DISCLAIMER

The content of Yahoo!WebRing's advertising banners and links is solely the product of Yahoo!WebRing and their advertising clients. Yahoo!WebRing's banner advertising is not the product of, endorsed, or approved by The Christian Conservative Opinion Pages (TCCOP) or its webmaster. If you object to Yahoo! WebRing's banner ads, please complain to them.

Deke,
TCCOP Webmaster
ROCCS RingMaster


 

  ATTENTION!   

THE CONTENT OF THIS PAGE IS
NOT SUITABLE 
FOR YOUNG CHILDREN!



 

spacer 
LETTERS TO AND FROM AN ACCUSER OF THE BRETHREN
spacer
Email: Deke

 

RETURN LINKTO LETTERS PAGE


The post immediately below is a reply posted by "B.D." on the Michael Reagan Debate Religion and its Place in Politics forum to our Christian brother, "Young Disciple" ("Young D"), whose wife had walked out only hours before. It speaks for itself, and is the foundation for all that I later wrote to "B.D." on that Reagan Webforum. My posts were written with the intent of exposing this "gentleman," and his agenda to all who were able to open their eyes. If you are interested or concerned about the reasons for and method of my ultimate assessment of this person as a deceiver, check out this Christian website: www.chesco.com/~topcat/ap.html

RETURN LINK TO LETTERS PAGE


B.D. In Response To Young D Tuesday November 4, 1997 at 9:31

"God forgives all sins but he also punishes you for every sin you commit." Do you have a Biblical reference for this? I thought the punishment for sin was eternal death & that Christ has already paid that punishment. Do you really think your wife is EVIL because she does not hold your religious beliefs? You poor misguided fool. How is her sin (disbelief) any worse than any of your sins? If you pushed her away with the same fundamentalist crap that you spew here, then you are the evil one. I recommend therapy (secular, not christian) immediately.


Diakon In Response To Sim and All Friday November 14, 1997 at 0:18

LTNT! Free will for all of mankind violates the Biblical principles of God's sovereignty and omniscience. It is inconceivable that God's foreknowledge may not come to pass; for if it did not, He would be neither omniscient nor sovereign, and He wouldn't be the God of the Bible. When He chose Jacob and rejected Esau the issue of predestination and His sovereignty was clearly answered. There are more than 70 OT and NT Scriptures which support predestination and election, making those doctrines unavoidable. However, free will is given to God's elect. The rest are slaves to the law of sin and death. --Diakon-- Bible Teacher and Editor, The Christian Conservative Opinion Pages --http://www.jps.net/tccop


Diakon In Response To Sim and All Friday November 14, 1997 at 0:25

Here are a few NT passages re predestination, and sovereignty: (use your favorite translation): Matthew 20:16; John 15:16 and 17:6; Acts 7:26;Romans 8:30, 9:11-15 ; 1Corinthians 1:27-31. Ephesians 1:4-14, 2:10; 2Thessalonians 2:13-15. Here are just a few from the OT: 2Kings 19:25; Joshua 11:20; Job 23:13; Jeremiah 1:4; Malachi 1:2-3. The problem for those who subscribe to the theology of mankind's free will is reconciling that theology with the *entire* Bible. Although at one time I was a slave to sin, I am free in Christ Jesus (Romans 6:16-20;Galatians 5:1). That is the reconciliation. --Diakon-- Bible Teacher and Editor, The Christian Conservative Opinion Pages -- http://www.jps.net/tcco


Darwin In Response To Diakon Friday November 14, 1997 at 8:03

Are you trying to tell me that it is known what I will do from now to the end of my life? And this holds true only until I believe exactly what you do, then either "free will is given to God's elect" or "I am free in Christ Jesus", and then my future is unknown to all, even God? This is too convoluted even for you. Welcome back. I missed your adroit argumentation. :-)


Diakon In Response To Darwin Friday November 14, 1997 at 13:39

Gonna save some time here: "...it is known what I will do from now to the end of my life?" ANS: YEP! "...holds true only until I believe exactly what you do, then either "free will is given..., and then my future is unknown to all, even God..." ANS: NOPE! You can't save yourself by anything you do or believe. God is omniscient by definition. His elect have a form of freedom within that omniscience which only He understands (Isaiah 55:8-9;Romans 6:16-20;Galatians 5:1). God has reserved some answers for Himself alone.-- Diakon-- Bible Teacher and Editor, The Christian Conservative Opinion Pages --http://www.jps.net/tccop


