Anyone who reads this should know that the forum members of "the christian church" can be pretty extreme. I like the fact that the owner of this forum decided to put a copy of CRI's statement about COC on this BB. What happens to people in CoC should serve as an example to all Christians of what happens when legalism takes hold in our Walk. It can and DOES destroy the faith of some. It leads to subjective assessments, and inconsistent interpretation of Scripture. I will post some examples.

Danny Gabbard, Sr. (a frequent poster and one of the administrators of the TCC forum) Had much to say about Harry Potter....condemning it by saying

Can someone help me out?? Where in the Bible does it condone "good witchcraft for entertainment purposes??" Where in the Bible does it ever say ANYTHING good about spells, incantations.....etc....etc??

-- Danny Gabbard, Sr. (PYBuck12pt@cs.com), December 14, 2001.

When confronted with the fact that Santa and Harry were very similar, Mr. Gabbard becomes quite defensive. He attempts to divert the readers attention from Santa and his "magic" by making a veiled reference that perhaps I don't believe in the virgin birth (which I do), and that I haven't used Scripture to back my claim. He goes on to say this:

What I said was.....this is clear cut. The Bible EXPRESSLEY forbids magic, witchcraft, incantations, spells, sorcery...et. al....

Now, take careful note. As this thread progresses, the subject of Star Trek comes up. Mr. Gabbards response in his own words is:

Ultimately, however....doesn't Satan ALWAYS have an agenda??

STAR TREK RULES!!!:)

-- Danny Gabbard, Sr. (PYBuck12pt@cs.com), December 19, 2001.

Now I have nothing against Star Trek (or santa or HP for that matter) but my point is this: Star Trek is FILLED with anti-Christian sentiments. Evolution, same sex relations, no real God, etc etc etc. A recurring character is named "Q" and is supposed to be omnipotent! Ther are many characters that posess and use "magic"....yet Mr. Gabbard states that "star trek rules!!!"...

huh?

Didn't he complain earlier that the Bible NOWHERE condones "good magic for entertainment purposes" ???

Inconsistent THAT is the word that describes that type of attitude....someone like Mr. Gabbard is ready & willing to pounce on something he disagrees with....but you better not point out that something he likes fits in the same category that he condemns.

In fact, you will be deleted if you point out such inconsistency. A lurker did, and was silenced...I did and received similar treatment [I didn't save my post, but the content was similar to this post]. If you visit the HP thread on TCC forum you will see it ends with no real objection to Mr. Gabbards claims.....because all objections were removed.

This attitude is the same with several other posters, which I will go into at a later time.

-- Joe (nothteleastbitimportant@hotmail.com), January 14, 2002

Answers

Ah, yes, Danny Gabbard, the motherless child. (He will understand the reference). The reason I say that is because people with mothers are taught manners.

Blessings,

-- Connie (hive827@cs.com), January 14, 2002.

You remember the axiom from Lord Acton:

"Power corrupts and absloute power corrupts absolutely".

This ia what has happened to Danny. He has become a petty tyrant.

(God, please forgive me this bad feeling toward Danny. Help me to forgive him.)

-- Connie (hive827@cs.com), January 14, 2002.

This brings me to that joker E lee saffold. This guy is a piece o work to be sure. He picks up one or two spelling errors and goes off for hours, or burrows into one fragment of a sentence and then ends each of his nonsense posts by saying "now we have proven from the scriptures that what was said is false. you can believe the words of Jesus, or the words of _________ (insert name of poster)." His attempts at making everything black or white are at best deceptive on his part, and at the worst....well; I think the guy might have a messiah complex.

He uses the term "we" when refering to himself; my first thought was of the demon possessed man of Mark 5:9. my SECOND thought was of the Trinity...God refers to Himself in the plural at times("Let us go down..."). Pure blasphemy if he sees himself on par with God. One can only hope that the guy is joking when referencing himself in the plural. Unfortunately, it gets worse.

Mr. Saffold actually used the phrase "we would never leave you nor forsake you"....in regards to himself! Here is the post:

" I appreciate that you all stuck with me so I could see the interpretations and viewpoints."

WE would never leave you nor forsake you at such an important time when our Brother in Christ is seeking to know the truth on any matter.

there it is....as unbelievable as it sounds; the guy uses the words of God used throughout Scripture (Deut. 31:6,8 ; Josh 1:5; Heb. 13:5) But he (E. Lee Saffold) is speaking about....himself. HE won't leave or forsake that poster... Incredible.

