Brown

WatchingHISstory said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
David Brown said...

Mr. Page, Ask your God, I am through with you. So if you want to go off on me so be it.

I care to have nothing more to do with you. What you have been saying is pure slander and libel and it has been allowed to go on on this blog way too long. That was why you were banned from the NBCOF.

I for one am tired of your sick lies and rantings. If you think that God had a chair for Adrian wait till you see what He as in store for you.

David Brown

oc said...

Watching,

You like this too much. You 'imagine' and then describe it like you must know it from experience, but no one knows from which role you seem to know this from. And you keep asking for details. You are too much. Get some help.

Do something about this Mike.

WatchingHISstory said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
oc said...

Knock it off Charles.

WatchingHISstory said...

oc

Have you cried and wept over what happened to CW. I have, day after day and night after night. While you selrighteously rant on both blogs my heart has been broken and I have never been distracted by what God has laid on my heart.

Has the Lord woke you up at 2am and talked with you about this terrible situation. Have you no vision to share or will you just keep on ranting about me.

Aren't you disgraced that you are a part of the church that PW disgraced?

Charles

WatchingHISstory said...

oc said...
Knock it off Charles.

8:07 PM, November 14, 2007

By what authority do you speak?
Do you represent God or just your emotions?

Charles

John Mark said...

I'VE COME BACK FROM A WALK WITH MY DOG IN THE RAIN AND IN MY ANGER I HAVE CALLED YOU EVER FOUL NAME I CAN SAY SHORT OF BLASPHEMING THE NAME OF GOD

Why curse Mike for the rain? Even it was somehow his fault, you're the one who chose to go out in it. It's just proof that God sends the rain on both the just and the unjust.

I think Sol is onto something. If you can't refute conservative fundamentalism based on their tenets, you shouldn't try. That humongous straw man you're trying to use just keeps falling on you.

WatchingHISstory said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
oc said...

We have all wept at what happened, Charles. But you seem to want to invent and relive any sick episode you have imagined. Of what purpose is that?

WatchingHISstory said...

oc

ask God, not me

Charles

PS It encourages me that you have wept over this.

David Brown said...

Page: Ask your God.

You don't need me to tell you what happened.

ASS-U-ME all you want. That is why you have been wrong so much on this. But don't assume anything was consentual, ask your god. I am certain he is dying to tell you. By the way be sure to take Roscoe with you. It seems those are the times God speaks to you.

It is a real shame. You profess all this "knowledge" and why we are all wrong yet when the truth hits you right in the face, you cannot see it nor accept it.

I have tried so hard in the past to let you know that but you would not step back. Shame.

David Brown

oc said...

David Brown,

So it's Roscoe who has been speaking to Charles. No wonder he's confused!
Poor Roscoe.

John Mark said...

By the way be sure to take Roscoe with you. It seems those are the times God speaks to you.

Now THAT'S funny!!!

And all this time we thought there was only one mediator between God and man!

WatchingHISstory said...

David

"It is a real shame. You profess all this "knowledge" and why we are all wrong yet when the truth hits you right in the face, you cannot see it nor accept it."

What truth has hit me in the face?
What truth are you telling me?

Charles

David Brown said...

To my brothers and sisters on this blog: Let me saying I am sorry for being so direct with Charles. I do not want to offend anyone else but enough is enough.

His lack of understanding of pedophilia is the root of his problem. It has nothing to do with sexuality or the act itself. It is simply the abuse of power that these monsters dwell on. But is abuse of power of the worse kind that a man can do to another short of physical murder. I have many times said it more like a soul murder.

Those are the scars that are so hard to heal. I grieve everytime I hear of another victim.

I wish Mr. Page had the sensitivity or compassion for these dear victims as he does for conversations with God and Calvin.

Please join me in prayer for these victims and Charles. They are in need of much prayer and help.

Love you all,

David Brown

WatchingHISstory said...

jm

And all this time we thought there was only one mediator between God and man!

and you think this is funny!!
oc, do you think it is funny?
David, do you think it is funny?
SOL do you think it is funny?
Mike, do you think it is funny?
Does everyone think this is funny?
Is AR laughing in heaven?

Charles

David Brown said...

Charles: you betta

Jessica said...

Charles, I have always been nice to you- I have heard you out, I have not called you names. I will pray for you, but I must say that a vision from God should not incite you to rage nor prompt you to entice others to sin (by their anger). I ask that you fast from this and take some time away from the blogs. I also encourage you to print this whole exchange and read it with your pastor, perhaps he can give you some insight.

