SECURITY VS. PRIVACY II??
Ted McMillan
<see...@spam.seeberfamily.org> wrote:
>Address munged to prevent spam, remove "spam." to reply, In message <56u7rtojqlj7if7ro...@4ax.com>, Ted McMillan <tmac...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>> THIS IS TO DEMONSTRATE MILLIONS OF MINDS ALL AROUND US WHO ARE
>> PREPARING FOR THE MOST STARTLING INQUISITION SINCE THE CREATION OF THE
>> WORLD AGAINST A FREE PEOPLE!
>
>Then you're an idiot, since I'm not stockpiling weapons or planing on labeling everybody else as inhuman.
>
Pardon the Christian words and spirit you just issued against me.
But, no one said that you were stockpiling weapons. But yes you are
labeling others as inhuman. Remember how the pictures showing the
atrocities of your Ustashis of WWII were faked and how upset you got
that people would think ill of them? You don't think they're inhuman,
so what is the problem?
>> >That just proves that you have not bothered to read EITHER my webpage at http://seeberfamily.org/IDIC/public_html/
>> >OR all of my usenet postings.
>> >
>>
>> Why should I? Doesn't it say on that web page that MAYBE the Vatican
>> wasn't behind the St. Bartholomew massacre?
>
>No, only you have mentioned that idea.
>
I didn't say that your web site says these words. You said these
words on this newsgroup, but you are just adding in those words to
deny it. Remember, don't we see that you are only posting against me
because you know that I am paranoid? There must be a reason why I am
the only concern and subject for you today.
>> And your Pope now
>> apologizes for being persecuted according to you? Why should I waste
>> my time?
>
>Nope, doesn't say that either. I suggest anybody not be prejudiced by the anti-Ted, and judge my writings as my writings alone.
>
GOOD AND TRUE. Even your opinions that "Liberty is useless and only
causes schism," is firmly in Vatican doctrine. That is why when you
said that these words were just your opinion, you were again lying
boldly to the world.
>> >>Requesting
>> >> citizens to give up their rights because of impending
>> >> crisis IS something that was requested and tried before.
>> >
>> >In your dreams maybe.
Maybe? Maybe? I suppose that Christ always said things that were
definite and then often switched tracks because He was such a truthful
and authoritative guy? Make the suggestion then that the citizens
give up their rights for security, but don't forget to add that you
believe that:
"Maybe the Catholic Church was not responsible for the Massacre of St.
Bartholomew!"
>> >
>>
>> The Communist and Nazi governments were not in my dreams. Neither is
>> the idea that MAYBE your Vatican was responsible for the St.
>> Bartholomew Massacre in my dreams.
>
>That the Vatican was behind either has been disproven by the people who lived through those times.
Where is the proof again? We always miss it from your posts!
>I suggest that they know better than a spoiled rotten aging hippie
Temper temper lover boy!
>who thinks he knows the meaning of the word "liberty", and who never even fought for his country.
>
Someone seems to know whether or not I fought for my country! Since I
am the only paranoid concern of Seeber posting on these newsgroups to
the point where he cannot ignore an ass, idiot, dummy, wacko,
psychotic nut, what other records did he think he tapped into in order
to figure out his strange new obsession?
Please now show us that the Vatican was not responsible for the
Massacre of St. Bartholomew. In the meantime you can enumerate for us
what she has apologized for.
>> >>It produced
>> >> the most horrible regimes the world has ever known since the
>> >> Reformation!
>> >
>> >Ah, and now the Reformation is a horrible regime to you too.
>> >
>>
Maybe!
>> You can say that if you want and confirm that Rome has not changed.
>> But I didn't say that. I have always defended the Reformation.
>
>It's clear to everybody that above you said that I represent the most horrible regime since the Reformation.
the words above say, "It produced the most horrible regimes the world
has ever known..." Ok then, you are an it! But you are not saying
"maybe" anymore. You leave it out when you want and force it in when
you want, but I don't believe your words!
>And thus, you compare me to the Reformation.
Maybe? I defend the Reformation. I defend Seeber? Maybe?
>Anybody else see why I call the anti-Ted insane?
Maybe you know the thoughts of anybody else? Everybody else is
posting about love and telling us not to attack each other. Why did
you call me insane and always do what you can to make everyone believe
that I am insane? Why do you constantly post to an insane person and
lecture all against being paranoid?
>
>> >> A new twist for economic theory or decentralization is
>> >> not going to change anything. Even communist theory was for
>> >> decentralization, but it was hosted by equal liars and never
>> >> decentralized.
>> >
>> >And thus, decentralization has never been tried, has it?
>>
>> :-P
>
>Is that all you can do, stick out your tounge when you prove me right?
>
Is that all you do, say "Maybe" when you prove me right?
You say "maybe" too often to be proven right. The textbooks are long
in proving what caused the Massacre of St. Bartholomew. A great
percentage of Protestants lived no more after the Massacre, so "maybe"
the Protestants did it.
But no, my tongue there just proves that the Catholic Church IS
responsible for the massacre of St. Bartholomew. When I prove you
right is when I become sane in your eyes.
Decentralization has been suggested over and over again. Once
opportunity was given for the person suggesting it to put it into
action, it was NEVER done. Calling for citizens to give up their
rights for the benefit of the government is the opposite of
decentralization. It gives far more power to government.
>> >> >So what? Hitler was for a centralized government.
>>
>> If Hitler's government was to return, my reaction would not be "So
>> what!"
>
You would rejoice. You sure are bringing back some of its principles:
Let's create a police state for security!
But you present solutions that Hitler suggested: for citizens to give
up their liberties for security. The same result was the result.
When will they get back their liberties again since you told us before
the terrorist attacks that "liberty is useless and only causes
schism?"
>Ah, but Hitler's government IS returning, in the form of fundamentalist terrorism the world over.
>
I thought that Hitler had too much control instead of his country
being ruled by people who were not part of the government!
That is how it was!
>> >> The communists were not, but it worked out that way. I rather not
>> >> believe someone who has communist leanings and is also dishonest.
>> >
>> >That's your problem, not mine.
You said that "maybe the Catholic Church is not responsible for the
Massacre of St. Bartholomew!" From that statement you don't seem to
have any problem in the world except you cannot ignore Ted McMillan,
but you know about the horrors of paranoia!
>> Despots like you are not just your problem. We try to expose you so
>> that the people can understand the cause of their historic and future
>> problems.
>
>My point is that you are the one with the problem, nobody else. You see despots everywhere, on the net, in the world.
I should rather believe that it is natural for someone to post on the
newsgroups that "liberty is useless and only causes schism." And
since I am the problem and paranoid, maybe we can find out why Seeber
constantly posts against such a looney as me?
>You have no freedom left; your own fear has stolen it from you.
>
But Seeber told us that "liberty is useless and only causes schism!"
What is he talking about? Read this article:
http://www.seventh-dayadventism.org/JesuitInfiltrationI.html
>> >> Just like George Bush with his "faith-based" programs struggling to
>> >> get rid of the Separation of Church and State. You also want to get
>> >> rid of it and the intelligent therefore know that you are a tyrant and
>> >> a persecutor trying to cry differences in your same redundant plans in
>> >> order to get it through.
>> >
>> >Nowhere in the Constitution will you find "Separation of Church and State". Guess it wasn't important > >enough to include.
>>
>> The Constitution tells us that Congress shall make no law with respect
>> to religion nor to prohibit the free exercise thereof.
>
>The words "Separation of Church and State" are not in there.
>
The words "Separation of Church and State" doesn't have to be there
and YOU KNOW IT!
Hebrews 4 tells us, speaking of the Children of Israel in the Old
Testament, that, 2 For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as
unto them: but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed
with faith in them that heard it.
The word GOSPEL is found NOWHERE in the Old Testament. You have not
proved a principle false by its given name.
>> The
>> Constitution is against religious persecution, and Separation of
>> Church and state was to stop persecuting Vatican despots like Seeber
>> in their tracks.
>
>Ah, but you see, those words aren't in there.
Neither are the words, "Liberty is useless and only causes schism!"
>All we have to do is make no laws respecting RELIGION. Nobody ever said anything about allowing guns and knives on airplanes, or your right to travel without questioning, or your right to write e-mail that the owners of the network don't read.
Seeber was the one who said that we must give the government the right
to INTERPRET the constitution till they arrive at the same conclusion
he does that, "liberty is useless and only causes schism." Now since
he was so much in favor of interpretation to place principles upon us
that are not literally written down in the Constitution, he tells us
that some of the fundamental principles that are in the Constitution
are not literally described and therefore they are not there and have
no meaning.
>> >> You told us that our freedoms are outdated
>> >> since Martin Luther and tried to cover over the fact that your
>> >> prescriptions date even earlier to a horrible global government.
>> >
>> >Either that or Martin Luther was human and not God either.
>>
But you told us that our freedoms are outdated
since Martin Luther and tried to cover over the fact that your
prescriptions date even earlier to a horrible global government.
>> Oh you are talking like you are not sure again when reasoning comes
>> that proves you are by nature a deceiver?
>
>I've never been sure.
You said that your Catholic Church "Absolutely" is the true church.
It is not up for debate and I myself have to believe that.
>I can have moral certainty, but absolute certainty is only given to two classes of beings: God and the insane. God is certain because he knows everything. The insane are certain because they think they know everything.
>
Well it is some type of person who would come up with the idea that
"maybe the Catholic Church wasn't responsible for" any of the things
she is apologizing for. One who would come to this conclusion is
either God or the insane. But since God certainly didn't come to this
conclusion, I allow my readers to ponder the other result.
>> You told us that our freedoms are outdated since Martin Luther and
>> tried to cover over the fact that your prescriptions that in the face
>> of crisis, the citizens need to give up their liberties to the
>> government date even earlier to a horrible global government.
>
>I think that proves which group you belong to.
>
You told us that our freedoms are outdated since Martin Luther and
tried to cover over the fact that your prescriptions in the face
of crisis, the citizens need to give up their liberties to the
government date even earlier to a horrible global government.
>> >Nope, as you admited above, none of them ever decentralized.
>>
I said that of the communist and Nazi governments, not about the
religious insitution that established them. Seeber knows this folks.
>> Well then we will not trust you to decentralize also.
>
>Don't have to; look at my webpage and what I say about "electronic democracy".
We see what you said when you wrote that "maybe the Catholic Church
isn't responsible for the Massacre of St. Bartholomew" not to mention
any other thing she is apologizing for! While she apologizes, many
like you on the internet and other media struggle to prove that the
only problem during those years were the evil Protestants who
persecuted your church.
For the Work Finished!
Ted McMillan
THE LAST WORD ON ADVENTIST TRUTH!!
http://www.seventh-dayadventism.org
For the Work Finished!
Ted McMillan
THE LAST WORD ON ADVENTIST TRUTH!!
http://www.seventh-dayadventism.org
Theodore M. Seeber
> On Sat, 29 Sep 2001 05:22:08 GMT, "Theodore M. Seeber"
> <see...@spam.seeberfamily.org> wrote:
>
> >Address munged to prevent spam, remove "spam." to reply, In message <56u7rtojqlj7if7ro...@4ax.com>, Ted McMillan <tmac...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> >> THIS IS TO DEMONSTRATE MILLIONS OF MINDS ALL AROUND US WHO ARE
> >> PREPARING FOR THE MOST STARTLING INQUISITION SINCE THE CREATION OF THE
> >> WORLD AGAINST A FREE PEOPLE!
> >
> >Then you're an idiot, since I'm not stockpiling weapons or planing on labeling everybody else as inhuman.
> >
>
> Pardon the Christian words and spirit you just issued against me.
> But, no one said that you were stockpiling weapons.
My point is that the ones who are, are the ones really against a free people.
>But yes you are
> labeling others as inhuman. Remember how the pictures showing the
> atrocities of your Ustashis of WWII were faked and how upset you got
> that people would think ill of them? You don't think they're inhuman,
> so what is the problem?
That's my point. I'm not the one saying "you're not people".
> >> >That just proves that you have not bothered to read EITHER my webpage at http://seeberfamily.org/IDIC/public_html/
> >> >OR all of my usenet postings.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Why should I? Doesn't it say on that web page that MAYBE the Vatican
> >> wasn't behind the St. Bartholomew massacre?