Saffold has also claimed to be without sin. Oh, not in those exact words, but he claims that he has not lusted or told a lie.

As a guy, I can tell you without any problem....ANY man that says he has not lusted is a LIAR.....an absolute liar. Jesus said that to look on a woman to lust after her is to commit adultery with her in your heart.

There is only one possible way that Saffold could have "not lusted"...if he were homosexual. In that case, he certainly would not be without sin, and could not even be a Christian. I don't think that is the case.

He has in fact, told several lies on that forum....he was so busy picking at nits that he twisted peoples words and completly fouled up what they said....claiming they meant one thing when in fact, the complete opposite was true. That is a falsehood, or LIE. Incredible!

Saffold has also had pointed out to him that his e-mail address does not "avoid the appearance of evil" as the Bible CLEARLY tells us we should. The use of dragon in the Scriptures is a reference to Satan...yet the man continues to defend his use of that AND the "007" in his addy...Incredible! This in itself would not be a big deal, but E Lee Saffold makes such tiny things a VERY BIG DEAL when it comes to those he disagrees with! He uses one standard for people he wants to judge, then ignores that standard when it comes to himself....the same way the pharisses of Jesus' day said one thing but did another. Incredible. (do you notice a pattern of conduct among the brotherhood of that "other" forum?)

The sad part about E Lee Saffold is that the censors are on his side. He makes a long drawn out diatribe, claiming to make many proofs that people who don't believe just like him are wrong, then when people refute HIM....they are silenced. There rebuttals are deleted and Saffold's drivel is all that remains....reinforcing in his own mind that he is, in fact, correct in his rambling. One must wonder if that is the basis of his egotistical messiah complex, or if it simply feeds one that already exists.

Go through the archives of their forum....you will see time and time again how Saffold attacks people, and his words are left to stand....while there is no response from his "opponents". Please don't think people aren't responding....they are. They are simply being kept silent by the removal of their words.

-- Joe (nothteleastbitimportant@hotmail.com), January 17, 2002.

You should know that e lee saffold has NO formal Bible training. But he does attack anyone who does. He has a little set of preconceived ideas that he believes in, and all interpretation on his part is done in light of those beliefs. Everyone else in wrong wrong wrong.

-- Mr. Admin (just_say_no_(2)_neopharisees@hotmail.com), January 17, 2002.

Can I just say that it is really not neccessary for a Christian to have formal training in order to understand the Word. There is a danger as in, "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing", which is the trap Saffold, gabby and gang fall into. They studied (or were taught by someone) what to believe, then stopped at a point that sounded "good" to them. Any further and they think they have denied the faith of their fellow Campbellites.

-- Joe (nothteleastbitimportant@hotmail.com), January 17, 2002.

Can it be that someone is becoming repentant?

From the 'Men's Ministry' thread on 'that other' forum:

Your occasional pearl just isn't worth my time, Lee. Respond to this if you want, but I'll let it be the last word between you and I on this because I will no longer respond to you directly.

If Lee happens to say something worthwhile to respond to, please repeat it, 'cause I'm not listening to him through this forum.

-- Mark Winstead (JesusIsMarksLord@netscape.net), January 24, 2002.

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

Mark, You are correct, I am a pompous ass.

-- E. Lee Saffold (gdragon007@charter.net), January 24, 2002.

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

Even the Apostle Paul repented of murdering Christians.

-- Connie (hive827@cs.com), January 24, 2002.

Naw.... twasn't he....

Not enough words. Somebody playing games.

-- Joe (nothteleastbitimportant@hotmail.com), January 25, 2002.

Yeah ~ what could I have been thinking? ;-) ;-)

-- Connie (hive827@cs.com), January 25, 2002.

Whether I was right or wrong about what I said about E. Lee does not matter. Matthew 18 tells me to take it to someone in private -- no conditions are made on how public an offense was. Then one appeals to a small group that might influence the offending party, and finally one goes public.