B.D. In Response To Diakon Friday November 14, 1997 at 16:29

Welcome Back! At least you have the balls to take a stand and say that man has no free will, that we are all either saved or condemned by God's will. You are, of course full of crap, but that doesn't make me respect you any less. I appreciate a man who can state a clear position, even if it is the wrong one. What will you do if you find, at the end of your life, that you have always been condemned & Satan was just fooling you into being saved? What if you are delusional, and your name isn't written in the Book of Life? Fortunately for you, God is not that cruel. He will save all who love & respect him, even those who misinterpret the traditions and myths of a 2000 year old tribal people. :-)


Diakon In Response To B.D. Friday November 14, 1997 at 18:30

On November 4, 1997 at 9:31, you wrote following execrable commentary to Young Disciple after his wife had left him that day, "Do you really think your wife is EVIL because she does not hold your religious beliefs? You poor misguided fool. How is her sin (disbelief) any worse than any of your sins? If you pushed her away with the same fundamentalist crap that you spew here, then you are the evil one. I recommend therapy (secular, not christian) immediately." Considering the gentle humanity of your remarks to Y.D., your arrogant opinion of my theology is irrelevant. --Diakon--
Bible Teacher and Editor,
The Christian Conservative Opinion Pages
-- http://www.jps.net/tccop


B.D. In Response To Diakon Friday November 14, 1997 at 18:37

Irrelevant or not, you still have not answered my question. What will you do if you find, at the end of your life, that you have always been condemned & Satan was just fooling you into being saved? What if you are delusional, and your name isn't written in the Book of Life? I understand that you do not want to answer this because your answer will highlight the foolishness of your previous posts. BTW, if you read the subsequent posts between myself & YD, you will see that he and I found a lot of common ground.


Diakon In Response To B.D. Friday November 14, 1997 at 18:50

If my name is not written in the Lamb's Book of Life, what is that to me? I have no control over God's sovereign authority, and I have no problem with it. If there are problems with my theology, prove it. Show us where the Bible says that I am wrong. That is the only standard I accept. That I reject your groundless ideology on the basis of Scripture is far better than making wholly unsupported claims about God as you do. I have a foundation for my faith, where is yours? John 3:16 applies only to the elect, you need to understand it in the context of the ENTIRE Bible. --Diakon--
Bible Teacher and Editor,
The Christian Conservative Opinion Pages
-- http://www.jps.net/tccop


Diakon In Response To B.D. Friday November 14, 1997 at 19:08

I have covered these issues on my website. Logon to the site , and select SEEKING ANSWERS from the right-hand menu. Then study article 3, _Romans 8:10-25: The Hope Of Salvation_, and article 4, _Eternal Security: A Church Doctrine In Conflict With Biblical Inerrancy_. Those should answer any questions you have about John 3:16 as it relates to the *whole* Bible.
--Diakon--
Bible Teacher and Editor,
The Christian Conservative Opinion Pages
--http://www.jps.net/tccop


Diakon In Response To B.D. Friday November 14, 1997 at 19:12

Oops, make that SEEKING ANSWERS from the *left*-hand side of the menu. I make mistakes, but God knows His right from His left. That makes me breathe much easier (|8-{> Whew! Gotta go, probably for the rest of the evening.
--Diakon--
Bible Teacher and Editor,
The Christian Conservative Opinion Pages
--http://www.jps.net/tccop


B.D. In Response To Diakon Friday November 14, 1997 at 21:36

I have read the two articles you suggested on you site. I have two problems with your conclusions. 1) The primary assumption that you base your "exegesis" on is that the Bible is "God's inerrant written Word" & it does not contradict itself. Obviously, this is a leap of faith on your part. Since the Bible was written by men (not God) and since there are apparent contradictions, I do not accept this assumption. 2) You are attempting to modify or reconcile Jesus' words in John 3:16 with Paul's writtings in Romans 8. If Jesus intended there to be a restriction on his promise of eternal life, namely election, why wouldn't he have told this to Nicodemus? cont.