> >
> >No, only you have mentioned that idea.
>
> I didn't say that your web site says these words.
Read the sentence above again, then tell us what you were trying to say.
The web page has my political agenda.
> You said these
> words on this newsgroup, but you are just adding in those words to
> deny it. Remember, don't we see that you are only posting against me
> because you know that I am paranoid? There must be a reason why I am
> the only concern and subject for you today.
Newsgroup posts are not evidence.
> >Nope, doesn't say that either. I suggest anybody not be prejudiced by the anti-Ted, and judge my writings as > >my writings alone.
>
> GOOD AND TRUE. Even your opinions that "Liberty is useless and only
> causes schism," is firmly in Vatican doctrine. That is why when you
> said that these words were just your opinion, you were again lying
> boldly to the world.
Doctrine itself is merely opinion. Where did you get the idea that it wasn't?
> >> The Communist and Nazi governments were not in my dreams. Neither is
> >> the idea that MAYBE your Vatican was responsible for the St.
> >> Bartholomew Massacre in my dreams.
> >
> >That the Vatican was behind either has been disproven by the people who lived through those times.
>
> Where is the proof again? We always miss it from your posts!
There is no proof of anything. There can't be, because evidence itself is only opinion, and does not exist.
> >I suggest that they know better than a spoiled rotten aging hippie
>
> Temper temper lover boy!
What temper? I'm just pointing out what everybody knows already from your posts. The only anger in usenet is that which the reader brings.
> >who thinks he knows the meaning of the word "liberty", and who never even fought for his country.
>
> Someone seems to know whether or not I fought for my country! Since I
> am the only paranoid concern of Seeber posting on these newsgroups to
> the point where he cannot ignore an ass, idiot, dummy, wacko,
> psychotic nut, what other records did he think he tapped into in order
> to figure out his strange new obsession?
Oh, come on. You obviously haven't seen my posts in alt.2600 on how easily it is to trace people and their public lives.
> Please now show us that the Vatican was not responsible for the
> Massacre of St. Bartholomew. In the meantime you can enumerate for us
> what she has apologized for.
She has appologised for the Reformation. She appologised for the Crusades, and the Inquisitions. Never has she appologised for the wet dreams of aging hippies.
> >> >>It produced
> >> >> the most horrible regimes the world has ever known since the
> >> >> Reformation!
> >> >
> >> >Ah, and now the Reformation is a horrible regime to you too.
> >> >
> >>
>
> Maybe!
Just going on your WRITINGS.
> >> You can say that if you want and confirm that Rome has not changed.
> >> But I didn't say that. I have always defended the Reformation.
> >
> >It's clear to everybody that above you said that I represent the most horrible regime since the Reformation.
>
> the words above say, "It produced the most horrible regimes the world
> has ever known..." Ok then, you are an it! But you are not saying
> "maybe" anymore. You leave it out when you want and force it in when
> you want, but I don't believe your words!
I'm just repeating what you write. If you don't believe YOUR own words, then whose fault is that?
> >And thus, you compare me to the Reformation.
>
> Maybe? I defend the Reformation. I defend Seeber? Maybe?
You stopped defending the Reformation above when you called it an evil regime.
> >Anybody else see why I call the anti-Ted insane?
>
> Maybe you know the thoughts of anybody else? Everybody else is
> posting about love and telling us not to attack each other. Why did
> you call me insane and always do what you can to make everyone believe
> that I am insane? Why do you constantly post to an insane person and
> lecture all against being paranoid?
Because it's something fun to do, messing with a mind that's already so messed up that he can't figure out if he's defending the reformation or if it's an evil regime.
> >> >And thus, decentralization has never been tried, has it?
> >>
> >> :-P
> >
> >Is that all you can do, stick out your tounge when you prove me right?
> >
>
> Is that all you do, say "Maybe" when you prove me right?
Apparently, you never figured out the use of SARCASM.
> You say "maybe" too often to be proven right. The textbooks are long
> in proving what caused the Massacre of St. Bartholomew. A great
> percentage of Protestants lived no more after the Massacre, so "maybe"
> the Protestants did it.
The textbooks written by Protestantism are quite long in making up lies.
> But no, my tongue there just proves that the Catholic Church IS
> responsible for the massacre of St. Bartholomew. When I prove you
> right is when I become sane in your eyes.
Not at all, even a broken clock is right twice a day.
> Decentralization has been suggested over and over again. Once
> opportunity was given for the person suggesting it to put it into
> action, it was NEVER done. Calling for citizens to give up their
> rights for the benefit of the government is the opposite of
> decentralization. It gives far more power to government.
Depends. If it comes with an electronic democracy, what then? Oh yeah, you haven't read:
http://seeberfamily.org/idic/public_html/ yet have you?
> >> If Hitler's government was to return, my reaction would not be "So
> >> what!"
> >
>
> You would rejoice. You sure are bringing back some of its principles:
> Let's create a police state for security!
I want to note that at this point, Ted's responding to his own quote. Let's snip down and see if he's actually smart enough to respond to anything I wrote.
> >Ah, but Hitler's government IS returning, in the form of fundamentalist terrorism the world over.
>
> I thought that Hitler had too much control instead of his country
> being ruled by people who were not part of the government!
The fundamentalist terrorists are becoming the government.
> That is how it was!
And how it already is today when some nut with a gun can hold up a 7-11.
> >My point is that you are the one with the problem, nobody else. You see despots everywhere, on the net, in > >the world.
>
> I should rather believe that it is natural for someone to post on the
> newsgroups that "liberty is useless and only causes schism." And
> since I am the problem and paranoid, maybe we can find out why Seeber
> constantly posts against such a looney as me?
Because if I didn't, the looney would bring the opposite charge.
> >You have no freedom left; your own fear has stolen it from you.
>
> But Seeber told us that "liberty is useless and only causes schism!"
> What is he talking about? Read this article:
http://seeberfamily.org/IDIC/public_html/idicpp.html is the correct address for my political views.
> >> The Constitution tells us that Congress shall make no law with respect
> >> to religion nor to prohibit the free exercise thereof.
> >
> >The words "Separation of Church and State" are not in there.
> >
>
> The words "Separation of Church and State" doesn't have to be there
> and YOU KNOW IT!
And thus, they are an INTERPRETATION of the text, and now, the anti-Ted
will attempt to interpret a Bible that his kindergarten education has left him unable
to understand:
> Hebrews 4 tells us, speaking of the Children of Israel in the Old
> Testament, that, 2 For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as
> unto them: but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed
> with faith in them that heard it.
>
> The word GOSPEL is found NOWHERE in the Old Testament. You have not
> proved a principle false by its given name.
My point is that the principle does not exist in literal form in the Constitution AT ALL.
> >Ah, but you see, those words aren't in there.
>
> Neither are the words, "Liberty is useless and only causes schism!"
Correct, but unlike you, I don't think that the Constitution is scripture.
> >All we have to do is make no laws respecting RELIGION. Nobody ever said anything about allowing guns > >and knives on airplanes, or your right to travel without questioning, or your right to write e-mail that the > >owners of the network don't read.
>
> Seeber was the one who said that we must give the government the right
> to INTERPRET the constitution till they arrive at the same conclusion
> he does that, "liberty is useless and only causes schism." Now since
> he was so much in favor of interpretation to place principles upon us
> that are not literally written down in the Constitution, he tells us
> that some of the fundamental principles that are in the Constitution
> are not literally described and therefore they are not there and have
> no meaning.
No, what I said is, liberty is useless and causes schism. I made no link to the constitution in that statement, the history of apostacy in the Protestant Reformation is sufficient for that claim.
> >> >Either that or Martin Luther was human and not God either.
>
> But you told us that our freedoms are outdated
> since Martin Luther and tried to cover over the fact that your
> prescriptions date even earlier to a horrible global government.
Really? Look again at that "horrible global" government, that was NEITHER.
It was Europe alone, not Global. And for 1000 years previous to Martin Luther, it had kept the peace in a way no government since has been able to do.
> >> Oh you are talking like you are not sure again when reasoning comes
> >> that proves you are by nature a deceiver?
> >
> >I've never been sure.
>
> You said that your Catholic Church "Absolutely" is the true church.
> It is not up for debate and I myself have to believe that.
Nope, never said that. I said it was morally certain that it was the true church, not absolute!
> >I can have moral certainty, but absolute certainty is only given to two classes of beings: God and the insane. > >God is certain because he knows everything. The insane are certain because they think they know > >everything.
>
> Well it is some type of person who would come up with the idea that
> "maybe the Catholic Church wasn't responsible for" any of the things
> she is apologizing for. One who would come to this conclusion is
> either God or the insane. But since God certainly didn't come to this
> conclusion, I allow my readers to ponder the other result.
:-) Except for one thing: the Catholic Church didn't appologize for any of the things you accuse people unconnected with her of doing.
> >I think that proves which group you belong to.
>
> You told us that our freedoms are outdated since Martin Luther and
> tried to cover over the fact that your prescriptions in the face
> of crisis, the citizens need to give up their liberties to the
> government date even earlier to a horrible global government.
How was such a government global, in the years before the Western Hemisphere were discovered?
> >Don't have to; look at my webpage and what I say about "electronic democracy".
>
> We see what you said when you wrote that "maybe the Catholic Church
> isn't responsible for the Massacre of St. Bartholomew" not to mention
> any other thing she is apologizing for!
Once again, look at http://seeberfamily.org/idic/public_html/
> While she apologizes, many
> like you on the internet and other media struggle to prove that the
> only problem during those years were the evil Protestants who
> persecuted your church.
Except of course, the fact that you can not point to ANY such appology.
Ted
--
Family Websites: http:/seeberfamily.org
"Never start a fight. But if someone starts a fight with you, finish it and win"- Capt. John Sheridan, Babylon 5
Ted McMillan
<see...@spam.seeberfamily.org> wrote:
>Address munged to prevent spam, remove "spam." to reply, In message <f53brt8cqk2bgr4l5...@4ax.com>, Ted McMillan <tmac...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, 29 Sep 2001 05:22:08 GMT, "Theodore M. Seeber"
>> <see...@spam.seeberfamily.org> wrote:
>>
>> >Address munged to prevent spam, remove "spam." to reply, In message <56u7rtojqlj7if7ro...@4ax.com>, Ted McMillan <tmac...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>> >> THIS IS TO DEMONSTRATE MILLIONS OF MINDS ALL AROUND US WHO ARE
>> >> PREPARING FOR THE MOST STARTLING INQUISITION SINCE THE CREATION OF THE
>> >> WORLD AGAINST A FREE PEOPLE!
>> >
>> >Then you're an idiot, since I'm not stockpiling weapons or planing on labeling everybody else as inhuman.
>> >
>>
>> Pardon the Christian words and spirit you just issued against me.
>> But, no one said that you were stockpiling weapons.
>
>My point is that the ones who are, are the ones really against a free people.
>
The US Army is against a free people? The ones who put the ammendment
into the Constitution to bear arms are against a free people? But
don't tell me! The ones who believe that "liberty is useless and only
causes schism" are NOT against a free people!
I don't believe that liberty is useless. So I don't worry about the
fact that Americans are free. I would go to church and never think a
thing about it. Many have been taught by people like you who believe
liberty is useless, to just focus on Christ and not to look on anybody
else.
I am smarter than that. I don't leave the decision for who is against
those who are free to those who believe that "liberty is useless and
only causes schism." The Constitution gives the citizesn the right to
bear arms just in case they suddenly find out that their positions of
authority, education and religiosity are infested with people who
believe that liberty is useless and only causes schism.
Every American has the right to bear arms. This is not because they
don't have to do that because they have a government. The
Constitution was made to protect the citizens from government, and
therefore they were also paranoid conspiracy theorists as the enemies
ofl liberty would naturally say.
Theodore M. Seeber
http://www.skirsch.com/politics/plane/ultimate.htm
Since the Anti-Ted is so against the loss of liberty, I thought it might be prudent to find something NOT WRITTEN BY ME that describes just how much loss of liberty I support.
And how such a loss of liberty could actually increase our freedom.