This is a basic biblical principle I violated in my actions with E. Lee. On the other forum, my regrettable path of actions has been removed, but now you perpetuate my mistake here. More than 24 hours ago, I requested the moderator and original poster act to remove the remarks quoting me. The poster has refused to help, and the moderator has failed to respond. Having acted within biblical principle, I now appeal publicly to remove my remarks. My handling of E. Lee's offense of me was wrong -- let's stop perpetuating my mistake, please.

If you want "vengence", that is your business, just don't use my words or actions in this business. I know I should and for now on shall leave any vengence to the Lord. He has a much better view than I, and he has not made me the instrument of his vengence.

-- Mark Winstead (JesusIsMarksLord@netscape.net), January 29, 2002.

Warning: people in this thread are motivated as much by the need of vengenance as anything.

In a message dated 1/28/02 8:08:39 AM Eastern Standard Time, JesusIsMarksLord@netscape.net writes:

<< you quote me in saying something regretable. Not regretable in words, but in the way I handled it. I should have publicly ignored E. Lee just like most everyone else does (which is why some you would think would challenge him don't --- they never read the posts!). In handling it the way I did, I violated Matthew 18. >>

I am sorry that I offended you in quoting you, but if I allowed it, I would be extremely offended by E.Lee, since he has called me a liar and not a Christian simply because I believe that being 'borne from above' by the Spirit is the one baptism, not water baptism.

I will probably not be posting to the new site much, for awhile, anyway, but I can certainly sympathize with the fellow who started it!

Blessings,

Connie

In a message dated 1/28/02 8:08:39 AM Eastern Standard Time, JesusIsMarksLord@netscape.net writes:

<< Connie,

you quote me in saying something regretable. Not regretable in words, but in the way I handled it. I should have publicly ignored E. Lee just like most everyone else does (which is why some you would think would challenge him don't --- they never read the posts!). In handling it the way I did, I violated Matthew 18. >>

Oh, yes, and Mark Wisniewski called me a liar AND satanic, for the same reason ~ that I don't believe that water baptism regenerates; and Danny called me a liar AND an idiot, for the same reason, and then of course banned me. None of these accusations are true, of course.

If any of the threads are still there, you can go back and read. The two long Restoration threads, and others of the period of a year to a year and a half ago. They have scared off or disgusted at least 20 people who no longer post. Of course, the ones with the most Biblical proof and expertise have been deleted, thanks to Danny.

For them to claim i am not a Christian because I don't believe that water baptism saves is ludicrous. I am 68 and have been a believer for 42 years. In fact, i have been immersed TWICE, once in my mother's baptist Church before i was a believer, and once after becoming a believer. Simply because I did not believe the water baptism saved me, (I was already saved when i was baptized the second time) they have abused me and lied about me.

Most of the time I forgive them their ignorance, but, like you, I sometimes forget to forgive. Human, you know.

Blessings,

Connie

P.S.

That is why I said to the moderator of the new site that perhaps he might not want to separate them on this matter. It's the only thing they agree on!!!

-- Mark Winstead (JesusIsMarksLord@netscape.net), January 29, 2002.

Sorry, the formatting of the last message makes it hard to follow. Trying again:

Warning: people in this thread are motivated as much by the need of vengenance as anything.

Reply from Connie from my message: ------------------------------------------------------------------ In a message dated 1/28/02 8:08:39 AM Eastern Standard Time, JesusIsMarksLord@netscape.net writes:

<< you quote me in saying something regretable. Not regretable in words, but in the way I handled it. I should have publicly ignored E. Lee just like most everyone else does (which is why some you would think would challenge him don't --- they never read the posts!). In handling it the way I did, I violated Matthew 18. >>

I am sorry that I offended you in quoting you, but if I allowed it, I would be extremely offended by E.Lee, since he has called me a liar and not a Christian simply because I believe that being 'borne from above' by the Spirit is the one baptism, not water baptism.

I will probably not be posting to the new site much, for awhile, anyway, but I can certainly sympathize with the fellow who started it!

Blessings,

Connie ------------------------------------------------------------------ Another reply from Connie: ------------------------------------------------------------------ In a message dated 1/28/02 8:08:39 AM Eastern Standard Time, JesusIsMarksLord@netscape.net writes:

<< Connie,

you quote me in saying something regretable. Not regretable in words, but in the way I handled it. I should have publicly ignored E. Lee just like most everyone else does (which is why some you would think would challenge him don't --- they never read the posts!). In handling it the way I did, I violated Matthew 18. >>

Oh, yes, and Mark Wisniewski called me a liar AND satanic, for the same reason ~ that I don't believe that water baptism regenerates; and Danny called me a liar AND an idiot, for the same reason, and then of course banned me. None of these accusations are true, of course.