TO THE REST OF YOU: Please don't let this get the best of you. Reacting in anger is not what you are called to do. Charles is a human being and Jesus died for his sins too. As we have learned so well over the past months, when confronting the sin of others our first responsibility is not to sin in the process.

WatchingHISstory said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
oc said...

Watching said:
and you think this is funny!!
oc, do you think it is funny?
David, do you think it is funny?
SOL do you think it is funny?
Mike, do you think it is funny?
Does everyone think this is funny?
Is AR laughing in heaven?

Charles


No, Charles. We are't laughing. Not at all. And we also weep for you.

WatchingHISstory said...

jessica

Will my fasting from the blog help me or you?

Perhaps you don't like the implications that this brings on us all and the best way to deal with it is for Charles to be silent. Funny how people become interested in my spiritual welfare!
Wasn't that funny jw?

Why don't you seek God as to what he is saying to you, Jessica?

I'm not angry, God is. I am posting between making the best pot of beef stew I have ever made. I want to surprise my wife with it when she gets home from work!

Charles

WatchingHISstory said...

oc

I'l bet you are rubbing your thumb and forefinger around and around saying this is the smallest record player playing my heart bleeds for you, Charles.

You are insincere. Mike's ability to determine what is pristine and putrid is rubbing off!

Charles

PS the stew is boiling. Got to go.

WatchingHISstory said...

David said:
"So here it is. If your God is telling you that CW was raped he is a liar! So stop of all of your foul, filthly talk. Let me make it clearer. CW was never raped. You know that I know the facts much to your dismay and anger."

"What happened to him was horriible regardless of the act. See that is what your narrow mind cannot seem to grasp. Sexuality or in your words homosexualtiy has NOTHING to do with pedophilia. NOTHING. It is simply abuse of power of the worst kind. Why, with the converstaions you have with GOD he doesen't share that with you."

These two paragraphs are strange indeed.

The author of this says I need counseling!!

Charles

WatchingHISstory said...

offline

Jessica said...

Charles,

for when you return:

You fasting from this blog or leaving it forever will not affect me either way. I am just encouraging you to get some perspective. God does not call us to division and that is what is happening with the way you are posting. Perhaps there is a better path.

I do seek God and try to hear what He is saying, and I can assure you that none of the things He tells me cause me to sin, or lead others to sin. He has also led me to treat you with kindness and remember that you are a person behind the words on the screen.

I don't know how you would draw the conclusion that I am just trying to get rid of you? From everything you know about me does that seem like something I would do?

Perspective is something that can help us all, and if you feel that you are right and God-led then taking time to consult with wise counsel and in prayer should not be something you would be reluctant to do.

David Squyres said...

Mr. brown, no need to apologize for your statements. I almost always think: THANK GOD!

I think there is something scary when we witness someone repeating and repeating and repeating images of child molestation. The questions asked of you, Mr. Brown, were absolutely unGodly.

Charles, you have no business bringing your imagination to the table when it comes to this subject. act on facts, but don't start asking people abused what acts they were forced to participate in. Don't recreate dialogue. Don't impress unGodly images. As I said, this verbal recreation of molestations is WORSE than pornography.

"For it is shameful even to mention what the disobedient do in secret." Ephesians 5:12

"It is shameful even to talk about the things that ungodly people do in secret." New Living.

You go beyond "mentioning" or "talking" about these things. You want to describe them! I urge you as someone else did: Take this to a pastor and see what he says. You already know what I would tell you.

Mike Bratton said...

Charles, I saw your pornography posted earlier tonight, but as I was checking my blog on my telephone, I wasn't in a position to remove it as rapidly as I desired to--which was instantaneously.

I'm glad to see you deleted it yourself this time, but you have nevertheless established a pattern of speaking about sensitive issues in lurid, X-rated ways. Let me suggest you spend more time cooking for your wife and less time blogging. Anywhere.

And let me remind you that it's just as incumbent upon you, Charles, to repent of your sin as it is for Paul Williams to repent of his, as we hope he already has.

Call me any name you like, but be reminded that the fruit of the Spirit includes self-control, something the combination of your porn post and your uncensored dog-walk in the rain doesn't really demonstrate. I love you with the love of Christ, Charles, and that's why I hope you will seek some in-depth Christian counseling--not next week, but tomorrow.