B.D. In Response To Diakon Friday November 14, 1997 at 21:46

If Jesus was God in human form, he would know exactly the method by which salvation is granted. He would have taught election, not belief & works = faith= salvation. John 3:17-18 "For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. Whoever BELIEVES in him is NOT condemned but whomever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son." cont.


B.D. In Response To Diakon Friday November 14, 1997 at 21:54

If, as you believe, all is predestined & only the elected are saved, then what purpose did the sacrifice of Christ serve? In the OT, sacrifices were a demonstration of faith, commanded by God. Belief + Works (sacrifice)= salvation. Jesus' crucifiction was the ultimate sacrifice. his blood replaced the blood of the ritual sacrifice. Thus the new Law which Jesus brought (stated in John 3) is that the ritual sacrifice is no longer needed. Belief only is needed because the sacrifice has already been made. Belief + Works (Jesus' crucifiction)= salvation. cont.


B.D. In Response To Diakon Friday November 14, 1997 at 22:04

John 3 seems to me to still conflict with Romans 8. Several possible explanations exist. 1) Jesus' teachings were incomplete. This would obviously disprove Jesus' holy claims. 2) Jesus intentionally deceived Nicodemus. 3) Paul intentionally deceived the Roman Church. 4) Paul misunderstood the teachings of Christ since he did not witness them himself. This seems most likely since Paul, as a man, was fallable yet there is no logical reason why he would intentionally deceive the Romans. Regardless, your presumption that the Bible does not contradict himself is erroneous. :-)


B.D. In Response To Diakon Friday November 14, 1997 at 22:13

There. I have proven why the Bible says you are wrong, using the only standard you will accept. You say that John 3:16 only applies to the elect. Prove it. Show me another verse that says specifically that God so loved only the elect that he sent Jesus to save them. In this case, I will only accept a direct quote of Christ since I consider Paul a faulty witness. You should have no problem with this limitation since Christ is God according to you. I too have a foundation in Faith (in God, not a book). Seems to me that Faith in our creator is a more solid foundation than Faith in a faulty translation. :-)


Theophilus In Response To B.D. Friday November 14, 1997 at 22:50

If I may answer your challenge to Diakon... John 6:37-40 "All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will by no means cast out. For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me. This is the will of the Father who sent Me, that of all He has given Me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up at the last day. And this is the will of Him who sent Me, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in Him may have everlasting life; and I will raise him up at the last day." So did Christ really mean everyone who sees Him, or just everyone of the elect, i.e. those whom the Father GAVE to Christ? Jesus did not always speak from the Sovereign point of view.


B.D. In Response To Theo Saturday November 15, 1997 at 11:07

You missed the important part of that verse: John 6:40 "For my Father's will is that everyone who looks to the Son AND BELIEVES in him shall have eternal life..." The Father has given Christ dominion over all men. It is God's will or desire that all will be saved (John 6:39), but although God has given Jesus all men, Many Will Be Called, But Few Will Be Chosen. Thus Jesus was given all men, God gave them to Jesus so that all could be saved, but although all have the opportunity, not all will be saved. Only those who look upon Jesus AND BELIEVE will be spared. John 3:16 For God so loved the world (all men) hat he gave Jesus so that those WHO BELIEVE will be saved. No election here. :-)


NOTE FROM DEKE (DIAKON): I RESPONDED TO THIS ASSERTION IN A REPLY TO THEOPHILUS, NEAR THE END OF THIS ARTICLE.
 
 


Diakon In Response To B.D. (1 of 7) Saturday November 15, 1997 at 1:37

Since this will be a seven-part post, there will probably be breaks in the continuity. I will post Link's question and this answer to my website ASAP. I will answer your question using Jesus' testimony alone. First, that God foreknew and predestined Himself (Jesus) to be sacrificed for the salvation of the elect is not an issue of human logic, it is an issue of God's sovereign authority. Jesus said, while He was the radiance of God manifest in mortal flesh (John 10:30; 14:6-14; Exodus 3:14 comp. John 8:58), that not everyone is elected (chosen). Contd.


