SEEBER AND PRIVACY!
Ted McMillan
> Address munged to prevent spam, remove "spam." to reply, In message <55de15cf.01091...@posting.google.com>, tmac...@internet4free.net (Ted McMillan) wrote:
> > "Theodore M. Seeber" <see...@spam.seeberfamily.org> wrote in message news:<S4Up7.3561$WW5.1...@sjcpnn01.usenetserver.com>...
> > > Address munged to prevent spam, remove "spam." to reply, In message <55de15cf.01091...@posting.google.com>, tmac...@internet4free.net (Ted McMillan) wrote:
> > > > "Theodore M. Seeber" <see...@spam.seeberfamily.org> wrote in message news:<dLyp7.118076$sC4.3...@sjcpnn01.usenetserver.com>...
> > > > To tell you the truth, I don't remember saying this. I don't remember
> > > > even saying that the people who suffered from the disaster are
> > > > Communists or hate privacy. Even with the privacy issue it is to my
> > > > knowledge that they are victims and not accomplices to what's going
> > > > on.
> > >
> > > The point is that you'd rather draw people to your website to join in your Jihad against American Government than help people!
> > >
It is only as the Antichrist is gaining power that we can come to the
conclusion that someone telling us that "liberty only creates schism"
(Ted Seeber) can be defenders of American Government. I say that the
despots think we're stupid, but we have to more show us this is not
true as they amass weapons of force and destruction against us.
> >
> > Can someone tell me how is it that a Dark Ages Catholic like Ted
> > Seeber can tell us that liberty has only caused schism and we
> > shouldn't have it, and can yet tell the world that I have a Jihad
> > against American Government?
>
> Maybe because, unlike you, I'm not trying to work against the American Government outside of the system, but rather am working within democracy to reform America?
So Seeber is not working against "American government" outside of the
system, but has infiltrated it and is working against it from within.
That is what he just said folks. And how is it that someone who loves
and supports liberty (like me) can be working against American
government?
He obviously wants everyone else to understand, like him, that liberty
is useless and only causes schism. The Communist and Nazi governments
prove this!
> > Only the servants of the Antichrist can
> > do this!
>
> Yep, only the servants of the antichrist use democracy, the rest use guns.
>
Yes, only the servants of antichrist use democracy in order to destroy
liberty. Who does not know that Hitler's regime was supported by
national democracy?
> > Where have I EVER attacked the Constitution of the United States?
>
> Never! That's the point. You worship the Constitution to the point of being AGAINST those who have the responsibility to interpret the Constitution.
>
This, of course is a lie. The framers of the Constitution unanimously
interpreted it the way I understand it. The Constitution was always
to be understood by the people of America also to form checks and
balances. It was interpreted properly by practice for generations.
It is because outlaws have infiltrated among us why we are now idiots
for interpreting it the way it was always interpreted.
Where in the Constitution is the support for a global government?
Where does it say we must require that American soldiers swear support
for the American government and then wear United Nations uniforms and
obey the commanders of that foreign power?
> > > > I didn't say not to give blood. Some monster said it and copies the
> > > > monsters of history. I did not say to turn your backs on those who
> > > > need help. I was almost a victim myself in that same area.
> > >
> > > How so? Did you have a plane crash into your place of work?
> >
Better that than have the Antichrist crash into one's mind and eternal
destiny!
> > Why ask questions?
>
> Maybe to get answers?
>
Then why do you speak as if you have answers. You have already
confirmed in your dark mind that I am staging a Jihad against American
government even though I agree with its principles and love liberty.
I don't believe that liberty is useless and only causes schism. It is
you who boldly posted that on these public newsgroups.
> > Ask questions before the world! If you know I
> > have a Jihad against American government, how come you don't know the
> > question you ask?
>
> I don't know the full reason for bin Laden's Jihad either, does that mean that I don't know that he's taken up a Holy War against America?
>
Do you know I have a Jihad against America even though I don't believe
that liberty is useless and only causes schism as you said?
> > > No, you're against the victims of the people they are fighting. Like Packistan, you're either with America in the
> >War against Terrorism, or you're against us. Even the Islams in Packistan know which side they should be on, do you?
Yes, I am on the side of those who love liberty. Where have I said
whose side I was or was not on? It was you who said that I have a
Jihad against American government. All history tells me that satanic
people who will tell us that liberty is useless and only causes schism
always have the balls to tell how others are traitors.
> > Then truly you do hate liberty. I already predicted, just like
> > scripture, that no one would be allowed to differ with the new
> > movements toward the Antichrist.
>
> Yep, just side with bin Laden against your own government. That will really show them what the Constitution is for: The right to kill anybody the Anti-Ted disagrees with.
Isn't strange what you said is fact while Ted McMillan doesn't believe
your statement that liberty is useless and only causes schism?
>
> > I said NOTHING in favor of the Pakistanis or terrorists.
>
> Except that we shouldn't be doing whatever it takes to apprehend them.
>
I did not say that either. Or maybe someone believes in the end
justifies the means: that we should do anything and everything to take
them. Maybe we can cause trouble with another nation even and kill
people there in order to apprehend them, right? Great coming from
someone who hates liberty!
> >I am not in
> > favor with them at all.
>
> But in choosing to limit the abilities of your government, you are giving aid and comfort to them.
Is this being said by the one working against the government on the
inside for democratic reform? The one who is determined that everyone
else understand that liberty is useless and only causes schism?
>
> > But let's get back to the statement Seeber
> > made that liberty only causes schism. You would be surprised to learn
> > how many intelligence agents who missed a terrorist plan probably five
> > years to commit believe the same thing!
>
> When you consider that the federal government, for all of their wiretaping and listening in, were only wiretaping landline and not cell phones, and that bin Laden's cult was using cell phones exclusively, it's no wonder that they missed it.
Just like they missed every other terrorist attack that even took less
time to attempt? They have caught every other in this country!
>
> > > > Well go to my web site and bring your handcuffs! I am not the one who
> > > > supported religious persecution. I will soon have evidence that
> > > > Seeber is the one who does this. I did not speak out against liberty.
> > > > I will soon have evidence on my web site that Seeber did this if it
> > > > is not there already!
> > >
> > > By speaking out for "privacy", you are indeed speaking out against "liberty", in this situation. There is no
> >difference between the Terrorist who attacks from afar, and the terrorist who is here at home.
Why have an issue even against someone speaking out against liberty?
I have already proven that Ted Seeber said that liberty is useless and
only causes schism. This did not drive into his thick and despot
skull. How is it that he can detect that I speak out against liberty?
These are the despot enemies of liberty. Soon you will see the effect
when weapons of mass destruction fall into the hands of people who
have the same minds as Seeber posting here!
> > >
> > > Ted
> >
> > Well viewing that Seeber already told us that liberty causes "schism"
> > and that we shouldn't have it, I am not surprised that, according to
> > him, by me speaking out for privacy, I am speaking out against
> > liberty.
>
> Good. You shouldn't be suprised that liberty requires security first.
Are you quoting from Hitler's Mein Kampf? Are you telling me that
once we get security to have the government read all our emails and
everything about us that is private, when the threat goes we would
receive it back? How come none of you can understand the answer to
this through Seeber telling us that liberty is useless and only causes
schism?