Ted
Theodore M. Seeber
> On Tue, 02 Oct 2001 04:11:01 GMT, "Theodore M. Seeber"
> <see...@spam.seeberfamily.org> wrote:
>
> >Address munged to prevent spam, remove "spam." to reply, In message <f53brt8cqk2bgr4l5...@4ax.com>, Ted McMillan <tmac...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> >> On Sat, 29 Sep 2001 05:22:08 GMT, "Theodore M. Seeber"
> >> <see...@spam.seeberfamily.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Address munged to prevent spam, remove "spam." to reply, In message <56u7rtojqlj7if7ro...@4ax.com>, Ted McMillan <tmac...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> >> >> THIS IS TO DEMONSTRATE MILLIONS OF MINDS ALL AROUND US WHO ARE
> >> >> PREPARING FOR THE MOST STARTLING INQUISITION SINCE THE CREATION OF THE
> >> >> WORLD AGAINST A FREE PEOPLE!
> >> >
> >> >Then you're an idiot, since I'm not stockpiling weapons or planing on labeling everybody else as inhuman.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Pardon the Christian words and spirit you just issued against me.
> >> But, no one said that you were stockpiling weapons.
> >
> >My point is that the ones who are, are the ones really against a free people.
>
> The US Army is against a free people?
The US Army is not an individual.
> The ones who put the ammendment
> into the Constitution to bear arms are against a free people?
Read the rest of the sentence, especially the part about a "well-regulated militia". The US Army is a well regulated militia. You are not.
>But
> don't tell me! The ones who believe that "liberty is useless and only
> causes schism" are NOT against a free people!
That's right, because true liberty and freedom come from God, not from a government.
> I don't believe that liberty is useless. So I don't worry about the
> fact that Americans are free. I would go to church and never think a
> thing about it. Many have been taught by people like you who believe
> liberty is useless, to just focus on Christ and not to look on anybody
> else.
Ah, but you don't, do you? Go to church that is. You quit going to church when they
started talking eccumenism. And yes, Christ is our one mediator, our true Lord, our
true governor. Why should we focus on any mere human government?
> I am smarter than that. I don't leave the decision for who is against
> those who are free to those who believe that "liberty is useless and
> only causes schism." The Constitution gives the citizesn the right to
> bear arms just in case they suddenly find out that their positions of
> authority, education and religiosity are infested with people who
> believe that liberty is useless and only causes schism.
And yet, you're the proof of it. You use your liberty to create schism in the SDA!
> Every American has the right to bear arms. This is not because they
> don't have to do that because they have a government. The
> Constitution was made to protect the citizens from government, and
> therefore they were also paranoid conspiracy theorists as the enemies
> ofl liberty would naturally say.
Nope. Only Americans who are a part of a "well regulated militia" have the right
to bear arms.
But everybody has the right to arm bears.
Ted McMillan
<see...@spam.seeberfamily.org> wrote:
>Address munged to prevent spam, remove "spam." to reply, In message <79kjrt4tastcn9ldv...@4ax.com>, Ted McMillan <tmac...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 02 Oct 2001 04:11:01 GMT, "Theodore M. Seeber"
>> <see...@spam.seeberfamily.org> wrote:
>>
>> >Address munged to prevent spam, remove "spam." to reply, In message <f53brt8cqk2bgr4l5...@4ax.com>, Ted McMillan <tmac...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>> >> On Sat, 29 Sep 2001 05:22:08 GMT, "Theodore M. Seeber"
>> >> <see...@spam.seeberfamily.org> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >Address munged to prevent spam, remove "spam." to reply, In message <56u7rtojqlj7if7ro...@4ax.com>, Ted McMillan <tmac...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>> >> >> THIS IS TO DEMONSTRATE MILLIONS OF MINDS ALL AROUND US WHO ARE
>> >> >> PREPARING FOR THE MOST STARTLING INQUISITION SINCE THE CREATION OF THE
>> >> >> WORLD AGAINST A FREE PEOPLE!
>> >> >
>> >> >Then you're an idiot, since I'm not stockpiling weapons or planing on labeling everybody else as inhuman.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> Pardon the Christian words and spirit you just issued against me.
>> >> But, no one said that you were stockpiling weapons.
>> >
>> >My point is that the ones who are, are the ones really against a free people.
>>
>> The US Army is against a free people?
>
>The US Army is not an individual.
>
Does the US army stockpile weapons? Sorry Pal. The Constitution
provides for protection against Seebers that might infiltrate the
Federal government. There are Patriots and all who have gun
collections, but they have no intention of attacking the free people
with them. Of course, this statement won't convince a despot. I
heard someone tell us that "liberty is useless and only causes
schism." He told us that we should give up our liberties because of
the terrorism, and then told us that the Constitution didn't provide
for these liberties at all anyway. Only an insane despot would come
to the conclusion that someone using these words is not against a free
people.
>> The ones who put the ammendment
>> into the Constitution to bear arms are against a free people?
>
>Read the rest of the sentence, especially the part about a "well-regulated militia". The US Army is a well regulated militia. You are not.
>
RIGHT! I am not a militia PERIOD. I own no guns. Of course, you
have the ability to tell everyone that I do own guns even though I
don't.
A well regulated militia is an organization that may be called to
defend a free people against a tyrannical government. There are such
well regulated militias around the country. The forefathers
understood that this could happen to the American government, being
the "Conspiracy theorists" that they were. The very mention of a
militia means that they were not talking about the government. Still,
the right to bear arms was meant for THE PEOPLE: for the ones Seeber
is struggling to take away their liberties instead of worshipping
Christ like other Christians such as Cindy and Donna. YUK!
According to the Vatican despots, our national forefathers were insane
for making provision for conspiracy by tyrannical forces against the
government through infiltration. But yet also while your globalist
despots in the government today are uncovering "CONSPIRACIES"
concerning Bin Laden, there doesn't seem to be any concern about them
being conspiracy minded!.
And what are you waiting for? Why are you not accusing the American
government for embracing a conspiracy mentality?
>>But
>> don't tell me! The ones who believe that "liberty is useless and only
>> causes schism" are NOT against a free people!
>
>That's right, because true liberty and freedom come from God, not from a government.
>
The statement doesn't show where liberty comes from. It says that
liberty is useless and only causes schism. The point was evaded. The
despot can just claim that it was not.
>> I don't believe that liberty is useless. So I don't worry about the
>> fact that Americans are free. I would go to church and never think a
>> thing about it. Many have been taught by people like you who believe
>> liberty is useless, to just focus on Christ and not to look on anybody
>> else.
>
>Ah, but you don't, do you? Go to church that is. You quit going to church when they
>started talking eccumenism. And yes, Christ is our one mediator, our true Lord, our
>true governor. Why should we focus on any mere human government?
>
Please explain what is this you are saying about my church attendance.
From just worshipping Christ, show us how you can say that I used to
go to church. No wonder you are determined that the US get more
intelligence gathering. Why not just show them your intelligence
gathering techniques and they wouldn't have to call for the people to
give up their privacy!
>> I am smarter than that. I don't leave the decision for who is against
>> those who are free to those who believe that "liberty is useless and
>> only causes schism." The Constitution gives the citizesn the right to
>> bear arms just in case they suddenly find out that their positions of
>> authority, education and religiosity are infested with people who
>> believe that liberty is useless and only causes schism.
>
>And yet, you're the proof of it. You use your liberty to create schism in the SDA!
>
And you use your despotism to make unfounded allegations. A movement
was started in the SDA Church. It suddenly demanded that the SDA
Church must change. Thousands protested and were kicked out. I
therefore don't let any despot tell me who caused the schism.
>> Every American has the right to bear arms. This is not because they
>> don't have to do that because they have a government. The
>> Constitution was made to protect the citizens from government, and
>> therefore they were also paranoid conspiracy theorists as the enemies
>> ofl liberty would naturally say.
>
>Nope. Only Americans who are a part of a "well regulated militia" have the right
>to bear arms.
>But everybody has the right to arm bears.
>Ted
And what did they do to enemies both foreign and domestic who believed
that liberty is useless for everyone but themselves and their bloody
church?
Theodore M. Seeber
> On Wed, 03 Oct 2001 02:47:27 GMT, "Theodore M. Seeber"
> <see...@spam.seeberfamily.org> wrote:
>
> >Address munged to prevent spam, remove "spam." to reply, In message <79kjrt4tastcn9ldv...@4ax.com>, Ted McMillan <tmac...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> >> On Tue, 02 Oct 2001 04:11:01 GMT, "Theodore M. Seeber"
> >> <see...@spam.seeberfamily.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Address munged to prevent spam, remove "spam." to reply, In message <f53brt8cqk2bgr4l5...@4ax.com>, Ted McMillan <tmac...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> >> >> On Sat, 29 Sep 2001 05:22:08 GMT, "Theodore M. Seeber"
> >> >> <see...@spam.seeberfamily.org> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >Address munged to prevent spam, remove "spam." to reply, In message <56u7rtojqlj7if7ro...@4ax.com>, Ted McMillan <tmac...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> THIS IS TO DEMONSTRATE MILLIONS OF MINDS ALL AROUND US WHO ARE
> >> >> >> PREPARING FOR THE MOST STARTLING INQUISITION SINCE THE CREATION OF THE
> >> >> >> WORLD AGAINST A FREE PEOPLE!
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Then you're an idiot, since I'm not stockpiling weapons or planing on labeling everybody else as inhuman.
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> Pardon the Christian words and spirit you just issued against me.
> >> >> But, no one said that you were stockpiling weapons.
> >> >
> >> >My point is that the ones who are, are the ones really against a free people.
> >>
> >> The US Army is against a free people?
> >
> >The US Army is not an individual.
> >
>
> Does the US army stockpile weapons?
Yes. But the US Army is allowed to do so as a Well Regulated Militia by the 2nd Ammendment.
You, however, are not.
> Sorry Pal. The Constitution
> provides for protection against Seebers that might infiltrate the
> Federal government. There are Patriots and all who have gun
> collections, but they have no intention of attacking the free people
> with them.
Yeah, right. Who needs a "gun collection" if they aren't going to attack others?
> Of course, this statement won't convince a despot. I
> heard someone tell us that "liberty is useless and only causes
> schism." He told us that we should give up our liberties because of
> the terrorism, and then told us that the Constitution didn't provide
> for these liberties at all anyway. Only an insane despot would come
> to the conclusion that someone using these words is not against a free
> people.
Where in the constitution do you have a right not to have your brain scanned?
> >> The ones who put the ammendment
> >> into the Constitution to bear arms are against a free people?
> >
> >Read the rest of the sentence, especially the part about a "well-regulated militia". The US Army is a well
> >regulated militia. You are not.
>
> RIGHT! I am not a militia PERIOD. I own no guns. Of course, you
> have the ability to tell everyone that I do own guns even though I
> don't.
Like any right-wing NRA member wouldn't own guns.
> A well regulated militia is an organization that may be called to
> defend a free people against a tyrannical government. There are such
> well regulated militias around the country. The forefathers
> understood that this could happen to the American government, being
> the "Conspiracy theorists" that they were. The very mention of a
> militia means that they were not talking about the government. Still,
> the right to bear arms was meant for THE PEOPLE: for the ones Seeber
> is struggling to take away their liberties instead of worshipping
> Christ like other Christians such as Cindy and Donna. YUK!
A militia is a military run by a government.
> According to the Vatican despots, our national forefathers were insane
> for making provision for conspiracy by tyrannical forces against the
> government through infiltration. But yet also while your globalist
> despots in the government today are uncovering "CONSPIRACIES"
> concerning Bin Laden, there doesn't seem to be any concern about them
> being conspiracy minded!.
Maybe because bin Laden's Al Qaida is an army, not a conspiracy?
> And what are you waiting for? Why are you not accusing the American
> government for embracing a conspiracy mentality?
They've got evidence. You've got a bunch of paranoid delusionals. Gee, which do I believe?
> >>But
> >> don't tell me! The ones who believe that "liberty is useless and only
> >> causes schism" are NOT against a free people!
> >
> >That's right, because true liberty and freedom come from God, not from a government.
>
> The statement doesn't show where liberty comes from. It says that
> liberty is useless and only causes schism. The point was evaded. The
> despot can just claim that it was not.
Your form of liberty, only comming from human beings, is useless and only causes schism.