Diakon In Response To B.D. (2 of 7) Saturday November 15, 1997 at 1:39

Jesus Himself said: Matthew 20:16, "So the last shall be first, and the first last: for MANY BE CALLED, BUT FEW CHOSEN."; John 15:16, "Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain: that whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you."; and 17:6 "I have manifested thy name unto the men which thou gavest me out of the world: thine they were, and thou gavest them me; and they have kept thy word." Note that in each Jesus' statements the whole of humanity is *not* included or even implied to be included among the elect. Contd.


Diakon In Response To B.D. (3 od 7) Saturday November 15, 1997 at 1:40

God (Jesus), before He submitted Himself to flesh (by His sovereign authority), made the BIBLICAL DOCTRINES of predestination and election clear. Keeping His omniscience in mind, here are some O.T. Scriptures touching election: Isaiah 44:1, "Yet now hear, O Jacob my servant; and Israel, whom I have CHOSEN:"; ; 1Samuel 12:22, "For the LORD will not forsake his people for his great name's sake: because it hath pleased the LORD to make you his people."; Psalms 33:12, "Blessed is the nation whose God is the LORD: and the people whom he hath chosen for his own inheritance."; 78:70 "He CHOSE David also his servant, and took him from the sheepfolds." Contd.


Diakon In Response To B.D. (4 of 7) Saturday November 15, 1997 at 2:02

Election in the O.T., Contd.: Psalms 135:4, "For the LORD hath CHOSEN Jacob unto himself, and Israel for his peculiar treasure.; 2Chronicles 6:6, " But I have CHOSEN Jerusalem, that my name might be there; and have chosen David to be over my people Israel."; Malachi 1:2-3, " I have loved you, saith the LORD. Yet ye say, Wherein hast thou loved us? Was not Esau Jacob's brother? saith the LORD: yet I loved Jacob, And I hated Esau, and laid his mountains and his heritage waste for the dragons of the wilderness." Contd.


Diakon In Response To B.D. (5 of 7) Saturday November 15, 1997 at 2:04

Re predestination in the O.T.: 2Kings 19:25, " Hast thou not heard long ago how I have done it, and of ancient times that I have formed it? now have I brought it to pass, that thou shouldest be to lay waste fenced cities into ruinous heaps."; Joshua 11:20, "For it was of the LORD to harden their hearts, that they should come against Israel in battle, that he might destroy them utterly, and that they might have no favour, but that he might destroy them, as the LORD commanded Moses." Contd.


TO B.D. ( 6 of 7)

Diakon In Response To B.D. (6 of 7) Saturday November 15, 1997 at 2:08

In John 3:6-8 Jesus answered Nicodemus' question metaphorically, using Biblical imagery. That is why you think He did not address election in that passage. Its meaning is explained in detail in Paul's epistles, which you excluded. Paul was accepted as an Apostle by Barnabas and the other Apostles (Acts 9:26-29), but even without his teaching, the Bible militates against your position. Again, Jesus Himself declares that there are those whom are called, but not CHOSEN (elected), and there are those whom He (God) chose. Those He chose (elected) did not choose Him. Contd.


Diakon In Response To B.D. (7 of 7) Saturday November 15, 1997 at 3:12

John 3:16 does not apply to those who are only called, it applies only to God's chosen because the acts of a sin-enslaved man are worthless (Isaiah 64:6), and can not save him. Nonetheless, I have no grievous argument with my brethren who trust God and hold other views of the Scripture. I trust God Almighty that many of them are among His elect. In conclusion, you have proven only one thing: you do not understand the Bible because you reject it. Nevertheless, it is still possible that God may have called and elected you, but so far the evidence indicates only a possibility. I'm praying for you. (|;-{> SMILE!
--Diakon--
Bible Teacher and Editor,
The Christian Conservative Opinion Pages
--http://www.jps.net/tccop


B.D. In Response To Diakon Saturday November 15, 1997 at 10:48

I appreciate all the hard work you put into your posts, but you did not follow the rules. I said prove it using Christ's words only, so we have to toss out posts 3,4,5 & parts of 6. It seems, therefore, that your argument hinges upon Matthew 20:16 "Many are called but few are chosen" and " John 15:16, "Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain: that whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you." cont.