Liberty requires security first is the same as saying liberty requires
a lack of liberty first. If we can see that most every Terrorist is
Arabic and we yet cannot dare violate the rights of Arabic Americans
living here, we can say that every email of terrorists is encrypted,
but we dare not violate the rights of honest citizens who choose to
encrypt their emails.
>
> > Better to show the government everything you write! What
> > more proof do you have from that than that you're free! In Seeber's
> > mind that is the point!
>
> The free man is not bound to sin and being a traitor.
> You're not free, Anti-Ted, because you've become a slave to the opinions of others.
> Ted
That is what you said. That liberty is useless and causes schism.
That we as Protestants shouldn't have liberty, and neither should your
church even though she is scheduled by you to call the shots and make
the choices.
The free man IS BOUND TO SIN if he so chooses. Lucifer was free to
make his choice from that time we have true religion that woos people
to her membership by the beauty of her faith. NOT to return to the
Dark Ages arguments that members must feel the wrath of the state so
that they can become church members and be coerced into heaven. We
are saved by willing submission to Christ and not by political and
coercise interference by despots. The punishment of law is not what
saves people!
For the Work Finished!
Ted McMillan
THE LAST WORD ON ADVENTIST TRUTH
http://www.seventh-dayadventim.org
Theodore M. Seeber
> > > >
>
> It is only as the Antichrist is gaining power that we can come to the
> conclusion that someone telling us that "liberty only creates schism"
> (Ted Seeber) can be defenders of American Government. I say that the
> despots think we're stupid, but we have to more show us this is not
> true as they amass weapons of force and destruction against us.
Yep, and then you let rip with this and PROVE THE DESPOTS RIGHT!
> > Maybe because, unlike you, I'm not trying to work against the American Government outside of the system, > >but rather am working within democracy to reform America?
>
> So Seeber is not working against "American government" outside of the
> system, but has infiltrated it and is working against it from within.
> That is what he just said folks. And how is it that someone who loves
> and supports liberty (like me) can be working against American
> government?
By encouraging violent rebellion, such as what happened with David Koresh. By stockpiling weapons against the day you'll have to shoot your local deputy.
And for what, when the ballot box is a much better place to make your feelings heard?
> He obviously wants everyone else to understand, like him, that liberty
> is useless and only causes schism. The Communist and Nazi governments
> prove this!
Insofar that they too, wished to squelch all opinions against their constitutions, yep.
> > Yep, only the servants of the antichrist use democracy, the rest use guns.
>
> Yes, only the servants of antichrist use democracy in order to destroy
> liberty. Who does not know that Hitler's regime was supported by
> national democracy?
:-) Just like Pat Robertson's regime.
> > > Where have I EVER attacked the Constitution of the United States?
> >
> > Never! That's the point. You worship the Constitution to the point of being AGAINST those who have the > >responsibility to interpret the Constitution.
>
> This, of course is a lie. The framers of the Constitution unanimously
> interpreted it the way I understand it.
ONE big difference though: They gave the Congress the right to amend it (thus admiting that they may be wrong, unlike you) and the COURTS the right to interpret it (not ordinary citizens).
Ever wonder why?
> The Constitution was always
> to be understood by the people of America also to form checks and
> balances. It was interpreted properly by practice for generations.
> It is because outlaws have infiltrated among us why we are now idiots
> for interpreting it the way it was always interpreted.
Yeah, right. Either that, or because the way it was interpreted before, changed.
> Where in the Constitution is the support for a global government?
In the granting to the office of the executive, AND NOT TO ORDINARY CITIZENS, the right to determine foreign policy.
> Where does it say we must require that American soldiers swear support
> for the American government and then wear United Nations uniforms and
> obey the commanders of that foreign power?
Because they must obey the commander in cheif first. Come on, this is easy stuff. Too bad you're too stupid to see the answer: competent authority.
> > > > How so? Did you have a plane crash into your place of work?
>
> Better that than have the Antichrist crash into one's mind and eternal
> destiny!
Kind of like you working for Ellen Govld V Vhite? Whose name adds up to 666?
> Then why do you speak as if you have answers. You have already
> confirmed in your dark mind that I am staging a Jihad against American
> government even though I agree with its principles and love liberty.
> I don't believe that liberty is useless and only causes schism. It is
> you who boldly posted that on these public newsgroups.
I have no answers, only opinions. But you have no opinions, only answers. Sometimes. When you don't feel like avoiding the hard ones.
> > > Ask questions before the world! If you know I
> > > have a Jihad against American government, how come you don't know the
> > > question you ask?
> >
> > I don't know the full reason for bin Laden's Jihad either, does that mean that I don't know that he's taken up a > >Holy War against America?
>
> Do you know I have a Jihad against America even though I don't believe
> that liberty is useless and only causes schism as you said?
I know you have a Jihad against America because you support an outdated and incredibly stupid interpretation of the Constitution, and because you support the taking up of arms against your own government even in times of war.
> Yes, I am on the side of those who love liberty. Where have I said
> whose side I was or was not on?
In fighting for privacy rights (which aren't in the constitution-ANYWHERE) against neccessary rules needed to fight against the Terrorists, you've chosen the wrong side.
> It was you who said that I have a
> Jihad against American government. All history tells me that satanic
> people who will tell us that liberty is useless and only causes schism
> always have the balls to tell how others are traitors.
No it doesn't. That's just a worshiper of men talking.
> > Yep, just side with bin Laden against your own government. That will really show them what the Constitution > >is for: The right to kill anybody the Anti-Ted disagrees with.
>
> Isn't strange what you said is fact while Ted McMillan doesn't believe
> your statement that liberty is useless and only causes schism?
So what? What good is liberty without a right to life?
> > Except that we shouldn't be doing whatever it takes to apprehend them.
>
> I did not say that either. Or maybe someone believes in the end
> justifies the means: that we should do anything and everything to take
> them.
Absolutely.
> Maybe we can cause trouble with another nation even and kill
> people there in order to apprehend them, right? Great coming from
> someone who hates liberty!
Exactly right, that's exactly what I'm saying. If we're going to preserve our right to LIFE, we must give up a little of our LIBERTY. The right to life takes precedance against everything else.
> > >I am not in
> > > favor with them at all.
> >
> > But in choosing to limit the abilities of your government, you are giving aid and comfort to them.
>
> Is this being said by the one working against the government on the
> inside for democratic reform?
YES. I'm 100% behind anything the current government does. Are you?
> The one who is determined that everyone
> else understand that liberty is useless and only causes schism?
Isn't it obvious that it does? Who deserves liberty, the terrorists?
> > When you consider that the federal government, for all of their wiretaping and listening in, were only > >wiretaping landline and not cell phones, and that bin Laden's cult was using cell phones exclusively, it's no > >wonder that they missed it.
>
> Just like they missed every other terrorist attack that even took less
> time to attempt? They have caught every other in this country!
The other attempts that were caught were NOT bin Laden's group, nor were they being carefull about communications.
> > > > By speaking out for "privacy", you are indeed speaking out against "liberty", in this situation. There is no
> > >difference between the Terrorist who attacks from afar, and the terrorist who is here at home.
>
> Why have an issue even against someone speaking out against liberty?