If any of the threads are still there, you can go back and read. The two long Restoration threads, and others of the period of a year to a year and a half ago. They have scared off or disgusted at least 20 people who no longer post. Of course, the ones with the most Biblical proof and expertise have been deleted, thanks to Danny.

For them to claim i am not a Christian because I don't believe that water baptism saves is ludicrous. I am 68 and have been a believer for 42 years. In fact, i have been immersed TWICE, once in my mother's baptist Church before i was a believer, and once after becoming a believer. Simply because I did not believe the water baptism saved me, (I was already saved when i was baptized the second time) they have abused me and lied about me.

Most of the time I forgive them their ignorance, but, like you, I sometimes forget to forgive. Human, you know.

Blessings,

Connie

P.S.

That is why I said to the moderator of the new site that perhaps he might not want to separate them on this matter. It's the only thing they agree on!!! -------------------------------------------------------------------

I have suggested to Connie in private that she is motivated by vengance, but she denies that's her motive. Look at her answers and decide for yourself.

This forum will have more credibility (you have dangerous little now) if you will avoid personal attacks and acts of vengence and simply discuss "what is the truth?". Don't surpress counter opinion, and keep your threads clean and clear (stick to the subject). This thread is obviously a vengence thread --

"Vengence is mine saith the Lord. I want to be about the Lord's business" Rich Mullins, as a joke "A Ragamuffin Man"

Drop the vengence if you want this forum to be worthwhile and in keeping with the will of God.

-- Mark Winstead (JesusIsMarksLord@netscape.net), January 29, 2002.

vengence?!? no, it's about CLARITY. People that are unaware of who they may be interacting with should have a clear warning about that other forum.

(not that it is a worry now...the cowards have gone private again. The light does cause roaches to scurry!)

-- (blah@blah.blah), January 31, 2002.

It has been pointed out to me that my repentance of remarks for which the the following was quoted in here:

----------------------------------------------------- Your occasional pearl just isn't worth my time, Lee. Respond to this if you want, but I'll let it be the last word between you and I on this because I will no longer respond to you directly.

If Lee happens to say something worthwhile to respond to, please repeat it, 'cause I'm not listening to him through this forum.

-- Mark Winstead (JesusIsMarksLord@netscape.net), January 24, 2002.

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

Includes repentance of the following fake message also quoted within this thread:

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

Mark, You are correct, I am a pompous ass.

-- E. Lee Saffold (gdragon007@charter.net), January 24, 2002.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ---------------------------------------------------------------

It does not. I didn't fake the response from E. Lee; that would be someone else.

-- Mark Winstead (JesusIsMarksLord@netscape.net), January 31, 2002.

Dear blah,

No, this is vengence. If it were clarity, it wouldn't include such venom in the warnings. You can try to justify it as being warning, but it is clearly 1) personal, 2) driven by quite a bit of anger.

Warnings wouldn't need to include specific names of people over there. One could just say "be aware, some over at ... ". No need for name calling to warn, no need to say specific names.

Attaching personal names in a so called "warning" has the effect of tarring someone. If you want to change someone's behavior, you give them room for forgiveness. We want redemption for people -- if we stain them with naming them all over places where the archives will exist for years, we have permanently scarred them. That, blah, is vengence, not a warning.

Stop letting your anger blind you; stop trying to justify your/others sin, which is exactly what this name calling and such specifics is.

-- Mark Winstead (JesusIsMarksLord@netscape.net), January 31, 2002.

Mark, I don't see all of my post in your re-postings of what I said in the private e-mails, so just to complete the picture, I post this:

No, satan has not gotten a toehold.

For the most part, I look at the people on that forum as deluded fools, and give them very little thought.

I am sad for them, but I understand they have been brainwashed.

I have forgiven them ~ many times, in fact ~ but when the subjects brought up hark back to the things they have said, I do remember and have to forgive again.

Blessings,

Connie

P.S.

Yes, I identify with what my Savior suffered and take His words seriously. I am still praying for the enlightenment and salvation of many on that forum.

-- Connie (hive827@cs.com), January 31, 2002.