B.D. In Response To Diakon Saturday November 15, 1997 at 10:56

Taken in context, these verses do not conflict with my statements about John 3. In John 16:20, Jesus was speaking only to his disciples. The common practice of the time, was for a man to choose to become a disciple of a Rabbi, but in this case, the Rabbi (Jesus) chose his disciples because he had a specific purpose: to go out into the world and preach in his name. In doing so, the masses would hear of Christ's ministry, have the opportunity to believe, and thus be saved (John 3:16). Many are called because many would hear the apostles preach. Few would be chosen because few would believe. The elect were the original 12 called by Christ to spread his word. The rest of us have to choose God (not the other way around.)


Diakon In Response To B.D. (1 of 2) Saturday November 15, 1997 at 13:24

Jesus said that He is God. John 14:9: "... he that hath seen me hath seen the Father ...". In John 8: 58: "... Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.", Jesus is saying that He is God in[/]by quoting Exodus 3:14: "And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you." Every word He spoke in the O.T., and every word He spoke in the N.T. are Jesus' words. because God and Jesus are the same person. Jesus sad (said) so: John 10:30, "I and my Father are one." I met the standard of not using Pauline doctrine, but Jesus' words alone. He was, is, and shall always be God Almighty. contd.


Diakon In Response To B.D. (2 of 2) Saturday November 15, 1997 at 13:25

The Bible says that Jesus *is* God. Your focus on a small part of Scripture *is* taking Jesus' words out of context. The *entire Bible is the context*, not just the Scriptural passages you have quoted. That you reject His being God is not relevant to the debate because you agreed to address the issue from a Biblical perspective. Save for Paul's teaching, we agreed to use *all* of the Bible, not just what is convenient for your position. The passages in John *must* be understood in the context of the *entire* Bible, including omniscience which negates your arguments.
--Diakon
-- Bible Teacher and Editor,
The Christian Conservative Opinion Pages
--http://www.jps.net/tccop


B.D. In Response To Diakon Saturday November 15, 1997 at 13:28

Let me restate my restriction rather than argue a separate topic: Please use Jesus' words as quoted in the four Gospels.


B.D. In Response To Diakon Saturday November 15, 1997 at 13:34

Jesus was preaching often to an uneducated mass (the gentiles). Therefore, his teachings had to be complete in and of themselves. The important doctrines of the OT were repeated by Jesus, therefore his words in the Gospels should be enough for us to understand his meaning. The gentiles would have no grounding in the OT, so unless Jesus was intentionally misleading the Gentiles, his teachings must have been complete. Please restrict yourself, therefore to the Gospels. :-)


Diakon In Response To B.D. Saturday November 15, 1997 at 13:41

I can not do that. If I did, I would imply that I deny that Jesus is God by separating His words from His words. Selecting out parts of the Bible is to wrongly divide God's word. Jesus' words are God's words, and vice-versa. I'll be back later this evening or probably tomorrow. Be kind to poor ol' Zippy, he's a-headin' yer way (a little Arkansas lingo, there).
--Diakon--
Bible Teacher and Editor,
The Christian Conservative Opinion Pages
-- http://www.jps.net/tccop


B.D. In Response To Diakon Saturday November 15, 1997 at 15:59

I would never ask you to deny Jesus is God. I know that this is the core of your existence. What I am asking you to do is to recognize that IF Jesus is God, then his words while in human form on this planet must Be perfect. Since those words are perfect, then they Must be the only context needed. If Jesus was meant to preach to the Whole World, then he must have known that much of the world had no knowledge of the Jewish tradition. Therefore, His teachings must be complete, in and of themselves. Therefore, you should be able to frame any religious principles soley from his words While here in human form on this planet. So please restrict your response to the Gospels. Come on... That's 4 whole books of God's word! :-)