Why have an issue with your own government, unless you really care only about personal power and not liberty as you claim?
> I have already proven that Ted Seeber said that liberty is useless and
> only causes schism. This did not drive into his thick and despot
> skull. How is it that he can detect that I speak out against liberty?
I never said you speak out against liberty, I said you speak out against your government and their right to protect life.
> These are the despot enemies of liberty. Soon you will see the effect
> when weapons of mass destruction fall into the hands of people who
> have the same minds as Seeber posting here!
Yeah, right. Better that such weapons are never allowed to exist.
> > Good. You shouldn't be suprised that liberty requires security first.
>
> Are you quoting from Hitler's Mein Kampf?
No, but you seem to be. Protect privacy at all costs, right?
> Are you telling me that
> once we get security to have the government read all our emails and
> everything about us that is private, when the threat goes we would
> receive it back?
E-mail has NEVER been private, nor has any other communication over publically owned systems.
> How come none of you can understand the answer to
> this through Seeber telling us that liberty is useless and only causes
> schism?
Maybe because without life, there is no liberty or anything else?
> Liberty requires security first is the same as saying liberty requires
> a lack of liberty first. If we can see that most every Terrorist is
> Arabic and we yet cannot dare violate the rights of Arabic Americans
> living here, we can say that every email of terrorists is encrypted,
> but we dare not violate the rights of honest citizens who choose to
> encrypt their emails.
What about the Christian terrorists right here at home? David Koresh, or maybe even YOU?
That's what you're afraid of, isn't it?
> > The free man is not bound to sin and being a traitor.
> > You're not free, Anti-Ted, because you've become a slave to the opinions of others.
>
> That is what you said. That liberty is useless and causes schism.
> That we as Protestants shouldn't have liberty, and neither should your
> church even though she is scheduled by you to call the shots and make
> the choices.
I'm not so sure of that one anymore. The world isn't ready for Catholic Idealism.
> The free man IS BOUND TO SIN if he so chooses. Lucifer was free to
> make his choice from that time we have true religion that woos people
> to her membership by the beauty of her faith. NOT to return to the
> Dark Ages arguments that members must feel the wrath of the state so
> that they can become church members and be coerced into heaven. We
> are saved by willing submission to Christ and not by political and
> coercise interference by despots. The punishment of law is not what
> saves people!
But it is what saves life right here on Earth.
Of course, the anti-Ted doesn't believe we should have a right to life.
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:
>> > > > The point is that you'd rather draw people to your website to join in your Jihad against American Government than help people!
>> > > >
>>
>> It is only as the Antichrist is gaining power that we can come to the
>> conclusion that someone telling us that "liberty only creates schism"
>> (Ted Seeber) can be defenders of American Government. I say that the
>> despots think we're stupid, but we have to more show us this is not
>> true as they amass weapons of force and destruction against us.
>
>Yep, and then you let rip with this and PROVE THE DESPOTS RIGHT!
>
But I don't believe that liberty is useless and only causes schism.
You won't either if the "heretics" had the sense to imprison you and
condemn you by denying you liberty--something you are certainly
thinking of doing to them!
>> > Maybe because, unlike you, I'm not trying to work against the American Government outside of the system, > >but rather am working within democracy to reform America?
>>
>> So Seeber is not working against "American government" outside of the
>> system, but has infiltrated it and is working against it from within.
>> That is what he just said folks. And how is it that someone who loves
>> and supports liberty (like me) can be working against American
>> government?
>
>By encouraging violent rebellion, such as what happened with David Koresh. By stockpiling weapons against the day you'll have to shoot your local deputy.
>And for what, when the ballot box is a much better place to make your feelings heard?
>
WOW! If you can remember those things oh despot, you can surely
remember alot more. Your despot friend Cindy told us about forgetting
things in the past. I assure you she will have amnesia now viewing
what you said!
>> He obviously wants everyone else to understand, like him, that liberty
>> is useless and only causes schism. The Communist and Nazi governments
>> prove this!
>
>Insofar that they too, wished to squelch all opinions against their constitutions, yep.
>
Good! They also believed that liberty is useless and only causes
schism like Seeber!
>> > Yep, only the servants of the antichrist use democracy, the rest use guns.
>>
>> Yes, only the servants of antichrist use democracy in order to destroy
>> liberty. Who does not know that Hitler's regime was supported by
>> national democracy?
>
>:-) Just like Pat Robertson's regime.
>
Do we support Pat Robertson's regime? This point is only brought in
to confuse.
>> > > Where have I EVER attacked the Constitution of the United States?
>> >
>> > Never! That's the point. You worship the Constitution to the point of being AGAINST those who have the > >responsibility to interpret the Constitution.
>>
>> This, of course is a lie. The framers of the Constitution unanimously
>> interpreted it the way I understand it.
>
>ONE big difference though: They gave the Congress the right to amend it (thus admiting that they may be wrong, unlike you) and the COURTS the right to interpret it (not ordinary citizens).
>Ever wonder why?
>
OH SO ROME HAS APOLOGIZED FOR HER ATROCITIES OF THE PAST THUS
ADMITTING THAT SHE WAS WRONG! She is therefore not a reliable source
to rule the world again! She has had too much of a chance already
anyway and the only thing that appeared to be yielded in her mind is
her amnesia of the horrible things she did, and her hatred of those
who know what she did and is returning to do.
>> The Constitution was always
>> to be understood by the people of America also to form checks and
>> balances. It was interpreted properly by practice for generations.
>> It is because outlaws have infiltrated among us why we are now idiots
>> for interpreting it the way it was always interpreted.
>
>Yeah, right. Either that, or because the way it was interpreted before, changed.
>
Coming from an expert who seems to know that "liberty is useless and
only causes schism!" This person will not accept the US government
putting restrictions on his lilberty-hating church!
>> Where in the Constitution is the support for a global government?
>
>In the granting to the office of the executive, AND NOT TO ORDINARY CITIZENS, the right to determine foreign policy.
>
The question was, as was evaded here, WHERE IN THE CONSTITUTION IS THE
SUPPORT FOR A GLOBAL GOVERNMENT!
>> Where does it say we must require that American soldiers swear support
>> for the American government and then wear United Nations uniforms and
>> obey the commanders of that foreign power?
>
>Because they must obey the commander in cheif first. Come on, this is easy stuff. Too bad you're too stupid to see the answer: competent authority.
>
This is easy stuff for a grandson of perdition. If we are to obey the
commander in chief first, we would not first swear loyalty to the
United States and the Constitution without being first told that the
whims of the president supersede these things.
This is just another proof of treason coming from the despot who told
us that "liberty is useless and only causes schism!"
Military members listen to the President, but they do not expect him
to violate the Constitution, and if he does, they have every right to
tell him he needs to go to hell!
>> > > > How so? Did you have a plane crash into your place of work?
>>
>> Better that than have the Antichrist crash into one's mind and eternal
>> destiny!
>
>Kind of like you working for Ellen Govld V Vhite? Whose name adds up to 666?
>
So does the Pope. The thing is that Revelation also tells us that
ultimately the whole world will worship the Beast. It tells us that
it is a woman in symbology that sits on a beast, meaning a church that
sits in the seat of the civil power and control. It tells us that she
will have in her hand a cup full of the blood of the Saints.