One incident can be an anomaly, but tonight wasn't an isolated event, or series of events. If you're slinging curses one minute and calmly whipping up stew the next, that's simply not healthy.

--Mike

WatchingHISstory said...

Mike

The beef stew turned out perfect much to my wife's delight, we sat together on the couch and finished watching NY CSI. Mike, can you believe she got up went to the kitchen and got a small second helping. She never does that late at night!

I folowed your advise and sought excellent counseling early this morning. I took 'you know who' with me and walking down the same path I walked last night, my counselor said" "it was finished" I directed the same anger which our Lord directed to the self-righteous leaders. My anger was directed specifically to you not any one else though everyone else jumped into the fray. I suppose that was the way the Lord wanted it to happen.

Mike, you were in close proximity to Adrian Rogers. Your puffed up self-righteousness was bred by him within the Church of our Lord Jesus Christ. The seed of apostatsy is planted in your heart and you are not unaware of it. You are rejecting what you know in your heart is the truth. I don't have to point that out.

Paul Williams let this same seed grow and produce fruit and you know what that was. It was a willful sin, not of ignorance and one of which there is no more sacrifice for his sins. He was led into this by the preaching of Adrian Rogers.

Paul's remaining days on this earth will be that of a believer who will be filled with fear of a fiery indignant judgement. He will face a mocking angry God who will laugh at his calamity and God's laughter will be joined by a large multitude of laughing saints. Any hope or confidence that he will carry to eternity will be devoured.

Yes, God said it was finished and I replied back to God, "I fought a good fight last night, I stayed on course and I kept the faith. Mike, a crown of righteousness awaits me. (Heb. 10:35-39)

Mike, nothing you can say can seperate me from this crown. Your pronouncements of putrid or pristine are meaningless.

Now read and delete, cause the message is for you alone. You understand what I am saying.

Charles

Mike Bratton said...

Charles, if that last little screed had really just been for me, you would've e-mailed it to me.

But what would make you think I would delete it? Quite to the contrary, I'm leaving it up as a monument--an example of the filth I referenced in my original article.

--Mike

David Squyres said...

Charles,

So I take it you’re not going to fast from blogging. Too bad.

I was encouraged to see you made an appointment with a counselor. I thought your post was about to be repentant. But alas, I was left wondering as you ranted in a new wave of rage: What God do you serve?

-Jesus said, "Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing." Luke 23:34

-Charles said: “[PW] will face a mocking angry God who will laugh at his calamity and God's laughter will be joined by a large multitude of laughing saints”

A mocking God? You have it backward. Jesus was mocked.

You said God will laugh at his calamity and will be joined by “laughing saints.” I missed that in my Bible. Where does heaven turn in to a circus where the sinners are laughed out of heaven? You are now twisting the nature of our God.

And I seem to remember something about salvation, forgiveness, redemption, new life. You misunderstand the most basic concepts of the Christian faith.

You accuse Mike and Dr. Rogers of the sin of “Apostasy.” Which is following other God’s. The rejection of the faith. It appears that anyone who does not hold your views is called apostate.

Now this is interesting! Watch, Charles:

1. You have theology you feel others MUST agree with.
2. You have visions of God speaking from heaven.
3. You are verbally abusive to those who disagree.
4. You invent new information about God you expect others to accept.
5. You are the standard for deciding who does and does not go to heaven.
6. Those who do not agree with you are declared Apostate.

It’s like you’re getting ready to start your own cult. Who’s following?

John Mark said...

Well, I just stopped by the good blog to see what's new.

They're currently listing the alarming number of similarities between Steve Gaines and a pastor who was addicted to drugs and stole money from the church to support his habit.

Nice.

John Mark said...

Say, here's a characteristic of 'abusive leaders' that's been thrown out there that exonerates SG:

Abusive leaders:
They often publicly rebuke or ostracize members who simply disagree with leaders’ opinions.
They assume they have the right to tell or encourage members who don’t agree with leaders, to leave the church or even to separate from their spouses.


Not only has SG not singled anyone out, he hasn't even done anything to chase off the buzzards circling the carrion. He didn't kick Saba out, and even let him continue to teach Sunday school according to what I've heard.

But I suppose anything seems abusive to professional victims.

Jessica said...

David,

He learned to toss around the word apostasy from the other blog. They like to throw it around willy-nilly!!
Eventually it will have no meaning left, just like sin doesn't strike fear in hearts like it used to, the word apostate will eventually become nothing more than a buzzword used by people who don't think women should wear pants to church, or play drums in worship services, or whatever comes up next.