B.D. In Response To Diakon Saturday November 15, 1997 at 16:04

So I will ask you again: Prove that only the elect are saved because God wrote their names in the Book of Life. Prove that belief, faith, works have no bearing. Prove that we have no free will. That all is predetermined. And do this using only quotes from Jesus in the 4 gospels. This should be child's play for one so Wise in the Ways of God, OH CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN TEACHER! :-)


Diakon In Response To B.D. Saturday November 15, 1997 at 16:28

I have already answered those questions using the standard we agreed upon. I WILL NOT "change horses in midstream" to help you to get out of the quagmire you are in. What part of "NO" don't you understand?
--Diakon--
Bible Teacher and Editor,
The Christian Conservative Opinion Pages
-- http://www.jps.net/tccop


B.D. In Response To Diakon Saturday November 15, 1997 at 16:36

What I understand is that you have gotten yourself stuck, pushing an untennable position. At 22:13 I posted " I will only accept a direct quote of Christ since I consider Paul a faulty witness." This was the standard I agreed to. Direct quote means those of Jesus Christ while in human form. Since you have clearly discovered that Christ preached belief, faith and works, not election, I understand why you are unwilling to answer my question. Unless you consider Christ's teachings while here on this planet either imperfect, incomplete or intentionally deceiving, you should be able to support your position using only the Gospels.


B.D. In Response To Diakon Saturday November 15, 1997 at 16:42

I have already met your standard. I gave you an answer that is Biblically based, proving that we are saved by belief & faith. You should be able to meet my standard, which is also biblical, to prove your point. If not, you should concede the point. :-)


Diakon In Response To B.D. Saturday November 15, 1997 at 19:34

You've been defeated using the agreed-upon rules and now you whine for a rematch. Your act reminds me of Bill Cosby's schtick wherein he setus up the Little Bighorn battle like a football game. Custer gets to stand there while all of the indians in the world "ride down on" him. Forget it, I'm no Custer. You've lost and there will be no rematch. I note that in your followup post as I suspected you would following the behavior of all ravening wolves, done the James 1:7-8 and Proverbs. 26:11 schtick. BTW, I wrote this before I read your post. You're painfully predictable; that's why you lost. (|8-{> GRIN!
-- Diakon--
Bible Teacher and Editor,
The Christian Conservative Opinion Pages
--http://www.jps.net/tccop


Diakon In Response To B.D. Saturday November 15, 1997 at 19:43

Oops, that last post was supposed to have been addressed to you. I guess it was obvious. Like I said, I wrote it before I read your reply, and pasted it into the reply field, neglecting to address it to you.
--Diakon--
Bible Teacher and Editor
--http://www.jps.net/tccop


NOTE:

THERE WAS AT LEAST ONE POST FROM HIM AT THIS POINT WHEREIN HE CALLED ME A COWARD FOR REFUSING TO ACCEPT HIS TERMS. THEY WERE POSTED ON SUNDAY, NOVEMBER 18. MY TRACKBALL HAD DEVELOPED PROBLEMS, AND I HAD TO REPLACE THE MICRO SWITCHES. BY THE TIME I RETURNED ON MONDAY TO POST THE FOLLOWING THREE REPLIES, I NEGLECTED TO DOWNLOAD HIS POSTS. AT AROUND 4:30 P.M. THE WEBMASTER DELETED THE FORUM AND I WAS UNABLE TO RETRIVE THEM. HE HAD WRITTEN THE FIRST HATE-REPLY I'VE EVER RECEIVED ON THE INTERNET, BUT IT WAS INITIALLY LOST WHEN THE FORUM WAS DELETED.

END NOTE


TO B.D. (1 OF 3):

Diakon In Response To B.D. Monday November 17, 1997 at 15:19

I rejected your altered terms, using the Gospels alone, because you reject Christ. The Gospels are about Him. I was not about to let you use me as tool to malign and persecute my Savior whom you hate and mock. Your infantile behavior when (you) had been outmaneuvered proved it fruitless to continue. The next time you lost, you'd have again whined like a commie-lib that it wasn't fair. Demanding that I capitulate to your pathetic plea to alter the debate agreement , you took your ball and ran home crying "I've won!." You'd have done just as well to have asked me to restrict the debate to one verse, or even two letters -- like Alpha and Omega. CONTD.