Ellen Govld VVhite didn't have these things, but trying to convince
Seeber of this is like trying to convince his master also from below.
When is the whole world going to worship Ellen White? When will the
world say who is like unto Ellen White? Who is able to make war with
her as we read in Revelation? Now even all our government leaders are
globalists just like despot Seeber! Seeber tells us that "liberty is
useless and only causes schism," and he gives much support to the
globalism of our nation leaders. Do our national leaders believe the
same thing about liberty?
>> Then why do you speak as if you have answers. You have already
>> confirmed in your dark mind that I am staging a Jihad against American
>> government even though I agree with its principles and love liberty.
>> I don't believe that liberty is useless and only causes schism. It is
>> you who boldly posted that on these public newsgroups.
>
>I have no answers, only opinions. But you have no opinions, only answers. Sometimes. When you don't feel like avoiding the hard ones.
>
Why did you tell us that liberty is useless and only causes schism?
Why did you tell us that the scriptures support religious persecution
because Ananias and Sapphira died before Peter?
>> > > Ask questions before the world! If you know I
>> > > have a Jihad against American government, how come you don't know the
>> > > question you ask?
>> >
>> > I don't know the full reason for bin Laden's Jihad either, does that mean that I don't know that he's taken up a > >Holy War against America?
>>
>> Do you know I have a Jihad against America even though I don't believe
>> that liberty is useless and only causes schism as you said?
>
>I know you have a Jihad against America because you support an outdated and incredibly stupid interpretation of the Constitution, and because you support the taking up of arms against your own government even in times of war.
>
You told us that "liberty is useless and only causes schism." Now
tell us, if this is outdated, when did this happen. When is the date
this took place and what condition caused this to happen.
You told us that we cannot have liberty "just as yet" because of the
current terrorist situation. You lied however because when you told
us that "libert is useless and only causes schism," you said this long
before this terrorist incident, therefore proving that you mean we are
not to have privacy and liberty at all!
Since Seeber tells us that our interpretation of the Constitution is
incredibly stupid and outdated, take a look at what he intends the
interpretation should be here:
http://www.seventh-dayadventism.org/RomeProtestantsSame.htm
As you read these interpretations, check the dates and you will see
that these quotations depicting the revisions Seeber is telling us
about DATES MUCH FURTHER BACK!
He hates the Constitution, but now comes to pretend that he loves it
by destroying its principles THROUGH INTERPRETATION. His
interpretation of it is exactly the opposite of the principles it
supports.
>> Yes, I am on the side of those who love liberty. Where have I said
>> whose side I was or was not on?
>
>In fighting for privacy rights (which aren't in the constitution-ANYWHERE) against neccessary rules needed to fight against the Terrorists, you've chosen the wrong side.
>
BUT WE ARE NOT DAMNED AND PARANOID! We are not Hitler's children! We
don't come to such conclusions. If we did, we would start to pass
laws against you and your Vatican!
>> It was you who said that I have a
>> Jihad against American government. All history tells me that satanic
>> people who will tell us that liberty is useless and only causes schism
>> always have the balls to tell how others are traitors.
>
>No it doesn't. That's just a worshiper of men talking.
>
Will you Seeber accept that we now pass laws against you and your
church and take away from you that "useless" thing called liberty?
>> > Yep, just side with bin Laden against your own government. That will really show them what the Constitution > >is for: The right to kill anybody the Anti-Ted disagrees with.
>>
Then why would Anti-Ted always try to remind us that the Waldenses
were extincted by kind and smart people like Seeber, but he and his
friends always do everything to take this truth out of the minds of
the people?
How is it that someone who tells us that "liberty is useless and only
causes schism" can be a supporter of America and those who think
differently are its enemies? Maybe this is because the despot proves
everything with his mouth alone.
>> Isn't strange what you said is fact while Ted McMillan doesn't believe
>> your statement that liberty is useless and only causes schism?
>
>So what? What good is liberty without a right to life?
>
You said that liberty is useless and only causes schism. You made
that statement well before this terrorist incident. Right to life
doesn't take away the fact that you are an enemy of liberty and a
despot rain or shine, then or now!
>> > Except that we shouldn't be doing whatever it takes to apprehend them.
>>
>> I did not say that either. Or maybe someone believes in the end
>> justifies the means: that we should do anything and everything to take
>> them.
>
>Absolutely.
>
Like on these newsgroups. Do anything to accuse others of being mean
even though your ancestors with your same mnid depopulated whole
communities, and now you step up to teach us about love and Christian
courtesy. After Christians show that not just you, but your whole
Vatican hates liberty, you tell the world that they hate Catholics.
>> Maybe we can cause trouble with another nation even and kill
>> people there in order to apprehend them, right? Great coming from
>> someone who hates liberty!
>
>Exactly right, that's exactly what I'm saying. If we're going to preserve our right to LIFE, we must give up a little of our LIBERTY. The right to life takes precedance against everything else.
>
I have asked you again and again when you are going to be the example
and offer for our government to make laws against you and your
religion! I have told you again that we don't like your Hitleristic
mindset. Hitler said the same thing.
Again, you are lying because you made your statements against liberty
WELL BEFORE THIS TERRORIST INCIDENT!
>> > >I am not in
>> > > favor with them at all.
>> >
>> > But in choosing to limit the abilities of your government, you are giving aid and comfort to them.
>>
>> Is this being said by the one working against the government on the
>> inside for democratic reform?
>
>YES. I'm 100% behind anything the current government does. Are you?
>
No, I am not a globalist and I am not working to build again the Roman
Empire under the Pope! I spent time showing that most of our national
leaders have thoughts as Dark as yours and are loyal to the Pope also.
Next, you are not 100% behind what this government does. That's why
you protest the Constitution that allows people to even think
differently than you. If you are 100% in favor with this government,
you would not be imitating your hated heretic protestants by showing
disaffection to its present Constitution and telling us that you work
to destroy communities and build them back for your despot reforms.
"Liberty is useless and only causes schism," is not something you
should preach widely on American streets for your sake, for if you
did, again I say American would become a much better country
instantly, for the American people would put you to death quite
quickly!
>> The one who is determined that everyone
>> else understand that liberty is useless and only causes schism?
>
>Isn't it obvious that it does? Who deserves liberty, the terrorists?
>
You are 100% with this government, but you don't let the government
decide this because you know the government has already decided this
and it is against your despot opinions.
You have not shown how useless liberty is by telling the government to
take it away from you and from your felllow workers of the Antichrist!
>> > When you consider that the federal government, for all of their wiretaping and listening in, were only > >wiretaping landline and not cell phones, and that bin Laden's cult was using cell phones exclusively, it's no > >wonder that they missed it.
>>
>> Just like they missed every other terrorist attack that even took less
>> time to attempt? They have caught every other in this country!
>
>The other attempts that were caught were NOT bin Laden's group, nor were they being carefull about communications.
>
People are seeing them now arresting people left and right. A news
correspondent asked how come they can now catch so many people so
quickly and the politician avoided the question as the despot here
does. The laws for privacy still stand and they are catching
terrorists left and right to show that the government is still keen
and strong. But after the terrorist attack we find the government
AGAIN calling for the American people to give up their liberties.