Miriam Wilmoth said...

WH said,

PW let this same seed grow and produce fruit and you know what that was. It was a willful sin, not of ignorance and one of which there is no more sacrifice for his sins. He was led into this by the preaching of Adrian Rogers.

MJM says:

Do WHAT?????

Jessica said...

JM,

remember, he tried to intimidate Ray by having men stand in the back of his class (or something like that). The "intimidation" argument cracks me up. Even like the whole fence thing was supposedly for intimidation, but correct me if I am wrong- don't you have to have something to fear or something to lose to be intimidated? Do they think he is going to send people to beat him up or make him lose his job? Four men from BBC wouldn't intimidate me for one single second even showing up in the middle of the night. Standing in the back of a class I was teaching? Please.

If someone standing there or coming to your house to talk (unless they had baseball bats I don't know about) intimidates you I think it says much more about you than it does them.

Jessica said...

MJM,

take a deep breath. It was worse last night.

John Mark said...

jessica,

I don't know, it sounds like intimidation to me, men coming to his Sunday school class. The nerve! I mean, just because the man writes epistles on 'savingbellevue' running down the church doesn't justify church leaders wanting to know what he's teaching on Sunday mornings. Apostacy, definitely.

And what about 4 grown men climbing that apostate fence to get to a someone's house? Why, the whole thing makes me want to spend the next 12 months complaining about it and everything else I can think of on the internet.

John Mark said...

a buzzword used by people who don't think women should wear pants to church, or play drums in worship services, or whatever comes up next.

I have to draw the line here! Women must not be allowed to play drums in the worship services!

Miriam Wilmoth said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Miriam Wilmoth said...

But John Mark, what if those women wear pants while playing the drums? Are you saying two wrongs don't make a right?

(whispering) After all, did you know that the female cello players last Sunday morning were wearing pants!

Ba-dum-bump!

Jessica said...

You know the funny thing...
I guess I am a fundamental type after all. I don't wear pants to church. I might have once when I was a teenager, but I don't now. My mom does but neither of us plays the drums.

David Squyres said...

Well, I'm taking a stand right here! I do wear pants to church, and you can't stop me.

WatchingHISstory said...

David Brown said:
"So here it is. If your God is telling you that CW was raped he is a liar! So stop of all of your foul, filthly talk. Let me make it clearer. CW was never raped. You know that I know the facts much to your dismay and anger.

What happened to him was horriible regardless of the act. See that is what your narrow mind cannot seem to grasp. Sexuality or in your words homosexualtiy has NOTHING to do with pedophilia. NOTHING. It is simply abuse of power of the worst kind. Why, with the converstaions you have with GOD he doesen't share that with you."

1.) God didn't tell me that CW was raped. The news said that he was sexually molested by his father. Others said he was sodomized. SG said it was a "moral failure"

2.) DB is saying that CW was not raped. He said what happened was horrible regardless of the act. DB is implying that the act was consensual. However the sexual act of a father having sex with his son who is below the statutory age of consent is rape. Does CW know that DB is posting this information?

3.) Normally homosexuality has nothing to do with pedophilia. But when a father (male) has sex with his son (male) it is homosexuality not hetrosexuality.
It was abuse of the worst kind.

4.) David, what is there left for God to explain to me. He has already explained in the Word.

5.) You are spokesman for sexual abuse victims yet you seem to be trying to protect the pervert at the cost of the victim. What are you running from?

Charles

Jon L. Estes said...

Sorry I have not been around but life is good and our new granddaughter entered the world this wee. I am in VA Beach loving on Ava Grace and her older brother by 3 years Clay.

Don't know when I'll have time to catch up, I may wait until the next entry by Mike and start there.

Have a God filled day and dream of God, not man.

David Squyres said...

Charles,

Stop!

Why does the specific act of molestation matter to you? Why do you feel a need to know “what” happened in that bedroom. It’s frankly none of your business. If the victim decides to tell you, maybe it will be different.

David Brown never implied the act was consensual. Never. It’s wrong for you to say that.

I’m irritated because you have moved from simply theology and visions of dead men, to publishing things about a living victim. If he ever saw this, can you imagine the hurt? The feeling of being used again?

You are USING a victim, Charles. You are filling your mind with your imagined details of his abuse. Somehow you seem to get gratification from thinking about this. See a doctor, Charles.