True liberty and freedom come from God, and cannot be taken away, even if you are locked in chains hanging from a wall in a dungeon.
I don't expect you to understand the difference, your Founding Fathers certainly didn't.
> >> I don't believe that liberty is useless. So I don't worry about the
> >> fact that Americans are free. I would go to church and never think a
> >> thing about it. Many have been taught by people like you who believe
> >> liberty is useless, to just focus on Christ and not to look on anybody
> >> else.
> >
> >Ah, but you don't, do you? Go to church that is. You quit going to church when they
> >started talking eccumenism. And yes, Christ is our one mediator, our true Lord, our
> >true governor. Why should we focus on any mere human government?
>
> Please explain what is this you are saying about my church attendance.
By leaving behind the majority of the SDA over your conspiracy theories,
your schismatic action means that you don't.
> From just worshipping Christ, show us how you can say that I used to
> go to church.
A wierd place to start, since without going to Church, you're no longer worshiping Christ.
> No wonder you are determined that the US get more
> intelligence gathering. Why not just show them your intelligence
> gathering techniques and they wouldn't have to call for the people to
> give up their privacy!
I have. See the change in my sig line.
> >And yet, you're the proof of it. You use your liberty to create schism in the SDA!
>
> And you use your despotism to make unfounded allegations. A movement
> was started in the SDA Church. It suddenly demanded that the SDA
> Church must change. Thousands protested and were kicked out. I
> therefore don't let any despot tell me who caused the schism.
Those who protest cause the schism. Always. Those who fail to follow Paul's advice that you follow those whom God has set up to be your superiors, cause the schism.
> >Nope. Only Americans who are a part of a "well regulated militia" have the right
> >to bear arms.
> >But everybody has the right to arm bears.
>
> And what did they do to enemies both foreign and domestic who believed
> that liberty is useless for everyone but themselves and their bloody
> church?
No such enemies existed.
Ted
--
Family Websites: http:/seeberfamily.org
A usefull method for ending terrorism: http://www.skirsch.com/politics/plane/ultimate.htm
Ted McMillan
We have already seen the ability of deceit in Ted Seeber. He already
told us that since the terrorist attacks, we cannot have liberty "just
yet" after already telling us a year ago that "liberty is useless and
only causes schism." He told us liberty is outdated because it
started with the rebel monk Martin Luther and deceived us by not
telling us that his prescriptions date earlier.
We have also read on my web site statements from the Catholic Church
showing their version of restrictions to liberty. The Catholic Church
maintains that her version of liberty is the true liberty just like
Seeber here:
http://www.seventh-dayadventism.org/RomeProtestantsSame.htm
For the Work Finished!
Ted McMillan
THE LAST WORD ON ADVENTIST TRUTH!
Ted McMillan
> Address munged to prevent spam, remove "spam." to reply, In message <l73lrtclvu24dvtti...@4ax.com>, Ted McMillan <tmac...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, 03 Oct 2001 02:47:27 GMT, "Theodore M. Seeber"
> > <see...@spam.seeberfamily.org> wrote:
> >
> > >Address munged to prevent spam, remove "spam." to reply, In message <79kjrt4tastcn9ldv...@4ax.com>, Ted McMillan <tmac...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > >> On Tue, 02 Oct 2001 04:11:01 GMT, "Theodore M. Seeber"
> > >> <see...@spam.seeberfamily.org> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> >Address munged to prevent spam, remove "spam." to reply, In message <f53brt8cqk2bgr4l5...@4ax.com>, Ted McMillan <tmac...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > >> >> On Sat, 29 Sep 2001 05:22:08 GMT, "Theodore M. Seeber"
> > >> >> <see...@spam.seeberfamily.org> wrote:
> > >> >>
> > >> >> >Address munged to prevent spam, remove "spam." to reply, In message <56u7rtojqlj7if7ro...@4ax.com>, Ted McMillan <tmac...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > >> >> >> THIS IS TO DEMONSTRATE MILLIONS OF MINDS ALL AROUND US WHO ARE
> > >> >> >> PREPARING FOR THE MOST STARTLING INQUISITION SINCE THE CREATION OF THE
> > >> >> >> WORLD AGAINST A FREE PEOPLE!
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> >Then you're an idiot, since I'm not stockpiling weapons or planing on labeling everybody else as inhuman.
> > >> >> >
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Pardon the Christian words and spirit you just issued against me.
> > >> >> But, no one said that you were stockpiling weapons.
> > >> >
> > >> >My point is that the ones who are, are the ones really against a free people.
> > >>
> > >> The US Army is against a free people?
> > >
> > >The US Army is not an individual.
> > >
> >
> > Does the US army stockpile weapons?
>
> Yes. But the US Army is allowed to do so as a Well Regulated Militia by the 2nd Ammendment.
>
> You, however, are not.
>
And so the government only now figured that out since she is trying
to, like Hitler, DISARM the already armed civilians in their
Constitutional rights. Maybe the government is just as looney as
Seeber to not understand the "facts" he is presenting above! She
should have known the citizens were not supposed to have guns from the
beginning.
> > Sorry Pal. The Constitution
> > provides for protection against Seebers that might infiltrate the
> > Federal government. There are Patriots and all who have gun
> > collections, but they have no intention of attacking the free people
> > with them.
>
> Yeah, right. Who needs a "gun collection" if they aren't going to attack others?
I don't know why the Federal government is going to attack others!
>
> > Of course, this statement won't convince a despot. I
> > heard someone tell us that "liberty is useless and only causes
> > schism." He told us that we should give up our liberties because of
> > the terrorism, and then told us that the Constitution didn't provide
> > for these liberties at all anyway. Only an insane despot would come
> > to the conclusion that someone using these words is not against a free
> > people.
>
> Where in the constitution do you have a right not to have your brain scanned?
>
Liberty and privacy! When can we scan you, your church documents and
your church? You haven't volunteered yet for what you claim is such a
needed precept.
> > >> The ones who put the ammendment
> > >> into the Constitution to bear arms are against a free people?
> > >
> > >Read the rest of the sentence, especially the part about a "well-regulated militia". The US Army is a well
> > >regulated militia. You are not.
> >
> > RIGHT! I am not a militia PERIOD. I own no guns. Of course, you
> > have the ability to tell everyone that I do own guns even though I
> > don't.
>
> Like any right-wing NRA member wouldn't own guns.
Like many others own guns because the government is as smart as
Seeber. Now they're trying to take back what was never in the
Constitution by disarming the public? I say you need to stop posting
to a lunatic as you claim. I say that every citizen should have a
right to put a buckshot right into the backside of ANYONE who thinks
like Seeber, who cannot go to sleep when a free people exist anywhere
in the world. That's the way Christians did it before at the start of
this nation. Freedom to even read and interpret the scriptures in
their native language is worth fighting for. It was done!
> > A well regulated militia is an organization that may be called to
> > defend a free people against a tyrannical government. There are such
> > well regulated militias around the country. The forefathers
> > understood that this could happen to the American government, being
> > the "Conspiracy theorists" that they were. The very mention of a
> > militia means that they were not talking about the government. Still,
> > the right to bear arms was meant for THE PEOPLE: for the ones Seeber
> > is struggling to take away their liberties instead of worshipping
> > Christ like other Christians such as Cindy and Donna. YUK!
>
> A militia is a military run by a government.
Why need a militia if you have a government? A militia is for
protection. The Second Ammendment was provided in the Constitution so
that citizens can put a buckshot right in the backside of anyone who
thinks like Seeber, for ultimately the utopia of people like Seeber is
the government: to subjugate and control it.
The Constitution was created to protect American citizens FROM the
government. Today if you understand the truth about the enemy facing
liberty, those enemies on the internet tell you that you need mental
help.
> > According to the Vatican despots, our national forefathers were insane
> > for making provision for conspiracy by tyrannical forces against the
> > government through infiltration. But yet also while your globalist
> > despots in the government today are uncovering "CONSPIRACIES"
> > concerning Bin Laden, there doesn't seem to be any concern about them
> > being conspiracy minded!.
>
> Maybe because bin Laden's Al Qaida is an army, not a conspiracy?
>
You mean like "MAYBE the Catholic Church was not responsible for the
Massacre of St. Bartholomew?" We all appear to be damned to hell
because of all these MAYBES that happen when Seeber is in deceit mode.
The government has said that they have uncovered more terrorist
conspiracies. In our free rights to reach our potential, despots like
Seeber have been programming us for years to believe that anyone who
thinks a conspiracy exists needs medical help. Now the government
claims to have uncovered conspiracies. Why aren't the Seebers helping
out our poor mentally deranged government?
> > And what are you waiting for? Why are you not accusing the American
> > government for embracing a conspiracy mentality?
>
> They've got evidence. You've got a bunch of paranoid delusionals. Gee, which do I believe?
MAYBE you should believe the one who told us that "MAYBE the Catholic
Church was NOT responsible for the Massacre of St. Bartholomew!"
MAYBE we should believe the one who is against paranoia, but cannot
stop posting to a WACKO NUT like he said Ted McMillan is!
> > >>But
> > >> don't tell me! The ones who believe that "liberty is useless and only
> > >> causes schism" are NOT against a free people!
> > >
> > >That's right, because true liberty and freedom come from God, not from a government.
> >
> > The statement doesn't show where liberty comes from. It says that
> > liberty is useless and only causes schism. The point was evaded. The
> > despot can just claim that it was not.
>
> Your form of liberty, only comming from human beings, is useless and only causes schism.
> True liberty and freedom come from God, and cannot be taken away, even if you are locked in chains hanging from a wall in a dungeon.
My liberty is "comming?" Does that mean it was having sex?
Dude, I don't want that TRUE LIBERTY that you described above for my
government. I don't want you to reorganize our government so that she
will lock us in chains in order for us to exercise your "TRUE
LIBERTY." I want the liberty to believe according to my conscience
and to demonstrate that my beliefs are sound through discussion and
demonstration of the Scriptures.
If that is the liberty you are talking about, I say that the present
US government needs to give you and your church that true liberty so
that you can be hung in chains and will then leave a free people
alone.
> I don't expect you to understand the difference, your Founding Fathers certainly didn't.
But you did understand how to hang people in chains. And your
founding Fathers also can't tell the difference between shedding the
blood of millions of bible-believers in the most unbelievable ways for
their descendants to now presume upon the world to teach them what is
the definition of love, hate and plagiarism.
> > >> I don't believe that liberty is useless. So I don't worry about the
> > >> fact that Americans are free. I would go to church and never think a
> > >> thing about it. Many have been taught by people like you who believe
> > >> liberty is useless, to just focus on Christ and not to look on anybody
> > >> else.
> > >
> > >Ah, but you don't, do you? Go to church that is. You quit going to church when they
> > >started talking eccumenism. And yes, Christ is our one mediator, our true Lord, our
> > >true governor. Why should we focus on any mere human government?
> >
> > Please explain what is this you are saying about my church attendance.
>
> By leaving behind the majority of the SDA over your conspiracy theories,
> your schismatic action means that you don't.
I can't help it if a despot believes that and can't prove it! I even
asked why there are so many claiming to be former Adventists and
Protestants sulking on our forums that the Adventist Church claims to
be the true church thinking itself "superior to its fellow brothers
and sisters in Christ," but when we show them that Rome made the same
claim worldwide with her history of extremity in this belief they
suddenly get quiet and can't say anything! I come to the conclusion
that this is a conspiracy. I'm sorry for the despots who pretend not
to know this!
Why are you leaving your church communion with all your credible
people on the newsgroups and internet to post to a deranged conspiracy
nut again? Why did you credible ones tell us we can have our honest
beliefs and then get diarrhea when we found out that you were
conspirators again?
> > From just worshipping Christ, show us how you can say that I used to
> > go to church.
>
> A wierd place to start, since without going to Church, you're no longer worshiping Christ.
A despot has again spoken. We need sniffing dogs to find the evidence
and the proof. We can't seem to see it there. Elijah is lost.
Jeremiah is lost. Of course-and what Seeber is trying to tell us
after lying to us that his church has changed-The Protestants, who had
to run for their lives in the forests, rocks and caves, are lost!