Terrorists use encryption email from the black market, so that if the
government legislates against encryption, they would only affect the
citizens ad not the terrorists. Seeber will still call for laws
against privacy because, as his statement was made BEFORE the
terrorist attacks, Seeber hates privacy for others than himself and
his religion ONLY!
>> > > > By speaking out for "privacy", you are indeed speaking out against "liberty", in this situation. There is no
>> > >difference between the Terrorist who attacks from afar, and the terrorist who is here at home.
>>
Privacy has always been a part of liberty, and no reader looking at
these messages should allow despot Seeber to shave out a major piece
of your mind. The two are inseparable unless you bring back a
Hitleristic regime which Seeber favors.
>> Why have an issue even against someone speaking out against liberty?
>
>Why have an issue with your own government, unless you really care only about personal power and not liberty as you claim?
>
Why did the forefathers have an issue against our own government?
They made the Constitution to protect the citizesn against our
government and even gave them the right to bear arms for the upcoming
possibility that the government can become tyrannical and see things
the way Seeber does!
Why were the forefathers of our nation that paranoid and though much
differently than Seeber?
>> I have already proven that Ted Seeber said that liberty is useless and
>> only causes schism. This did not drive into his thick and despot
>> skull. How is it that he can detect that I speak out against liberty?
>
>I never said you speak out against liberty, I said you speak out against your government and their right to protect life.
>
That is a lie. They can protect life all they want. They are waging
a war right now, and I have no object to that as a decision itself.
Hitler also told the German people that for the good of society and to
protect this and that, they must give up that "useless" thing separate
from security called "Liberty." We therefore saw the result of
Seeber's thoughts here also.
>> These are the despot enemies of liberty. Soon you will see the effect
>> when weapons of mass destruction fall into the hands of people who
>> have the same minds as Seeber posting here!
>
>Yeah, right. Better that such weapons are never allowed to exist.
>
>> > Good. You shouldn't be suprised that liberty requires security first.
>>
>> Are you quoting from Hitler's Mein Kampf?
>
>No, but you seem to be. Protect privacy at all costs, right?
>
What did Hitler say? Did what he say resemble what I say? or resemble
what you say? I see no virtue iin forming a police state except to
make a test run first on the proposition by first legislating against
Seeber and his constantly troublesome establishment!
>> Are you telling me that
>> once we get security to have the government read all our emails and
>> everything about us that is private, when the threat goes we would
>> receive it back?
>
>E-mail has NEVER been private, nor has any other communication over publically owned systems.
EVEN IF THAT WERE TRUE, I AM NOT ASKING HOW EMAIL WAS. I AM ASKING
HOW EMAIL SHOULD BE!
I say these things should be private whether or not someone using it
is an outlaw because the government can accept Seeber's thoughs and
become tyrannical as it already is as we speak right now!
Seeber then says that he supports the government 100%, but the
government doesn't make laws against Arabs and Middleeastern peoples
for security sake. But Seeber supports the government outlawing
encrypted email because all terrorists encrypt theirs. But most
encrypted email is sent by GOOD people!
>
>> How come none of you can understand the answer to
>> this through Seeber telling us that liberty is useless and only causes
>> schism?
>
>Maybe because without life, there is no liberty or anything else?
>
But we don't ask Hitler to determine that this is the case, and we
therefore don't ask this of Seeber. Seeber told us that liberty is
useless BEFORE this threat, and he is only demonstrating more than his
lying tongue, but his lying religion.
>> Liberty requires security first is the same as saying liberty requires
>> a lack of liberty first. If we can see that most every Terrorist is
>> Arabic and we yet cannot dare violate the rights of Arabic Americans
>> living here, we can say that every email of terrorists is encrypted,
>> but we dare not violate the rights of honest citizens who choose to
>> encrypt their emails.
>
>What about the Christian terrorists right here at home? David Koresh, or maybe even YOU?
>That's what you're afraid of, isn't it?
>
AGAIN:
Liberty requires security first is the same as saying liberty requires
a lack of liberty first. If we can see that most every Terrorist is
Arabic and we yet cannot dare violate the rights of Arabic Americans
living here, we can say that every email of terrorists is encrypted,
but we dare not violate the rights of honest citizens who choose to
encrypt their emails.
>> > The free man is not bound to sin and being a traitor.
>> > You're not free, Anti-Ted, because you've become a slave to the opinions of others.
>>
>> That is what you said. That liberty is useless and causes schism.
>> That we as Protestants shouldn't have liberty, and neither should your
>> church even though she is scheduled by you to call the shots and make
>> the choices.
>
>I'm not so sure of that one anymore. The world isn't ready for Catholic Idealism.
>
You agree with our national leaders 100% while telling us that liberty
is useless and only causes schism. You will then try to tell us that
they are not working for Catholic idealism.
>> The free man IS BOUND TO SIN if he so chooses. Lucifer was free to
>> make his choice from that time we have true religion that woos people
>> to her membership by the beauty of her faith. NOT to return to the
>> Dark Ages arguments that members must feel the wrath of the state so
>> that they can become church members and be coerced into heaven. We
>> are saved by willing submission to Christ and not by political and
>> coercise interference by despots. The punishment of law is not what
>> saves people!
>
>But it is what saves life right here on Earth.
>Of course, the anti-Ted doesn't believe we should have a right to life.
>Ted
If they thought that, the Vatican would have stayed where she was with
all her workers and would not have interfered and fought against our
system for 200 years.
Let us post this post on all the newsgroups to advertise the monsters
that are still here with us telling us to focus only on Christ, but
are active in every covert form of politics!
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
Ted McMillan
<see...@spam.seeberfamily.org> wrote:
>> > > > The point is that you'd rather draw people to your website to join in your Jihad against American Government than help people!
>> > > >
>>
>> It is only as the Antichrist is gaining power that we can come to the
>> conclusion that someone telling us that "liberty only creates schism"
>> (Ted Seeber) can be defenders of American Government. I say that the
>> despots think we're stupid, but we have to more show us this is not
>> true as they amass weapons of force and destruction against us.
>
>Yep, and then you let rip with this and PROVE THE DESPOTS RIGHT!
>
But I don't believe that liberty is useless and only causes schism.
You won't either if the "heretics" had the sense to imprison you and
condemn you by denying you liberty--something you are certainly
thinking of doing to them!
>> > Maybe because, unlike you, I'm not trying to work against the American Government outside of the system, > >but rather am working within democracy to reform America?
>>
>> So Seeber is not working against "American government" outside of the
>> system, but has infiltrated it and is working against it from within.
>> That is what he just said folks. And how is it that someone who loves
>> and supports liberty (like me) can be working against American
>> government?
>
>By encouraging violent rebellion, such as what happened with David Koresh. By stockpiling weapons against the day you'll have to shoot your local deputy.
>And for what, when the ballot box is a much better place to make your feelings heard?
>
WOW! If you can remember those things oh despot, you can surely
remember alot more. Your despot friend Cindy told us about forgetting
things in the past. I assure you she will have amnesia now viewing
what you said!
>> He obviously wants everyone else to understand, like him, that liberty
>> is useless and only causes schism. The Communist and Nazi governments
>> prove this!
>
>Insofar that they too, wished to squelch all opinions against their constitutions, yep.