TO B.D. (2 OF 3):

Diakon In Response To B.D. Monday November 17, 1997 at 15:20

1) You reject the God of the Bible, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. 2) You reject the Bible as the word of God. 3) You substitute another god of your mind's creation for Him (idolatry). 4) You reject Jesus as God despite His declarations and the evidence of history, and hate and accuse Him. 5) You have accused Jesus/God of being a deceiver on November 14, 1997 at 22:04 "...Jesus intentionally deceived Nicodemus...". 6) BUT, you are unscrupulous enough to manipulate the Bible to satisfy your hatred of God and His incarnation in His Son by disguising it as debate. You know that there is no common ground for us to debate upon, for you hate and mock Jesus; so, clearly, you are pursing an antichrist agenda. CONTD.


TO B.D. (3 OF 3):

Diakon In Response To B.D. Monday November 17, 1997 at 15:22

The Bible describes all of you who hate Jehovah God who is my Savior Christ Jesus thus: Psalms 14:1, "The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.": 2John 7, "For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist." Mark 9:42, "And whosoever shall offend one of these little ones that believe in me, it is better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he were cast into the sea." You are AN antichrist, debating the Bible to destroy weak believer's faith. May God have mercy upon you. I doubt that He will.
--Diakon


NOTE:

AGAIN THERE WERE A SERIES OF CRUDE AND RUDE PUBLIC POSTS FROM "B.D.;" CHILDISH ATTEMPTS TO GOAD ME INTO FURTHER REPLY. THEY FAILED. I HAD DECIDED THAT I WOULD NEVER DEAL WITH THAT DECEIVER AGAIN, OR AT LEAST IN THE FORESEEABLE FUTURE.

AFTER THE RELIGION FORUM WAS CLOSED BY THE WEBMASTER, B.D. SENT HIS MOST VITRIOLIC POST TO MY E-MAIL ADDRESS. HE ALSO POSTED THE REPLY SEVERAL MORE TIMES WHEN THE RELIGION FORUM RETURNED. THE E-MAIL VERSION IS AT THE END OF THIS PAGE, INCLUDING THE FAILED INFANTILE RETALIATION HE ATTEMPTED.

END NOTE


Diakon In Response To Theophilus Monday November 17, 1997 at 16:02

There is a spiritual aspect of John 6:36-40 that you didn't address (incl. v.44- 46). Although that aspect can be seen in the former passages alone, given that "behold" is understood spiritually (the world is spiritually blind), it becomes more apparent when compared to John 17: 24 where Jesus prays concerning God's elect: "Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast GIVEN me, be with me where I am;..." John 17:20-25 is clearly not about the entire world, but about those chosen out of the world (elect) who can see spiritually. Verse 25 makes this clear:"...I know you, and they know you have sent me." The sin-blinded world can not know Him (Deut. 29:4; Is. 29:10-11; Jer. 5:21; Eze. 12:2; Romans 2:4). --Deke



 
 
 
NOTE FROM DEKE (DIAKON):

I HAD REPLIED TO TAH, WHO MISUNDERSTANDS EITHER MATTHEW 7:3: "And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?" OR MATTHEW:7:5: "Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye." I POINTED OUT TO HER THAT B.D. IS NOT MY BROTHER, BUT AN ACCUSER OF THE BRETHREN. TAH HAD MISUNDERSTOOD "BROTHER" TO MEAN A SIBLING OR RELATION. I REPLIED TO HER THAT "BROTHER" IS A SPIRITUAL CONCEPT, AND THAT JESUS WAS TALKING TO HIS JEWISH BRETHREN. WHEN I TRIED TO POST IT, THE FORUM WAS CLOSED.

I HAVE RETAINED ALL OF THE EXCHANGES I HAVE HAD WITH THIS "GENTLEMAN" SINCE FIRST COMING TO THE REAGAN RELIGION AND POLITICS WEBFORUM. I CAN BACK UP EVERY WORD I HAVE WRITTEN.