> > No wonder you are determined that the US get more
> > intelligence gathering. Why not just show them your intelligence
> > gathering techniques and they wouldn't have to call for the people to
> > give up their privacy!
>
> I have. See the change in my sig line.
I think they would want you to change by stop posting to WACKO,
paranoid, nut, asses! We all know you cannot afford to do that now,
don't we?
> > >And yet, you're the proof of it. You use your liberty to create schism in the SDA!
> >
> > And you use your despotism to make unfounded allegations. A movement
> > was started in the SDA Church. It suddenly demanded that the SDA
> > Church must change. Thousands protested and were kicked out. I
> > therefore don't let any despot tell me who caused the schism.
>
> Those who protest cause the schism. Always. Those who fail to follow Paul's advice that you follow those whom God has set up to be your superiors, cause the schism.
Seeber protests the present form of government in the US. He tells us
that the citizens MUST give up their liberties and privacy after
posting here that they never had it in the first place. He tells us
that he works AGAINST and WITHIN the government in order to enact
reform and change.
The Disciples are lost. The Apostles are lost. Christ is lost. They
approached the leaders of their religion with a message found in their
scriptures, but the leaders did not agree to it. The leaders cast
them out.
> > >Nope. Only Americans who are a part of a "well regulated militia" have the right
> > >to bear arms.
> > >But everybody has the right to arm bears.
I didn't see a MAYBE there. You mean like, "MAYBE the Catholic Church
is not responsible for the Massacre of St. Bartholomew" as you said?
> > And what did they do to enemies both foreign and domestic who believed
> > that liberty is useless for everyone but themselves and their bloody
> > church?
>
> No such enemies existed.
>
Ø Ted
What! No MAYBE?? Why at every inauguration a president has to make
an oath that he will fight against all enemies to the Constitution
"both foreign and domestic?"
For the Work Finished!
Ted McMillan
THE LAST WORD ON ADVENTIST TRUTH!
Theodore M. Seeber
> "Theodore M. Seeber" <see...@spam.seeberfamily.org> wrote in message news:<__uu7.52933$0h4.1...@sjcpnn01.usenetserver.com>...
> > Here's the type of restrictment of liberty that I support in response to the terrorist threat:
> > http://www.skirsch.com/politics/plane/ultimate.htm
> >
> > Since the Anti-Ted is so against the loss of liberty, I thought it might be prudent to find something NOT WRITTEN BY ME that describes just how much loss of liberty I support.
> >
> > And how such a loss of liberty could actually increase our freedom.
> > Ted
>
> We have already seen the ability of deceit in Ted Seeber.
Read the article.
> He already
> told us that since the terrorist attacks, we cannot have liberty "just
> yet" after already telling us a year ago that "liberty is useless and
> only causes schism." He told us liberty is outdated because it
> started with the rebel monk Martin Luther and deceived us by not
> telling us that his prescriptions date earlier.
Nothing in that article disagrees with it.
> We have also read on my web site statements from the Catholic Church
> showing their version of restrictions to liberty. The Catholic Church
> maintains that her version of liberty is the true liberty just like
> Seeber here:
>
> http://www.seventh-dayadventism.org/RomeProtestantsSame.htm
Really, where in that article is the technique of "Brain Fingerprinting" mentioned?
Ted
--
Family Websites: http:/seeberfamily.org
A usefull method for ending terrorism: http://www.skirsch.com/politics/plane/ultimate.htm Layman's view: http://www.zdnet.com/anchordesk/stories/story/0,10738,2816429,00.html
Theodore M. Seeber
> >
> > Yes. But the US Army is allowed to do so as a Well Regulated Militia by the 2nd Ammendment.
> >
> > You, however, are not.
>
> And so the government only now figured that out since she is trying
> to, like Hitler, DISARM the already armed civilians in their
> Constitutional rights. Maybe the government is just as looney as
> Seeber to not understand the "facts" he is presenting above! She
> should have known the citizens were not supposed to have guns from the
> beginning.
There is no constitutional right to arm the mentally ill.
> > Yeah, right. Who needs a "gun collection" if they aren't going to attack others?
>
> I don't know why the Federal government is going to attack others!
That one's easily answered: To protect their citizens from terrorists like you.
Do you have an equivalent reason for attacking the federal government?
> > Where in the constitution do you have a right not to have your brain scanned?
>
> Liberty and privacy!
Neither of which is in the CONSTITUTION. One of those is in the Declaration of Independance, but that document has NO LEGAL BEARING in the United States at all (it was a document produced by the former Trade Confederation, not by the Republic of the United States of America).
> When can we scan you, your church documents and
> your church? You haven't volunteered yet for what you claim is such a
> needed precept.
Actually, as soon as the equipment is installed, I will be taking time off from work to go to Portland International Airport to get scanned.
That's assuming of course that our Federal Government spends a little of that $40 billion in Corporate Wellfare on this project (it will cost $2 billion to be implemented nation wide).
> > Like any right-wing NRA member wouldn't own guns.
>
> Like many others own guns because the government is as smart as
> Seeber. Now they're trying to take back what was never in the
> Constitution by disarming the public?
Actually, no. Makes far more sense only to disarm those identified as "security risks" by the Brain Fingerprinting system. Go arm EVERYBODY else, I've got no problem with that.
> I say you need to stop posting
> to a lunatic as you claim. I say that every citizen should have a
> right to put a buckshot right into the backside of ANYONE who thinks
> like Seeber, who cannot go to sleep when a free people exist anywhere
> in the world. That's the way Christians did it before at the start of
> this nation. Freedom to even read and interpret the scriptures in
> their native language is worth fighting for. It was done!
Trouble is, they already had that freedom. There were 12 approved translations BY THE CATHOLIC CHURCH in English at the time the King James was created.
> > A militia is a military run by a government.
>
> Why need a militia if you have a government? A militia is for
> protection. The Second Ammendment was provided in the Constitution so
> that citizens can put a buckshot right in the backside of anyone who
> thinks like Seeber, for ultimately the utopia of people like Seeber is
> the government: to subjugate and control it.
There are other governments out there we need protecting from. Not to mention terrorists like the anti-Ted, who want to "put a buckshot right in the backside of anyone" they don't agree with.
> The Constitution was created to protect American citizens FROM the
> government. Today if you understand the truth about the enemy facing
> liberty, those enemies on the internet tell you that you need mental
> help.
Ah, but the enemy facing liberty IS those enemies on the interent telling you that you need mental help, apparently.
> > Maybe because bin Laden's Al Qaida is an army, not a conspiracy?
>
> You mean like "MAYBE the Catholic Church was not responsible for the
> Massacre of St. Bartholomew?" We all appear to be damned to hell
> because of all these MAYBES that happen when Seeber is in deceit mode.
It's called Sarcasm to those who actually graduated from kindergarten in a state where guns are not the norm.
> The government has said that they have uncovered more terrorist
> conspiracies. In our free rights to reach our potential, despots like
> Seeber have been programming us for years to believe that anyone who
> thinks a conspiracy exists needs medical help. Now the government
> claims to have uncovered conspiracies. Why aren't the Seebers helping
> out our poor mentally deranged government?
We are. No need to root out conspiracies, just stop anybody who has ever fired a gun at a human shaped target from flying.
> > They've got evidence. You've got a bunch of paranoid delusionals. Gee, which do I believe?
>
> MAYBE you should believe the one who told us that "MAYBE the Catholic
> Church was NOT responsible for the Massacre of St. Bartholomew!"
> MAYBE we should believe the one who is against paranoia, but cannot
> stop posting to a WACKO NUT like he said Ted McMillan is!
Why should I believe myself when there are others out there with better information?
> > > >That's right, because true liberty and freedom come from God, not from a government.
> > >
> > > The statement doesn't show where liberty comes from. It says that
> > > liberty is useless and only causes schism. The point was evaded. The
> > > despot can just claim that it was not.
> >
> > Your form of liberty, only comming from human beings, is useless and only causes schism.
> > True liberty and freedom come from God, and cannot be taken away, even if you are locked in chains > > hanging from a wall in a dungeon.
>
> My liberty is "comming?" Does that mean it was having sex?
No, that would be "cooming", but from an illiterate who can't spell, I'm not suprised at your remark.
> Dude, I don't want that TRUE LIBERTY that you described above for my
> government. I don't want you to reorganize our government so that she
> will lock us in chains in order for us to exercise your "TRUE
> LIBERTY." I want the liberty to believe according to my conscience
> and to demonstrate that my beliefs are sound through discussion and
> demonstration of the Scriptures.
And you can't seem to find it even without a government locking you in chains.
The only way you will find that liberty is to find it within yourself. In your relationship with
God. If you find it there, then NO government can ever take it away, EVEN if they lock you
in chains, you can still have discussion with your jailers and demonstrate with the scriptures
held in your mind.
St. Paul spent his last 30 years on this earth under just such a situation. And his letters, written mainly
from prison, are 1/3rd of the New Testament. Do you doubt his inspiration?
> If that is the liberty you are talking about, I say that the present
> US government needs to give you and your church that true liberty so
> that you can be hung in chains and will then leave a free people
> alone.
Ah, but you see, they don't have the capability to give that. Only internally, each one of us, can achieve heaven on earth.
> > I don't expect you to understand the difference, your Founding Fathers certainly didn't.
>
> But you did understand how to hang people in chains. And your
> founding Fathers also can't tell the difference between shedding the
> blood of millions of bible-believers in the most unbelievable ways for
> their descendants to now presume upon the world to teach them what is
> the definition of love, hate and plagiarism.
Can you really be said to be believing in the Bible if you don't live it?
NONE of the groups persecuted by the Catholics were living the Bible. They were living their personal interpretations of God, not the Bible.
> > > >Ah, but you don't, do you? Go to church that is. You quit going to church when they
> > > >started talking eccumenism. And yes, Christ is our one mediator, our true Lord, our
> > > >true governor. Why should we focus on any mere human government?
> > >
> > > Please explain what is this you are saying about my church attendance.
> >
> > By leaving behind the majority of the SDA over your conspiracy theories,
> > your schismatic action means that you don't.
>
> I can't help it if a despot believes that and can't prove it!
Ah, but you see, I can. How your own religion treats you speaks volumes. How you treat them, speaks even louder.
> I even
> asked why there are so many claiming to be former Adventists and
> Protestants sulking on our forums that the Adventist Church claims to
> be the true church thinking itself "superior to its fellow brothers
> and sisters in Christ," but when we show them that Rome made the same
> claim worldwide with her history of extremity in this belief they
> suddenly get quiet and can't say anything! I come to the conclusion
> that this is a conspiracy. I'm sorry for the despots who pretend not
> to know this!
What a wierd and illogical conclusion to come to from that subjective evidence!
> Why are you leaving your church communion with all your credible
> people on the newsgroups and internet to post to a deranged conspiracy
> nut again? Why did you credible ones tell us we can have our honest
> beliefs and then get diarrhea when we found out that you were
> conspirators again?
I do so, in hopes of having my church communion grow, merely by showing BY MY ACTIONS that I am not what you claim me to be.
> > > From just worshipping Christ, show us how you can say that I used to
> > > go to church.
> >
> > A wierd place to start, since without going to Church, you're no longer worshiping Christ.
>
> A despot has again spoken. We need sniffing dogs to find the evidence
> and the proof. We can't seem to see it there. Elijah is lost.
> Jeremiah is lost. Of course-and what Seeber is trying to tell us
> after lying to us that his church has changed-The Protestants, who had
> to run for their lives in the forests, rocks and caves, are lost!
Actually, both Elijah and Jeremiah are Catholic and Jewish Saints. Neither has been lost. And the true church does not hide their light behind a bushel for 1700 years and then burst forth suddenly to tell us that they are the remnant.
> > > No wonder you are determined that the US get more
> > > intelligence gathering. Why not just show them your intelligence
> > > gathering techniques and they wouldn't have to call for the people to
> > > give up their privacy!
> >
> > I have. See the change in my sig line.
>
> I think they would want you to change by stop posting to WACKO,
> paranoid, nut, asses! We all know you cannot afford to do that now,
> don't we?
Why should I when with every post YOU answer, you prove my way to be more correct?
> > > >And yet, you're the proof of it. You use your liberty to create schism in the SDA!