>
Good! They also believed that liberty is useless and only causes
schism like Seeber!
>> > Yep, only the servants of the antichrist use democracy, the rest use guns.
>>
>> Yes, only the servants of antichrist use democracy in order to destroy
>> liberty. Who does not know that Hitler's regime was supported by
>> national democracy?
>
>:-) Just like Pat Robertson's regime.
>
Do we support Pat Robertson's regime? This point is only brought in
to confuse.
>> > > Where have I EVER attacked the Constitution of the United States?
>> >
>> > Never! That's the point. You worship the Constitution to the point of being AGAINST those who have the > >responsibility to interpret the Constitution.
>>
>> This, of course is a lie. The framers of the Constitution unanimously
>> interpreted it the way I understand it.
>
>ONE big difference though: They gave the Congress the right to amend it (thus admiting that they may be wrong, unlike you) and the COURTS the right to interpret it (not ordinary citizens).
>Ever wonder why?
>
OH SO ROME HAS APOLOGIZED FOR HER ATROCITIES OF THE PAST THUS
ADMITTING THAT SHE WAS WRONG! She is therefore not a reliable source
to rule the world again! She has had too much of a chance already
anyway and the only thing that appeared to be yielded in her mind is
her amnesia of the horrible things she did, and her hatred of those
who know what she did and is returning to do.
>> The Constitution was always
>> to be understood by the people of America also to form checks and
>> balances. It was interpreted properly by practice for generations.
>> It is because outlaws have infiltrated among us why we are now idiots
>> for interpreting it the way it was always interpreted.
>
>Yeah, right. Either that, or because the way it was interpreted before, changed.
>
Coming from an expert who seems to know that "liberty is useless and
only causes schism!" This person will not accept the US government
putting restrictions on his lilberty-hating church!
>> Where in the Constitution is the support for a global government?
>
>In the granting to the office of the executive, AND NOT TO ORDINARY CITIZENS, the right to determine foreign policy.
>
The question was, as was evaded here, WHERE IN THE CONSTITUTION IS THE
SUPPORT FOR A GLOBAL GOVERNMENT!
>> Where does it say we must require that American soldiers swear support
>> for the American government and then wear United Nations uniforms and
>> obey the commanders of that foreign power?
>
>Because they must obey the commander in cheif first. Come on, this is easy stuff. Too bad you're too stupid to see the answer: competent authority.
>
This is easy stuff for a grandson of perdition. If we are to obey the
commander in chief first, we would not first swear loyalty to the
United States and the Constitution without being first told that the
whims of the president supersede these things.
This is just another proof of treason coming from the despot who told
us that "liberty is useless and only causes schism!"
Military members listen to the President, but they do not expect him
to violate the Constitution, and if he does, they have every right to
tell him he needs to go to hell!
>> > > > How so? Did you have a plane crash into your place of work?
>>
>> Better that than have the Antichrist crash into one's mind and eternal
>> destiny!
>
>Kind of like you working for Ellen Govld V Vhite? Whose name adds up to 666?
>
So does the Pope. The thing is that Revelation also tells us that
ultimately the whole world will worship the Beast. It tells us that
it is a woman in symbology that sits on a beast, meaning a church that
sits in the seat of the civil power and control. It tells us that she
will have in her hand a cup full of the blood of the Saints.
Ellen Govld VVhite didn't have these things, but trying to convince
Seeber of this is like trying to convince his master also from below.
When is the whole world going to worship Ellen White? When will the
world say who is like unto Ellen White? Who is able to make war with
her as we read in Revelation? Now even all our government leaders are
globalists just like despot Seeber! Seeber tells us that "liberty is
useless and only causes schism," and he gives much support to the
globalism of our nation leaders. Do our national leaders believe the
same thing about liberty?
>> Then why do you speak as if you have answers. You have already
>> confirmed in your dark mind that I am staging a Jihad against American
>> government even though I agree with its principles and love liberty.
>> I don't believe that liberty is useless and only causes schism. It is
>> you who boldly posted that on these public newsgroups.
>
>I have no answers, only opinions. But you have no opinions, only answers. Sometimes. When you don't feel like avoiding the hard ones.
>
Why did you tell us that liberty is useless and only causes schism?
Why did you tell us that the scriptures support religious persecution
because Ananias and Sapphira died before Peter?
>> > > Ask questions before the world! If you know I
>> > > have a Jihad against American government, how come you don't know the
>> > > question you ask?
>> >
>> > I don't know the full reason for bin Laden's Jihad either, does that mean that I don't know that he's taken up a > >Holy War against America?
>>
>> Do you know I have a Jihad against America even though I don't believe
>> that liberty is useless and only causes schism as you said?
>
>I know you have a Jihad against America because you support an outdated and incredibly stupid interpretation of the Constitution, and because you support the taking up of arms against your own government even in times of war.
>
You told us that "liberty is useless and only causes schism." Now
tell us, if this is outdated, when did this happen. When is the date
this took place and what condition caused this to happen.
You told us that we cannot have liberty "just as yet" because of the
current terrorist situation. You lied however because when you told
us that "libert is useless and only causes schism," you said this long
before this terrorist incident, therefore proving that you mean we are
not to have privacy and liberty at all!
Since Seeber tells us that our interpretation of the Constitution is
incredibly stupid and outdated, take a look at what he intends the
interpretation should be here:
http://www.seventh-dayadventism.org/RomeProtestantsSame.htm
As you read these interpretations, check the dates and you will see
that these quotations depicting the revisions Seeber is telling us
about DATES MUCH FURTHER BACK!
He hates the Constitution, but now comes to pretend that he loves it
by destroying its principles THROUGH INTERPRETATION. His
interpretation of it is exactly the opposite of the principles it
supports.
>> Yes, I am on the side of those who love liberty. Where have I said
>> whose side I was or was not on?
>
>In fighting for privacy rights (which aren't in the constitution-ANYWHERE) against neccessary rules needed to fight against the Terrorists, you've chosen the wrong side.
>
BUT WE ARE NOT DAMNED AND PARANOID! We are not Hitler's children! We
don't come to such conclusions. If we did, we would start to pass
laws against you and your Vatican!
>> It was you who said that I have a
>> Jihad against American government. All history tells me that satanic
>> people who will tell us that liberty is useless and only causes schism
>> always have the balls to tell how others are traitors.
>
>No it doesn't. That's just a worshiper of men talking.
>
Will you Seeber accept that we now pass laws against you and your
church and take away from you that "useless" thing called liberty?
>> > Yep, just side with bin Laden against your own government. That will really show them what the Constitution > >is for: The right to kill anybody the Anti-Ted disagrees with.
>>
Then why would Anti-Ted always try to remind us that the Waldenses
were extincted by kind and smart people like Seeber, but he and his
friends always do everything to take this truth out of the minds of
the people?
How is it that someone who tells us that "liberty is useless and only
causes schism" can be a supporter of America and those who think
differently are its enemies? Maybe this is because the despot proves
everything with his mouth alone.
>> Isn't strange what you said is fact while Ted McMillan doesn't believe
>> your statement that liberty is useless and only causes schism?
>
>So what? What good is liberty without a right to life?
>
You said that liberty is useless and only causes schism. You made
that statement well before this terrorist incident. Right to life
doesn't take away the fact that you are an enemy of liberty and a
despot rain or shine, then or now!