I RECEIVED THE FOLLOWING PIECE OF E-MAIL SHORTLY BEFORE THE WEBFORUM WAS CLOSED. HIS CHILDISH ATTEMPT TO "SPAM" MY MAILBOX FAILED. THIS E-MAIL ADDRESS IS QUITE PROBABLY A FAKE, SO DON'T REPLY TO HIM UNLESS YOU ARE CERTAIN THAT IT BELONGS TO HIM! MY ISP BLOCKED HIS WHOLLY IGNORANT, PUTRESCENT, AND PUERILE "SPAM JOB." I DID NOT AND WILL NOT REPLY TO HIM AGAIN. HIS MESSAGE SPEAKS FOR ITSELF:

END OF NOTE


From: b.d <xxx@xxxxxxxx.xx>
To: "'tccop@jps.net'" <tccop@jps.net>

Cc: "'tccop@jps.net'" <tccop@jps.net>, "'tccop@jps.net'" <tccop@jps.net>, "'tccop@jps.net'" <tccop@jps.net>, "'tccop@jps.net'" <tccop@jps.net>, "'tccop@jps.net'" <tccop@jps.net>, "'tccop@jps.net'" <tccop@jps.net>

Cc: "'tccop@jps.net'" <tccop@jps.net>, "'tccop@jps.net'" <tccop@jps.net>, "'tccop@jps.net'" <tccop@jps.net>, "'tccop@jps.net'" <tccop@jps.net>, "'tccop@jps.net'" <tccop@jps.net>, "'tccop@jps.net'" <tccop@jps.net>

Cc: "'tccop@jps.net'" <tccop@jps.net>, "'tccop@jps.net'" <tccop@jps.net>, "'tccop@jps.net'" <tccop@jps.net>, "'tccop@jps.net'" <tccop@jps.net>, "'tccop@jps.net'" <tccop@jps.net>, "'tccop@jps.net'" <tccop@jps.net>

Cc: "'tccop@jps.net'" <tccop@jps.net>, "'tccop@jps.net'" <tccop@jps.net>, "'tccop@jps.net'" <tccop@jps.net>, "'tccop@jps.net'" <tccop@jps.net>, "'tccop@jps.net'" <tccop@jps.net>, "'tccop@jps.net'" <tccop@jps.net>
Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 16:29:15 -0800

Bigot. n. "A person who regards his own faith and views in matters of religion as unquestionably right, and any belief or opinion opposed to or differing from them as unreasonable or wicked. In an extended sense, a person who is intolerant of opinions which conflict with his own, as in politics or morals; one obstinately and blindly devoted to his own church, party, belief, or opinion. " - Websters Sound familiar? "You are AN antichrist, debating the Bible..." You should know better & you should be ashamed. You will not cause me to cower or run & hide by calling me anti-christ. I CALL YOU BIGOT! & I PITY YOU!


Conclusion:

You have probably noticed that this "gentleman," following the style of the hypocrite he accused me of being, has edited out the context of my post, making it sound like I have attacked Biblical debate. If you know me, you know that nothing could be further from the truth. I support debate among believers and unbelievers, but I do not support and will not engage in debate with anyone who accuses Jesus Christ of being a liar, even indirectly when he wrote ".... Several possible explanations exist. 1) Jesus' teachings were incomplete. This would obviously disprove Jesus' holy claims. 2) Jesus intentionally deceived Nicodemus. ...." He proved his mettle when he wrote his first vitriolic post to "Young Disciple", a Christian brother in pain because his wife had just left him. You decide who the bigot and deceiver is.

Again, if you are a Christian who thinks the Bible teaches that I should "turn the other cheek" to an enemy of Christ, or that I should not have "judged" this vicious hate-monger, consider that Jesus was speaking to His brethren when He made those declarations. This anti-Christ deceiver is NOT one of my brethren. I do not turn my cheek to, or for any enemy of God. If you doubt my reasons for this, check this website  www.chesco.com/~topcat/ap.html.  It explains with crystal-clarity my reasons for not tolerating the loathsome arrogance, insolence, and outright anti-Christ hatred and bigotry of people like like the phony conservative, "B.D.."

Doulos kai diakonos Christou Iesou
(Greek: A slave and servant in Christ Jesus)
Diakon


RETURN LINK TO LETTERS PAGE

11-27-97

Hosting by WebRing.