> > >
> > > And you use your despotism to make unfounded allegations. A movement
> > > was started in the SDA Church. It suddenly demanded that the SDA
> > > Church must change. Thousands protested and were kicked out. I
> > > therefore don't let any despot tell me who caused the schism.
> >
> > Those who protest cause the schism. Always. Those who fail to follow Paul's advice that you follow those
> > whom God has set up to be your superiors, cause the schism.
>
> Seeber protests the present form of government in the US.
No I don't. I need the present form of government in the US if it is ever going to be changed to grant people freedom.
> He tells us
> that the citizens MUST give up their liberties and privacy after
> posting here that they never had it in the first place. He tells us
> that he works AGAINST and WITHIN the government in order to enact
> reform and change.
Privacy is a code word, apparently. It is not in existance anywhere in scripture or in the Constitution.
> The Disciples are lost. The Apostles are lost. Christ is lost. They
> approached the leaders of their religion with a message found in their
> scriptures, but the leaders did not agree to it. The leaders cast
> them out.
If I've been cast out (the term is excommunicated, for those who've had more schooling than kindergarten) then why is the religion of the Disciples, of the Apostles, and of Christ (that is the One Holy Apostolic Catholic Church) the largest Christian religion on the planet?
> > > >Nope. Only Americans who are a part of a "well regulated militia" have the right
> > > >to bear arms.
> > > >But everybody has the right to arm bears.
>
> I didn't see a MAYBE there. You mean like, "MAYBE the Catholic Church
> is not responsible for the Massacre of St. Bartholomew" as you said?
There is no maybe there because the language is plain to anybody who has actually graduated kindergarten.
> > > And what did they do to enemies both foreign and domestic who believed
> > > that liberty is useless for everyone but themselves and their bloody
> > > church?
> >
> > No such enemies existed.
>
>
> What! No MAYBE?? Why at every inauguration a president has to make
> an oath that he will fight against all enemies to the Constitution
> "both foreign and domestic?"
Just because he makes that oath does NOT mean that such enemies actually existed outside of the paranoid minds of a few rich men.
Ted McMillan
(see...@spam.seeberfamily.org)
Subject: Re: SECURITY VS. PRIVACY III??
Newsgroups: alt.religion.christian.adventist
Date: 2001-10-05 15:24:48 PST
Address munged to prevent spam, remove "spam." to reply, In message
<55de15cf.01100...@posting.google.com>,
tmac...@internet4free.net (Ted McMillan) wrote:
> "Theodore M. Seeber" <see...@spam.seeberfamily.org> wrote in message news:<__uu7.52933$0h4.1...@sjcpnn01.usenetserver.com>...
> > Here's the type of restrictment of liberty that I support in response to the terrorist threat:
> > http://www.skirsch.com/politics/plane/ultimate.htm
> >
>> He (Seeber) already
>> told us that since the terrorist attacks, we cannot have liberty
"just
>> yet" after already telling us a year ago that "liberty is useless
and
>> only causes schism." He told us liberty is outdated because it
>> started with the rebel monk Martin Luther and deceived us by not
>> telling us that his prescriptions date earlier.
> Nothing in that article disagrees with it.
As I said, he (Seeber) already told us that since the terrorist
attacks, we cannot have liberty "just
yet" after already telling us a year ago that "liberty is useless and
only causes schism." He told us liberty is outdated because it
started with the rebel monk Martin Luther and deceived us by not
telling us that his prescriptions date earlier.
Here is shown someone who changed his tactics under the "End Justifies
the Means," in order to deceive and to get what he wants. This issue
is outside of any article. It shows Seeber has used double-talk,
pretending to hate liberty for the moment when he hates it for
everyone else not his church always.
>> We have also read on my web site statements from the Catholic
Church
>> showing their version of restrictions to liberty. The Catholic
Church
>> maintains that her version of liberty is the true liberty just like
>> Seeber here:
>>
>> http://www.seventh-dayadventism.org/RomeProtestantsSame.htm
> Really, where in that article is the technique of "Brain Fingerprinting" mentioned?
> Ted
The article shows that Seeber hates Liberty of Conscience just like
the Pope does. That is one reason why now we hear something about
some article dealing with brain-fingerprinting that we did not hear
about a year ago when Seeber, like the documentation coming from the
Vatican, demonstrated his hatred of liberty for anyone not his church.
Seeber is just using another method to hide his true super-traitor
colors.
This was the one who told us that "liberty is useless and only causes
schism," and when I did all I can to show the world his corrupt mind,
he then, after time, thought to come back and tell us that is just his
opinion when the documentation shows that his church teaches the same
things.
Ted McMillan
> Address munged to prevent spam, remove "spam." to reply, In message <55de15cf.01100...@posting.google.com>, tmac...@internet4free.net (Ted McMillan) wrote:
> > "Theodore M. Seeber" <see...@spam.seeberfamily.org> wrote in message news:<LmQu7.5174$T%4.39...@sjcpnn01.usenetserver.com>...
> > > > Does the US army stockpile weapons?
> > >
> > > Yes. But the US Army is allowed to do so as a Well Regulated Militia by the 2nd Ammendment.
> > >
> > > You, however, are not.
> >
> > And so the government only now figured that out since she is trying
> > to, like Hitler, DISARM the already armed civilians in their
> > Constitutional rights. Maybe the government is just as looney as
> > Seeber to not understand the "facts" he is presenting above! She
> > should have known the citizens were not supposed to have guns from the
> > beginning.
>
> There is no constitutional right to arm the mentally ill.
>
post to a mentally ill person. One can find many mentally ill people
in assylums, but Seeber sees no sense going there or organizing to
post to them. He is only doing this to Ted McMillan because he is
afraid of something.
But if I am mentally ill, where did I get the common sense fact that
someone who cannot stop posting to a mentally ill person clearly has
no sense at all? Or maybe that person is a conspirator!
About the Constitution being established to arm the mentally ill, we
never said that you or your fellow Vatican despots should be armed!
We already have seen what happens when you get your hands on arms.
You work to disarm your opponents and THEN you use the arms that you
have against us.
> > > Yeah, right. Who needs a "gun collection" if they aren't going to attack others?
> >
> > I don't know why the Federal government is going to attack others!
>
> That one's easily answered: To protect their citizens from terrorists like you.
But I don't believe that "liberty is useless and only causes schism."
I don't believe, like Seeber and all the communists and nazis, that
the government is the utopia of security. Seeber is struggling to ass
us out of many lessons that have been learned throughout history.
Very intelligent people put the Second Amendment in the Constitution
and okayed militias. Militias were not authorized by the Constitution
to be controlled by the government, because we already have
government. Militias were okayed to protect the citizens FROM
government just like the Constitution was. They knew there was a
definite possibility that the government may become infiltrated by
tyrannical and deceitful people like Seeber.
Seeber said and made an established precedent we all must believe by
saying: "Who needs a "gun collection" if they aren't going to attack
others?" When I bring to light that the US government has a gun
collection and is determined to disarm all her citizens like the
Nazis, all of a sudden his rule of thumb no longer works.
The Constitution was made to protect the citizens of America against
the government. Seeber is pretending, as we are seeing in the
terrorist incidents, that the government is the utopia of security.
Most of America are totally uneducated about what history has shown us
of governments. He will not mention the concerns the forefathers of
this nation had, because Seeber himself is that concern of our
national forefathers. People like Seeber forced our founding fathers
to make a terrible sacrifice for liberty in the founding of this
nation.
We can see by now that Seeber is unscrupulous. He has yet to answer
why he is posting to someone he claims is mentally ill.
> Do you have an equivalent reason for attacking the federal government?
I didn't say to attack the federal government. You just put that in
there without any MAYBEs and PROBABLYs.
You told us that you work against the federal government from the
inside so that it could be reformed and changed. Since you told us
you even believe that someone renting an apartment should grant
unlimited access to their landlords and even send copies of private
mail to the postal authorities, we can all understand what changes you
want the federal government to have. It is totally opposite from what
the Constitution says, but you claim the Constitution can be
REINTERPRETED to support opposite from what it now proclaims so that
it can satisfy your despot claims. Your desires are accurately shown
in literature people are accused of being anti-Catholics for showing.
> > > Where in the constitution do you have a right not to have your brain scanned?
> >
> > Liberty and privacy!
>
> Neither of which is in the CONSTITUTION. One of those is in the Declaration of Independance, but that document has NO LEGAL BEARING in the United States at all (it was a document produced by the former Trade Confederation, not by the Republic of the United States of America).
>
But a despot named Seeber who knows when to say "MAYBE the Catholic
Church was NOT responsible for the Massacre of St. Bartholomew" and
now leaves out the maybe has ideas that the Constitution supports!
But DEFINITELY, the man who told us that "liberty is useless and only
causes schism" last year has ideas which are fully supported in the
Constitution!
> > When can we scan you, your church documents and
> > your church? You haven't volunteered yet for what you claim is such a
> > needed precept.
>
> Actually, as soon as the equipment is installed, I will be taking time off from work to go to Portland International Airport to get scanned.
> That's assuming of course that our Federal Government spends a little of that $40 billion in Corporate Wellfare on this project (it will cost $2 billion to be implemented nation wide).
>
Make sure that the device has circuitry for truth serum capabilities
and that the results will be advertised broadly on national media.
END OF DESPOT SEEBER THAT SAME DAY BY TRUE AMERICANS!
> > > Like any right-wing NRA member wouldn't own guns.
> >
> > Like many others own guns because the government is as smart as
> > Seeber. Now they're trying to take back what was never in the
> > Constitution by disarming the public?
>
> Actually, no. Makes far more sense only to disarm those identified as "security risks" by the Brain Fingerprinting system. Go arm EVERYBODY else, I've got no problem with that.
One of your many problems is not being able to present this brain
fingerprinting excuse for grand treason here on these newsgroups. It
is sort of like telling us that "liberty is useless and only causes
schism" in late 2000, now telling us its just your opinion after we
have already shown that your Vatican believes what you believe and has
done that far before.
> > I say you need to stop posting
> > to a lunatic as you claim. I say that every citizen should have a
> > right to put a buckshot right into the backside of ANYONE who thinks
> > like Seeber, who cannot go to sleep when a free people exist anywhere
> > in the world. That's the way Christians did it before at the start of
> > this nation. Freedom to even read and interpret the scriptures in
> > their native language is worth fighting for. It was done!
>
> Trouble is, they already had that freedom. There were 12 approved translations BY THE CATHOLIC CHURCH in English at the time the King James was created.
No MAYBES again. But the statement is clearly not true anyway. But
we can see Seeber is using his tactics in deceit the "Successors of
the Apostles" will always have.
The first question and point dealt with Seeber posting to a lunatic.
His answer totally disregarded the pointed question. I don't care
what any of you readers believe: YOU DON'T CONSTANTLY POST TO
MENTALLY ILL PEOPLE. I assure you that Seeber doesn't. There are
assylums well in his reach. I doubt seriously that he is posting or
mailing or communicating anything with them!
> > > A militia is a military run by a government.
> >
> > Why need a militia if you have a government? A militia is for
> > protection. The Second Ammendment was provided in the Constitution so
> > that citizens can put a buckshot right in the backside of anyone who
> > thinks like Seeber, for ultimately the utopia of people like Seeber is
> > the government: to subjugate and control it.
>
> There are other governments out there we need protecting from. Not to mention terrorists like the anti-Ted, who want to "put a buckshot right in the backside of anyone" they don't agree with.
Militias were NOT created to be run or controlled by the government.
They were created to protect the citizens FROM the government. Just
check the other abandoned Vatican posters on the political newsgroups.
Some of them even invalidate militias and ask why we need them when
we have the utopian government for every Communist thing.
By the way, neither my history nor the history of my church put
buckshots in people we didn't agree with. Seeber has to try to make
us look like him and his ancestors and try to make himself and his
ancestors look like us.
> > The Constitution was created to protect American citizens FROM the
> > government. Today if you understand the truth about the enemy facing
> > liberty, those enemies on the internet tell you that you need mental
> > help.
>
> Ah, but the enemy facing liberty IS those enemies on the interent telling you that you need mental help, apparently.
Ah, for the first time we agree. You guys ARE the enemy!