>> > Except that we shouldn't be doing whatever it takes to apprehend them.
>>
>> I did not say that either. Or maybe someone believes in the end
>> justifies the means: that we should do anything and everything to take
>> them.
>
>Absolutely.
>
Like on these newsgroups. Do anything to accuse others of being mean
even though your ancestors with your same mnid depopulated whole
communities, and now you step up to teach us about love and Christian
courtesy. After Christians show that not just you, but your whole
Vatican hates liberty, you tell the world that they hate Catholics.
>> Maybe we can cause trouble with another nation even and kill
>> people there in order to apprehend them, right? Great coming from
>> someone who hates liberty!
>
>Exactly right, that's exactly what I'm saying. If we're going to preserve our right to LIFE, we must give up a little of our LIBERTY. The right to life takes precedance against everything else.
>
I have asked you again and again when you are going to be the example
and offer for our government to make laws against you and your
religion! I have told you again that we don't like your Hitleristic
mindset. Hitler said the same thing.
Again, you are lying because you made your statements against liberty
WELL BEFORE THIS TERRORIST INCIDENT!
>> > >I am not in
>> > > favor with them at all.
>> >
>> > But in choosing to limit the abilities of your government, you are giving aid and comfort to them.
>>
>> Is this being said by the one working against the government on the
>> inside for democratic reform?
>
>YES. I'm 100% behind anything the current government does. Are you?
>
No, I am not a globalist and I am not working to build again the Roman
Empire under the Pope! I spent time showing that most of our national
leaders have thoughts as Dark as yours and are loyal to the Pope also.
Next, you are not 100% behind what this government does. That's why
you protest the Constitution that allows people to even think
differently than you. If you are 100% in favor with this government,
you would not be imitating your hated heretic protestants by showing
disaffection to its present Constitution and telling us that you work
to destroy communities and build them back for your despot reforms.
"Liberty is useless and only causes schism," is not something you
should preach widely on American streets for your sake, for if you
did, again I say American would become a much better country
instantly, for the American people would put you to death quite
quickly!
>> The one who is determined that everyone
>> else understand that liberty is useless and only causes schism?
>
>Isn't it obvious that it does? Who deserves liberty, the terrorists?
>
You are 100% with this government, but you don't let the government
decide this because you know the government has already decided this
and it is against your despot opinions.
You have not shown how useless liberty is by telling the government to
take it away from you and from your felllow workers of the Antichrist!
>> > When you consider that the federal government, for all of their wiretaping and listening in, were only > >wiretaping landline and not cell phones, and that bin Laden's cult was using cell phones exclusively, it's no > >wonder that they missed it.
>>
>> Just like they missed every other terrorist attack that even took less
>> time to attempt? They have caught every other in this country!
>
>The other attempts that were caught were NOT bin Laden's group, nor were they being carefull about communications.
>
People are seeing them now arresting people left and right. A news
correspondent asked how come they can now catch so many people so
quickly and the politician avoided the question as the despot here
does. The laws for privacy still stand and they are catching
terrorists left and right to show that the government is still keen
and strong. But after the terrorist attack we find the government
AGAIN calling for the American people to give up their liberties.
Terrorists use encryption email from the black market, so that if the
government legislates against encryption, they would only affect the
citizens ad not the terrorists. Seeber will still call for laws
against privacy because, as his statement was made BEFORE the
terrorist attacks, Seeber hates privacy for others than himself and
his religion ONLY!
>> > > > By speaking out for "privacy", you are indeed speaking out against "liberty", in this situation. There is no
>> > >difference between the Terrorist who attacks from afar, and the terrorist who is here at home.
>>
Privacy has always been a part of liberty, and no reader looking at
these messages should allow despot Seeber to shave out a major piece
of your mind. The two are inseparable unless you bring back a
Hitleristic regime which Seeber favors.
>> Why have an issue even against someone speaking out against liberty?
>
>Why have an issue with your own government, unless you really care only about personal power and not liberty as you claim?
>
Why did the forefathers have an issue against our own government?
They made the Constitution to protect the citizesn against our
government and even gave them the right to bear arms for the upcoming
possibility that the government can become tyrannical and see things
the way Seeber does!
Why were the forefathers of our nation that paranoid and though much
differently than Seeber?
>> I have already proven that Ted Seeber said that liberty is useless and
>> only causes schism. This did not drive into his thick and despot
>> skull. How is it that he can detect that I speak out against liberty?
>
>I never said you speak out against liberty, I said you speak out against your government and their right to protect life.
>
That is a lie. They can protect life all they want. They are waging
a war right now, and I have no object to that as a decision itself.
Hitler also told the German people that for the good of society and to
protect this and that, they must give up that "useless" thing separate
from security called "Liberty." We therefore saw the result of
Seeber's thoughts here also.
>> These are the despot enemies of liberty. Soon you will see the effect
>> when weapons of mass destruction fall into the hands of people who
>> have the same minds as Seeber posting here!
>
>Yeah, right. Better that such weapons are never allowed to exist.
>
>> > Good. You shouldn't be suprised that liberty requires security first.
>>
>> Are you quoting from Hitler's Mein Kampf?
>
>No, but you seem to be. Protect privacy at all costs, right?
>
What did Hitler say? Did what he say resemble what I say? or resemble
what you say? I see no virtue iin forming a police state except to
make a test run first on the proposition by first legislating against
Seeber and his constantly troublesome establishment!
>> Are you telling me that
>> once we get security to have the government read all our emails and
>> everything about us that is private, when the threat goes we would
>> receive it back?
>
>E-mail has NEVER been private, nor has any other communication over publically owned systems.
EVEN IF THAT WERE TRUE, I AM NOT ASKING HOW EMAIL WAS. I AM ASKING
HOW EMAIL SHOULD BE!
I say these things should be private whether or not someone using it
is an outlaw because the government can accept Seeber's thoughs and
become tyrannical as it already is as we speak right now!
Seeber then says that he supports the government 100%, but the
government doesn't make laws against Arabs and Middleeastern peoples
for security sake. But Seeber supports the government outlawing
encrypted email because all terrorists encrypt theirs. But most
encrypted email is sent by GOOD people!
>
>> How come none of you can understand the answer to
>> this through Seeber telling us that liberty is useless and only causes
>> schism?
>
>Maybe because without life, there is no liberty or anything else?
>
But we don't ask Hitler to determine that this is the case, and we
therefore don't ask this of Seeber. Seeber told us that liberty is
useless BEFORE this threat, and he is only demonstrating more than his
lying tongue, but his lying religion.
>> Liberty requires security first is the same as saying liberty requires
>> a lack of liberty first. If we can see that most every Terrorist is
>> Arabic and we yet cannot dare violate the rights of Arabic Americans
>> living here, we can say that every email of terrorists is encrypted,
>> but we dare not violate the rights of honest citizens who choose to
>> encrypt their emails.
>
>What about the Christian terrorists right here at home? David Koresh, or maybe even YOU?
>That's what you're afraid of, isn't it?
>
AGAIN:
Liberty requires security first is the same as saying liberty requires
a lack of liberty first. If we can see that most every Terrorist is
Arabic and we yet cannot dare violate the rights of Arabic Americans
living here, we can say that every email of terrorists is encrypted,
but we dare not violate the rights of honest citizens who choose to
encrypt their emails.