Also, you are using the victim to promote your own agenda. It’s not compassion you are showing, and it’s not righteous anger, it’s a willingness to use perversion to prove yourself right.

Why in the world are you arguing about whether a pedophile is a homosexual? Why are you hung up on this? If this is just to make your theological point, it’s sick. If it’s because of your anger, give it up! Go focus your anger into ministry. You can’t right this wrong. You can protect other kids. But you can’t fix this one.

Why are you attacking David Brown? Why not heed his council?

David Brown said...

Dear Brother David and others: Please ignore this man. I trust Mike to do the right thing and delete his comments.

This man has his own blog yet refuses to post away there. OH, that is right no one reads it. Wonder why?

Why let him dominate this blog here like he tried to do on the NBBCOF? He got banned there and unless he stops here, he will force Mike to ban him. For some twisted reason he delights in that. That is not the thinking of a normal person.

When someone actually calls him out and points out in black and white where he is wrong, what does he do? He goes into attack mode. Then he tries to distract with all these insane questions and accusations.

He is in need of much help and is very sick. He is need of much prayer.

Please Charles get some help. Before it is too late.

In the meantime, please ignore him and let Mike delete his posts. I am through giving him a forum.

David Brown

WatchingHISstory said...

David Brown
"When someone actually calls him out and points out in black and white where he is wrong, what does he do?"

Please David before you write me off as hopeless, respond to the above post to you and point out in black and white where I am wrong.

You are too smart not to be able to explain in a way that even I can understand. Isn't that your job as an advocate?

Charles

WatchingHISstory said...

db
"Please Charles get some help. Before it is too late."

Thanks, I am seeing a very good counselor! He is helping me.

Charles

WatchingHISstory said...

David said:
"Why in the world are you arguing about whether a pedophile is a homosexual?"

DB can clarify this for you. I hope he does for you and I both.

Charles

John Mark said...

mjm,

Oh, where will this end?!? Next thing you know the men won't be wearing ties on Sunday night!

What?!? THEY AREN'T?!? Oh, the humanity!

Come to think of it, which is worse, women wearing pants or those scandalously short dresses I've read about on other blogs? One blog actually. Or maybe I should call them apostately short just for consistency?

Our motto needs to be that a woman's knees should be heard, not seen.

WatchingHISstory said...

David said:

"So I take it you’re not going to fast from blogging. Too bad."

Sorry to disappoint you but asceticism is not my forte.

"I was encouraged to see you made an appointment with a counselor. I thought your post was about to be repentant."

Be encouraged I am seeing a very good counselor and He is reliable. He is helping me a lot. Thanks.

"What God do you serve?"

YAHWEH/ YESHUA HAMASHIA

David said:
-Charles said: “[PW] will face a mocking angry God who will laugh at his calamity and God's laughter will be joined by a large multitude of laughing saints”

A mocking God? You have it backward. Jesus was mocked.

Oh what a day of rejoicing that will be! Holy laughter! Those who weep now will laugh later!

Luke 6:20-26; Psalms 2:1-5;Ps. 38:12-15; Prov. 1:24-33

When the LORD on his throne stands and laughs then the heavenly host will join him! They will be having their day!

Charles

larry said...

Mr. Page,

I write this as a younger man addressing an older, with complete respect.

You have written that God and the heavenly host will mock, scorn, and laugh at those who have fallen into sin and perish in the lake of fire.

Would you consider this passage from Ezekiel alongside yours, and decide how it adds or subtracts from your prooftexts? If your passages take precedence, why?

"But if a wicked man turns away from all the sins he has committed and keeps all my decrees and does what is just and right, he will surely live; he will not die. None of the offenses he has committed will be remembered against him. Because of the righteous things he has done, he will live. Do I take any pleasure in the death of the wicked? declares the Sovereign LORD. Rather, am I not pleased when they turn from their ways and live?

Mr. Page, this passage states clearly, without stuttering, that God takes no delight in the death or condemnation of sinners. His pleasure is rather that they repent and do good.

Is there any reason, other than personal preference, that this passage can be ignored? How can you harmonize it with your passages?

Where in the NT is there an example of a mocking Jesus? I've never seen one. Condemning, yes, but never out of cruelty or vituperativeness. Only in truth.

In the upper room, Jesus offered bread to his betrayer, Judas Iscariot. This was in fulfillment of prophecy, but also with the sincere offer of fellowship and reconciliation and the hope that even a hopelessly lost man would turn from his wicked ways.