> > > Maybe because bin Laden's Al Qaida is an army, not a conspiracy?
> >
> > You mean like "MAYBE the Catholic Church was not responsible for the
> > Massacre of St. Bartholomew?" We all appear to be damned to hell
> > because of all these MAYBES that happen when Seeber is in deceit mode.
>
> It's called Sarcasm to those who actually graduated from kindergarten in a state where guns are not the norm.
A point was issued and someone needed to evade it, so he used sarcasm!
It's called something that must be used when a question brought for
demonstration needs to be evaded by those who know they cannot win in
discussion or logic. It is like proving that there is a way out of
confusion, and we therefore don't need his Pope to establish societal
order!
> > The government has said that they have uncovered more terrorist
> > conspiracies. In our free rights to reach our potential, despots like
> > Seeber have been programming us for years to believe that anyone who
> > thinks a conspiracy exists needs medical help. Now the government
> > claims to have uncovered conspiracies. Why aren't the Seebers helping
> > out our poor mentally deranged government?
>
> We are. No need to root out conspiracies, just stop anybody who has ever fired a gun at a human shaped target from flying.
Again an evasion. That was not the tactic used by Seeber and the
other Vatican despots on the internet to deal with us posting here who
always knew there was a conspiracy going on. We know there is a
conspiracy. The government, horribly infested by Vatican Seeber's
constantly taught us, like Seeber, that we must not have a "conspiracy
mentality." To do so would be accepting paranoia! We were not
supposed to be given the right to know there is a conspiracy. Now the
government is telling us about conspiracies without Seebers telling
them anything! This is just like the posters on the Adventist
newsgroup constantly complaining that the Adventist Church claims to
be the true church, but when their Pope says the same thing to the
whole world, there is no problem. From that alone we know there is a
conspiracy regardless of what despot Seeber says. Despot Seeber tells
us that if we own guns, we are in a conspiracy against the government
and against the citizens of America.
> > > They've got evidence. You've got a bunch of paranoid delusionals. Gee, which do I believe?
> >
> > MAYBE you should believe the one who told us that "MAYBE the Catholic
> > Church was NOT responsible for the Massacre of St. Bartholomew!"
> > MAYBE we should believe the one who is against paranoia, but cannot
> > stop posting to a WACKO NUT like he said Ted McMillan is!
>
> Why should I believe myself when there are others out there with better information?
Well Seeber is the ONLY one I have seen yet to dare have the Vatican
balls to tell the world that the Vatican is not responsible for the
Massacre of St. Bartholomew. I even posted against Seeber and his
Vatican buddies on the newsgroups extensively last year and brought up
the incident. He never said what he now says in order to show us that
his Pope should not have apologized for anything. Seeber's tactics
change all the time because for him, he is merely concerned for what
works no matter how unethical it is to attain.
> > > > >That's right, because true liberty and freedom come from God, not from a government.
> > > >
> > > > The statement doesn't show where liberty comes from. It says that
> > > > liberty is useless and only causes schism. The point was evaded. The
> > > > despot can just claim that it was not.
> > >
> > > Your form of liberty, only comming from human beings, is useless and only causes schism.
> > > True liberty and freedom come from God, and cannot be taken away, even if you are locked in chains > > hanging from a wall in a dungeon.
> >
> > My liberty is "comming?" Does that mean it was having sex?
>
> No, that would be "cooming", but from an illiterate who can't spell, I'm not suprised at your remark.
Seeber couldn't even spell "seak!" I'm illiterate? I sure command
much of Seeber's attention! He won't even answer why I do!
Ted McMillan
> > government. I don't want you to reorganize our government so that she
> > will lock us in chains in order for us to exercise your "TRUE
> > LIBERTY." I want the liberty to believe according to my conscience
> > and to demonstrate that my beliefs are sound through discussion and
> > demonstration of the Scriptures.
>
> And you can't seem to find it even without a government locking you in chains.
> The only way you will find that liberty is to find it within yourself. In your relationship with
> God. If you find it there, then NO government can ever take it away, EVEN if they lock you
> in chains, you can still have discussion with your jailers and demonstrate with the scriptures
> held in your mind.
>
> St. Paul spent his last 30 years on this earth under just such a situation. And his letters, written mainly
> from prison, are 1/3rd of the New Testament. Do you doubt his inspiration?
>
The Apostles were in prison? I thought people like you always quote
that we must obey every ordinance of man unconditionally! That is
what you constantly do!
You have again evaded the point. I don't want a land or nation that
will grant people liberty by passing laws against them so that they
can rebel in jail to maintain their liberty on the inside only. I do
want a nation that will provide people like YOU with that kind of
liberty!
> > If that is the liberty you are talking about, I say that the present
> > US government needs to give you and your church that true liberty so
> > that you can be hung in chains and will then leave a free people
> > alone.
>
> Ah, but you see, they don't have the capability to give that. Only internally, each one of us, can achieve heaven on earth.
Ah, but why tell us about giving us that kind of liberty? That is the
kind of liberty that was told us your church gave to millions of
Christians documented in Protestant writings. You are only intent on
giving that type of liberty to your enemies and follow what your
ancestors have done.
> > > I don't expect you to understand the difference, your Founding Fathers certainly didn't.
> >
> > But you did understand how to hang people in chains. And your
> > founding Fathers also can't tell the difference between shedding the
> > blood of millions of bible-believers in the most unbelievable ways for
> > their descendants to now presume upon the world to teach them what is
> > the definition of love, hate and plagiarism.
>
> Can you really be said to be believing in the Bible if you don't live it?
> NONE of the groups persecuted by the Catholics were living the Bible. They were living their personal interpretations of God, not the Bible.
NO WONDER YOU DON'T CARE ABOUT ME BRINGING BACK YOUR RECORD OF
HORRIBLE ATROCITIES! They were not even living the bible! Why even
worry about them! Were the 5 to 6 thousands who were killed by the
terrorist attacks living by the bible? You don't have any consistent
principles, if you even know the meaning of the word! Your principles
change only for you to even look like you are winning an argument.
Your statement is incredibly insensitive and you constantly reveal
that what is written by your uncomparably bloody religion is true.
All I know is that you people murdered millions in the most horrible
ways. I DON'T CARE IF YOU MURDERED ATHEISTS!! I am not that
inhumanly insensitive for an animal like you to be worried about me
having guns!
Again, despot: WHY IS THE POPE APOLOGIZING!! You have just sent us
your bigoted despot opinions without providing any MAYBEES! Why not
try to prove what you are saying against me using the scriptures then?
How often have you even answered my questions?
Thousands of people lost their lives in the World Trade Center
disaster. How many of them lived by the bible? They were not even in
rural settings nor under persecution. All those in the WTC were
products of the modern revolution. I would even say that most of them
believe that homosexual activity is acceptable behavior. They all
lived in the modern age and are products of it. I can bet you that
homosexuality was not a problem for those who were slain by Rome!
I don't care whether or not they lived by the bible according to a
murderous despot!
> > > > >Ah, but you don't, do you? Go to church that is. You quit going to church when they
> > > > >started talking eccumenism. And yes, Christ is our one mediator, our true Lord, our
> > > > >true governor. Why should we focus on any mere human government?
> > > >
> > > > Please explain what is this you are saying about my church attendance.
> > >
> > > By leaving behind the majority of the SDA over your conspiracy theories,
> > > your schismatic action means that you don't.
> >
> > I can't help it if a despot believes that and can't prove it!
>
> Ah, but you see, I can. How your own religion treats you speaks volumes. How you treat them, speaks even louder.
Oh and you mean you haven't heard a thing we have documented about how
your religion has treated others? You genocided the Albigenses! That
is just the tip of everything! If you can't see that your religion
has been and still is the worst persecutor of others, it is amazing
that you can understand that the Adventist Church treats others badly.
Whether or not my church has treated me badly, I can say with all
truthfulness that they did not NEARLY treat me in the way your
religion has treated millions!
> > I even
> > asked why there are so many claiming to be former Adventists and
> > Protestants sulking on our forums that the Adventist Church claims to
> > be the true church thinking itself "superior to its fellow brothers
> > and sisters in Christ," but when we show them that Rome made the same
> > claim worldwide with her history of extremity in this belief they
> > suddenly get quiet and can't say anything! I come to the conclusion
> > that this is a conspiracy. I'm sorry for the despots who pretend not
> > to know this!
>
> What a wierd and illogical conclusion to come to from that subjective evidence!
Explain to us why they do this. We are waiting. In the meantime we
must inform you that you haven't addressed the question again, and
that your answer is of the same quality as you telling us that the
Catholic Church definitely was not responsible for the Massacre of St.
Bartholomew as was proved by their sole celebrating after the atrocity
was done. She now apologizes for something that hasn't been clearly
defined for us yet.
> > Why are you leaving your church communion with all your credible
> > people on the newsgroups and internet to post to a deranged conspiracy
> > nut again? Why did you credible ones tell us we can have our honest
> > beliefs and then get diarrhea when we found out that you were
> > conspirators again?
>
> I do so, in hopes of having my church communion grow, merely by showing BY MY ACTIONS that I am not what you claim me to be.
Oh, so a mentally ill deranged person can do that!!! A mentally ill
WACKO can have enough influence to cause such damage to your church
communion? Please go to any assylum and point to another one who can
do that!
I would have to repeat the question again, for the response was
ridiculous.
> > > > From just worshipping Christ, show us how you can say that I used to
> > > > go to church.
> > >
> > > A wierd place to start, since without going to Church, you're no longer worshiping Christ.
> >
> > A despot has again spoken. We need sniffing dogs to find the evidence
> > and the proof. We can't seem to see it there. Elijah is lost.
> > Jeremiah is lost. Of course-and what Seeber is trying to tell us
> > after lying to us that his church has changed-The Protestants, who had
> > to run for their lives in the forests, rocks and caves, are lost!
>
> Actually, both Elijah and Jeremiah are Catholic and Jewish Saints. Neither has been lost. And the true church does not hide their light behind a bushel for 1700 years and then burst forth suddenly to tell us that they are the remnant.
You just told us that without going to church, we are not worshipping
Christ. I see no proofs behind your statements so you must not care
that people know you are a despot.
I can worship Christ without attending church, because history shows
that church can persecute. I can even legally form a home church. We
are supposed to go to church, but there are even times when church can
make a mistake and can disfellowship a person by mistake. There is
now the Adventist Church that Seeber seems to like now, where they are
telling us that we must no longer follow our written teachings.
Seeber tells me I am dangerous for separating from that church, and
yet he can't stand Ellen White. He invariably admits that we who
protest the new Vatican Adventist Church that flies Vatican flags and
tells us about the blessed Eucharist believe in and support the
teachings of Ellen White. Something appears to be wrong here. But
Christians go by the WRITINGS, and NOT by the hierarchy that pledges
to be in submission to it. The hierarchies can change. THE WRITINGS
DON'T CHANGE. Christians will go by the writings the hierarchies are
pledged to defend.
The Adventist organization pledges and even now claims to be abiding
by the writings of her foundation. Why then is Seeber against those
writings but in favor of the new Vatican Adventist hierarchy?
> > > > No wonder you are determined that the US get more
> > > > intelligence gathering. Why not just show them your intelligence
> > > > gathering techniques and they wouldn't have to call for the people to
> > > > give up their privacy!
> > >
> > > I have. See the change in my sig line.
> >
> > I think they would want you to change by stop posting to WACKO,
> > paranoid, nut, asses! We all know you cannot afford to do that now,
> > don't we?
>
> Why should I when with every post YOU answer, you prove my way to be more correct?
I can answer every post of yours. I never said that you were a WACKO
NUT. For me to say that would be untrue! I didn't come here to lie.
I was not born with your intestines and neither your destiny. You
call me paranoid. I don't mind! When you post, I will be paranoid
and will post back if I want. I am proud to be so insulted by you.
There are also many other Vatican Adventists teaching me to relax and
calm down because Christ is in control. They also post against me and
cannot rest nor notice that Christ is in control. You all work for
dear Antichrist life. I can do the same. I don't have any
double-messages to give or tell.
Ted McMillan
> > > >
> > > > And you use your despotism to make unfounded allegations. A movement
> > > > was started in the SDA Church. It suddenly demanded that the SDA
> > > > Church must change. Thousands protested and were kicked out. I
> > > > therefore don't let any despot tell me who caused the schism.
> > >
> > > Those who protest cause the schism. Always. Those who fail to follow Paul's advice that you follow those
> > > whom God has set up to be your superiors, cause the schism.
> >
> > Seeber protests the present form of government in the US.
>
> No I don't. I need the present form of government in the US if it is ever going to be changed to grant people freedom.
Again, Seeber now tells us that people who protest cause schism. We
have shown that the Adventist leadership has a problem with Ellen
White just like equally Vatican Seeber. It appears that the Adventist
leadership are protesting against her written foundations. He now
despot babbles to us that although Seeber is a dissident of the
government and is against it, he does not cause schism. Why does
Seeber need the present form of Government in order to change it to
grant people freedom? This is the one who will grant the people
freedom by telling them that liberty was never in the Constitution,
privacy was never in the constitution, we should all provide
hardcopies of our private letters to the US Postal service, we should
grant our landlords unlimited access to our rented apartments, etc.
Abraham Lincoln tells us why Seeber needs the present form of
government in order to change it to grant people the freedom to be in
chains so that they can exercise their liberties from the inside only.
When they do exercise such liberty after Seeber's put them in chains,
Seeber will quote to them Roman 13:1 and 2 without any condition.
That scripture says:
1 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no
power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.
2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of
God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.
This is what Father Chiniquy has told us is the reason why Seeber
needs this kind of government in order to change it so that the people
can be in chains. Don't tell me! Father Chiniquy needed mental
help!:
"The Pope of Rome and his Jesuits know this better than any one. Hence
their constant and supreme efforts to destroy this Republic. Believing
and preaching that it is their duty to exterminate the individuals who
differ from them in religion, they assume that it is their duty to
destroy the governments and the nations who refuse to submit to their
yoke, when they can do it safely.
The mission of Rome being to teach that the inferior, the people, must
obey his superior, just as the corpse obeys the hand which moves it,
or as the stick obeys the arm which directs it, she knows well that
she cannot fulfill her mission and attain her object so long as this
government of a free, sovereign people, stands; she is, then, bound to
oppose, paralyze, and destroy that government when she finds her
opportunity."
Notice this is just what Seeber is telling us. We must not rebel
against our appointed superiors to interpret and order us around even
though the Adventist superiors supposedly support, according to
Vatican despot Seeber, "Ellen Govld Vvhite" has he tries to make her
out as the prophetic Antichrist who is ultimately supposed to control
the world and persecute the saints till Christ comes! Father Chiniquy
ought to know, for he was Catholic. But he continues further in the
next breath:
"With lynx eye, she watched that opportunity: and with anxiety and
rage she spied from her cradle the onward march of this young giant
Republic. She knew that it was in the bosom of every true citizen of
the United States to propagate those accursed (by her) principles of
equality, fraternity, and liberty all over the world. She saw that the
irresistible influence of those principles were felt on the most
distant nations, as well as on the poor, miserable Irish people, she
was keeping under her heavy and ignominious yoke; she understood that
there was a real danger for her very existence, if those principles
would continue to spread; that her slavery star would go down as the
liberty star would rise on the horizon. In a word, Rome saw at once
that the very existence of the United States was a formidable menace
to her own life. Already she had seen the chains of two millions of
her Irish slaves melted at the simple touch of the warm rays of
liberty which had fallen from the stars and stripes banners. From the
very beginning she perfidiously sowed the germs of division and hatred
between the two great sections of this country, and she felt an
unspeakable joy when she saw that she had succeeded in dividing its
South from the North, on the burning question of slavery. She looked
upon that division as her golden opportunity. To crush one party by
the other, and reign over the bloody ruins of both, has invariably
been her policy. She hoped that the hour of her supreme triumph over
this continent was come. She ordered her elder son, the Emperor of
France, to keep himself ready to help her to crush the North, by
having an army in Mexico ready to support the South, and she bade all
the Roman Catholic bishops, priests, and people to enroll themselves
under the banners of slavery, by joining themselves to the party of
the Democracy. And everybody knows how the Roman Catholic bishops and
priests, almost to a man, obeyed that order. Only one bishop dared to
disobey. Above everything, it was ordered to oppose the election of
Lincoln at any cost. For, from the very first day that his eloquent
voice had been heard, a thrill of terror had gone through the hearts
of the partisans of slavery. The Democratic press, which was then, as
it is still now, almost entirely under the control of the Roman
Catholics, and the devoted tool of the Jesuits, deluged the country
with the most fearful denunciations against him. They called him an
ape, a stupid brute, a most dangerous lunatic, a bloody monster, a
merciless tyrant, ect., ect. In a word, Rome exhausted all her
resources of language, she ransacked the English dictionary to find
the most suitable expressions to fill the people with contempt,
hatred, and horror against him. But it was written in the decrees of
God that honest Abraham Lincoln should be proclaimed President of the
United States, the 4th of March 1861."
Notice that Seeber also insults us as his ancestors insulted President
Lincoln. President Lincoln then added:
"From the beginning of our civil war, there has been, not a secret,
but a public alliance, between the Pope of Rome and Jeff Davis, and
that alliance has followed the common laws of this world affairs. The
greater has led the smaller, the stronger has guided the weaker. The
Pope and his Jesuits have advised, supported, and directed Jeff Davis
on the land, from the first gun shot at Fort Sumter, by the rabid
Roman Catholic Beauregard. They are helping him on the sea by guiding
and supporting the other rabid Roman Catholic pirate, Semmes, on the
ocean. And they will help the rebellion when firing their last gun to
shed the blood of the last soldier of Liberty, who will fall in this
fratricidal war. In my interview with Bishop Hughes, I told him, 'that
every stranger who had sworn allegiance to our government by becoming
a United States citizen, as himself, was liable to be shot or hung as
a perjured traitor and an armed spy, as the sentence of the
court-martial may direct. And he will be so shot and hanged
accordingly, as there will be no exchange of such prisoners'. After I
had put this flea in the ears of the Romish bishop, I requested him to
go and report my words to the Pope. Seeing the dangerous position of
his bishops and priests when siding with the rebels, my hope was that
he would advise them, for their own interests, to become loyal and
true to their allegiance and help us through the remaining part of the
war. But he result has been the very contrary. The Pope has thrown
away the mask, and shown himself the public partisan and the protector
of the rebellion, by taking Jeff Davis by the hand, and impudently
recognizing the Southern States as a legitimate government. Now, I
have the proof in hand that that very Bishop Hughes, whom I had sent
to Rome that he might induce the Pope to urge the Roman Catholics of
the North at least, to be true to their oath of allegiance, and whom I
thanked publicly, when, under the impression that he had acted
honestly, according to the promise he had given me, is the very man
who advised the Pope to recognize the legitimacy of the Southern
Republic, and put the whole weight of his tiara in the balance against
us in favour of our enemies! Such is the perfidy of those Jesuits. Two
cankers are biting the very entrails of the United States today: the
Romish and the Mormon priests. Both are equally at work to form a
people of the most abject, ignorant and fanatical slaves, who will
recognize no other authority but their supreme pontiffs. Both are
aiming at the destruction of our schools, to raise themselves upon our
ruins. Both shelter themselves under our grand and holy principles of
liberty of conscience, to destroy that very liberty of conscience, and
bind the world before their heavy and ignominious yoke. The Mormon and
the Jesuit priests are equally the uncompromising enemies of our
constitution and our laws; but the more dangerous of the two is the
Jesuits the Romish priest, for he knows better now to conceal his
hatred under the mask of friendship and public good: he is better
trained to commit the most cruel and diabolical deeds for the glory of
God. "Till lately, I was in favour of the unlimited liberty of
conscience as our constitution gives it to the Roman Catholics. But
now, it seems to me that, sooner or later, the people will be forced
to put a restriction to that clause towards the Papists. Is it not an
act of folly to give absolute liberty of conscience to a set of men
who are publicly sworn to cut our throats the very day they have their
opportunity for doing it? It is right to give the privilege of
citizenship to men who are the sworn and public enemies of our
constitution, our laws, our liberties, and our lives?"
> > He tells us
> > that the citizens MUST give up their liberties and privacy after
> > posting here that they never had it in the first place. He tells us
> > that he works AGAINST and WITHIN the government in order to enact
> > reform and change.
>
> Privacy is a code word, apparently. It is not in existance anywhere in scripture or in the Constitution.
Again despot Seeber uses all his arts to deceive. He even told us
that the WORDS Separation of Church and State is not in the
Constitution as if it has to be written there or it doesn't exist!
The PRINCIPLE of Separation of Church and State is there as well as
privacy is there. We have already shown that although the word GOSPEL
was not found anywhere in the Old Testament, the Gospel IS in the Old
Testament. It was preached there as Hebrews 4 has shown us.
Don't you consider it odd that you cannot find others who have the
concerns of Seeber against a free people?
> > The Disciples are lost. The Apostles are lost. Christ is lost. They
> > approached the leaders of their religion with a message found in their
> > scriptures, but the leaders did not agree to it. The leaders cast
> > them out.
>
> If I've been cast out (the term is excommunicated, for those who've had more schooling than kindergarten) then why is the religion of the Disciples, of the Apostles, and of Christ (that is the One Holy Apostolic Catholic Church) the largest Christian religion on the planet?
Well scripture does say that it will sit on a beast over seven hills,
and it does tell us that it will rule all nations and then ultimately
cause the worst persecution till Christ will have to save His people
by breaking the clouds of heaven and putting the Beast and his imps
into the lake of fire. Large religions is proof of the true church?
We have shown already that the Jews tried to prove they were the true
people of God using methods that Christ did not approve. We are just
repeating the same proofs over and over again to the man that has to
post against lunatics! Christ said that those who do the works of
Abraham are children of Abraham, but the Jews are not that children of
Abraham because they were trying to kill Jesus who was bringing the
truth to them.
We contend that Rome did commit the horrible atrocities of history.
We have told you the truth. We contend that she is preparing to do
that again. We have told you the truth. We contend that she
supported and even had a hand in the establishment of the Nazi regime
and the Ustashis. We have told you the truth. Rome now opposes us
and tells the world that we hate Catholics, and she is working to
actually kill us. "This did not Abraham." The age or size of a
church, or special appointments of history, is not what designates the
true church or people of God.
> > > > >Nope. Only Americans who are a part of a "well regulated militia" have the right
> > > > >to bear arms.
> > > > >But everybody has the right to arm bears.
> >
> > I didn't see a MAYBE there. You mean like, "MAYBE the Catholic Church
> > is not responsible for the Massacre of St. Bartholomew" as you said?
>
> There is no maybe there because the language is plain to anybody who has actually graduated kindergarten.
But all the rest above first grade can't understand it. Militias were
recognized in the Constitution APART from the government. They were
recognized in case the government became tyrannical as it secretly is
now. This was created by the "paranoid conspiracy theorists" called
the founding fathers of this nation. We are proud to be just as sick
as they were who follow the written foundations as it plainly states.
> > > > And what did they do to enemies both foreign and domestic who believed
> > > > that liberty is useless for everyone but themselves and their bloody
> > > > church?
> > >
> > > No such enemies existed.
For some reason presidents swear something Seeber tells us is bologna
in all inaugurations. All presidents swear to oppose all enemies of
the Constitution both foreign and domestic. We now learn that no such
enemies exist with the despot not again saying "MAYBE!"
Thing is, the despot already said that Osama Bin Laden is my idol and
that I stockpile guns, and that anyone who stockpiles guns must be
planning to depopulate the citizenry EXCEPT the new American
government!
> > What! No MAYBE?? Why at every inauguration a president has to make
> > an oath that he will fight against all enemies to the Constitution
> > "both foreign and domestic?"
>
> Just because he makes that oath does NOT mean that such enemies actually existed outside of the paranoid minds of a few rich men.
> Ted
There you go folks! The despot Seeber tells us that his mission is to
CHANGE the Constitution so that the people can be more free. Can you
imagine what will happen to you if Seeber gains power and you come to
the conclusion that there are enemies both foreign and domestic?
But Seeber still can't tell he is paranoid of Ted McMillan's posts on
the newsgroups!