I'm shocked to hear the suggestion that my Lord and Savior would show disdain for lost sinners, and laugh at their damnation. He takes no delight at all in the death of the wicked, according to his Word.

Would you agree?

John Mark said...

Hey larry,

Nice try, but you shouldn't waste your time. When old fogies like me and CP reach that certain age, it's impossible to change our minds unless God steps in.

I don't see that happening with him. At least not yet.

jmd

John Mark said...

jessica said...
You know the funny thing...
I guess I am a fundamental type after all. I don't wear pants to church. I might have once when I was a teenager, but I don't now. My mom does but neither of us plays the drums.

4:01 PM, November 15, 2007


Right on, Jess! There's hope for the American church after all!

Now if we can just get those apostate TV shows about pie makers off the air...

Jessica said...

JM,

Please tell me you saw it last night...


and I quote:

Chuck: "You’re taking money from blind children?"
Emerson: "I suppose I could pay my bills with the blind kids' smiles — but their money is a lot easier."

WatchingHISstory said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
WatchingHISstory said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
WatchingHISstory said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
WatchingHISstory said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Jon L. Estes said...

I thought this was the BRATTON REPORT blog, maybe I am wrong.

I am amazed that everyone here has their interpretation except for CP, he actually speaks for God.

Scarey.... ;-)

Mike Bratton said...

Charles, you apparently believe you have an easy out by insinuating that God is your only "counselor" and that you have no need to speak with a pastor, minister or Biblical counselor face-to-face. The incredible lack of accountability is a problem, though, and one you should be addressing.

So far, your "counseling" has produced posts laden with pornography, obscenity, and verbal assaults. Your "counseling" is producing no results--at least not desirable ones, such as contrition, repentance, or even behavior modification.

As the Christian philosopher John Donne rightly observed, "No man is an island." Your attempts at isolationism, Charles, will only harm you.

--Mike

John Mark said...

jessica,

Yep, I caught that too.

Classic!

John Mark said...

Yes, God said it was finished and I replied back to God, "I fought a good fight last night, I stayed on course and I kept the faith. Mike, a crown of righteousness awaits me.

jon,

Charles has his own interpretation of many things.

For example, my interpretation of 'it is finished' would be that something is over.

Silly me!

Michelle Mann said...

Hey big brother!

It was funny, one minute I was reading through this morning's...ahem...comments...and when I refreshed my screen, they were all gone! Maybe I was just halucinating and they weren't there in the first place, huh?

Jon L. Estes said...

JM,

It is finished = It is over.

What are you thinking of, silly you.

When JESUS states, It is Finished! you know He really meant, ask Charles to find out the truth.

Maybe the whole Bible is a dream, maybe this blog is a dream and only Charles is awake, we are just a part of the dream.

Can someone pinch me so I can wake up?

Loving on my new granddaughter "Ava Grace" in VA Beach. What an awesome God.

Inside info... Ava Grace is not a dream but a true blessing from God. In my arms, cooing and enjoying P-Paws cuddles.

Junkster said...

John Mark said...
I have to draw the line here! Women must not be allowed to play drums in the worship services!

...and...

Our motto needs to be that a woman's knees should be heard, not seen.

Rare form! Very funny stuff. Thanks for those laugh out loud moments, bro.

Jon L. Estes said...

Now, now... We don't need any woman's knees heard. All of women should be silent, even after the annual chili cook-off.

No exceptions. We do not want anything to be misconstrued.

David Squyres said...

Jon,

Children are no gift from Santa!

Any thoughts on the difference in parenting and grandparenting? I have a 1, 5, 7 year olds. Yikes! the thuoght of being a grandparent is so distant it is like a dream.

Sometimes I look around the house and remember when my wife and I did not have children. A long eternity of 7 years ago. You know, we were clean people. I tell myself that: "We used to have a clean house." Then I feel better: We're not the pigs!

My kids follow my wife into a room my wife has just cleaned. They look around at how neat everything is and say: "Hey, this place looks all wrong! You take that side, and I'll take this side, we can kid this place up in about 2 minutes."

Jessica said...

David,

To be fair, my 1 year old is MUCH easier to clean up after than my husband or my dogs!

David Squyres said...

Careful, now. I'm preparing a sermon on marriage... the last thing you want to do is plant that kind of stuff in my head. It will come out...

«Oldest ‹Older   201 – 400 of 575   Newer› Newest»