>> > The free man is not bound to sin and being a traitor.
>> > You're not free, Anti-Ted, because you've become a slave to the opinions of others.
>>
>> That is what you said. That liberty is useless and causes schism.
>> That we as Protestants shouldn't have liberty, and neither should your
>> church even though she is scheduled by you to call the shots and make
>> the choices.
>
>I'm not so sure of that one anymore. The world isn't ready for Catholic Idealism.
>
You agree with our national leaders 100% while telling us that liberty
is useless and only causes schism. You will then try to tell us that
they are not working for Catholic idealism.
>> The free man IS BOUND TO SIN if he so chooses. Lucifer was free to
>> make his choice from that time we have true religion that woos people
>> to her membership by the beauty of her faith. NOT to return to the
>> Dark Ages arguments that members must feel the wrath of the state so
>> that they can become church members and be coerced into heaven. We
>> are saved by willing submission to Christ and not by political and
>> coercise interference by despots. The punishment of law is not what
>> saves people!
>
>But it is what saves life right here on Earth.
>Of course, the anti-Ted doesn't believe we should have a right to life.
>Ted
If they thought that, the Vatican would have stayed where she was with
all her workers and would not have interfered and fought against our
system for 200 years.
Let us post this post on all the newsgroups to advertise the monsters
that are still here with us telling us to focus only on Christ, but
are active in every covert form of politics!
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 Mon, 24 Sep 2001 04:21:29 GMT, "Theodore M. Seeber"
> <see...@spam.seeberfamily.org> wrote:
>
> >> > > > The point is that you'd rather draw people to your website to join in your Jihad against American Government than help people!
> >> > > >
> >>
> >> It is only as the Antichrist is gaining power that we can come to the
> >> conclusion that someone telling us that "liberty only creates schism"
> >> (Ted Seeber) can be defenders of American Government. I say that the
> >> despots think we're stupid, but we have to more show us this is not
> >> true as they amass weapons of force and destruction against us.
> >
> >Yep, and then you let rip with this and PROVE THE DESPOTS RIGHT!
> >
>
> But I don't believe that liberty is useless and only causes schism.
Yep, obviously too stupid to learn from history, and thus proving that you are stupid.
> You won't either if the "heretics" had the sense to imprison you and
> condemn you by denying you liberty--something you are certainly
> thinking of doing to them!
I can work just as easily from jail as from anywhere else. My mind is not fettered by geographic location, unlike yours.
As Augustine of Hippo wrote, the whole point of Christianity is to learn to live well. For if you live well, you will die well. And if you die well, then all is well.
> >By encouraging violent rebellion, such as what happened with David Koresh. By stockpiling weapons > >against the day you'll have to shoot your local deputy.
> >And for what, when the ballot box is a much better place to make your feelings heard?
>
> WOW! If you can remember those things oh despot, you can surely
> remember alot more. Your despot friend Cindy told us about forgetting
> things in the past. I assure you she will have amnesia now viewing
> what you said!
That stockpiling weapons is wrong? I hope she not only knows about it, but agrees!
> >Insofar that they too, wished to squelch all opinions against their constitutions, yep.
>
> Good! They also believed that liberty is useless and only causes
> schism like Seeber!
And thus, they didn't have to deal with schism as a problem. Gee, how interesting.
> >:-) Just like Pat Robertson's regime.
>
> Do we support Pat Robertson's regime? This point is only brought in
> to confuse.
You seem to support any right-wing terrorist regime.
> >> This, of course is a lie. The framers of the Constitution unanimously
> >> interpreted it the way I understand it.
> >
> >ONE big difference though: They gave the Congress the right to amend it (thus admiting that they may be > >wrong, unlike you) and the COURTS the right to interpret it (not ordinary citizens).
> >Ever wonder why?
> >
>
> OH SO ROME HAS APOLOGIZED FOR HER ATROCITIES OF THE PAST THUS
> ADMITTING THAT SHE WAS WRONG!
Yep, but what has this to do with your constitutional idolatry?
> She is therefore not a reliable source
> to rule the world again! She has had too much of a chance already
> anyway and the only thing that appeared to be yielded in her mind is
> her amnesia of the horrible things she did, and her hatred of those
> who know what she did and is returning to do.
It's the "returning to do" part that is a lie.
> >Yeah, right. Either that, or because the way it was interpreted before, changed.
>
> Coming from an expert who seems to know that "liberty is useless and
> only causes schism!" This person will not accept the US government
> putting restrictions on his lilberty-hating church!
Rather, I hope my church goes along with such restrictions, in hopes that they can prevent your suicide in the middle of a crowded mass.
> >> Where in the Constitution is the support for a global government?
> >
> >In the granting to the office of the executive, AND NOT TO ORDINARY CITIZENS, the right to determine foreign > >policy.
>
> The question was, as was evaded here, WHERE IN THE CONSTITUTION IS THE
> SUPPORT FOR A GLOBAL GOVERNMENT!
And I told you, in the powers granted to the office of the executive. How stupid can you be?
> >> Where does it say we must require that American soldiers swear support
> >> for the American government and then wear United Nations uniforms and
> >> obey the commanders of that foreign power?
> >
> >Because they must obey the commander in cheif first. Come on, this is easy stuff. Too bad you're too stupid > >to see the answer: competent authority.
>
> This is easy stuff for a grandson of perdition. If we are to obey the
> commander in chief first, we would not first swear loyalty to the
> United States and the Constitution without being first told that the
> whims of the president supersede these things.
The Constitution requires that the "whims of the president" supercede things. You cannot uphold the Constitution without obeying the commander in cheif.
> This is just another proof of treason coming from the despot who told
> us that "liberty is useless and only causes schism!"
Ok, so now the Constitution itself is treason to you.
> Military members listen to the President, but they do not expect him
> to violate the Constitution, and if he does, they have every right to
> tell him he needs to go to hell!
And to get executed for treason.
> >Kind of like you working for Ellen Govld V Vhite? Whose name adds up to 666?
>
> So does the Pope. The thing is that Revelation also tells us that
> ultimately the whole world will worship the Beast. It tells us that
> it is a woman in symbology that sits on a beast, meaning a church that
> sits in the seat of the civil power and control. It tells us that she
> will have in her hand a cup full of the blood of the Saints.
The only woman head of a church is:
> Ellen Govld VVhite didn't have these things, but trying to convince
> Seeber of this is like trying to convince his master also from below.
Seems to me she did. After all, she was the head of a church.
> When is the whole world going to worship Ellen White?
When nuts like you kill everyone else.
> When will the
> world say who is like unto Ellen White?
You've been saying it already.
> Who is able to make war with
> her as we read in Revelation? Now even all our government leaders are
> globalists just like despot Seeber! Seeber tells us that "liberty is
> useless and only causes schism," and he gives much support to the
> globalism of our nation leaders. Do our national leaders believe the
> same thing about liberty?
No, they currently do not. They will, in time.
> >> Then why do you speak as if you have answers. You have already
> >> confirmed in your dark mind that I am staging a Jihad against American
> >> government even though I agree with its principles and love liberty.
> >> I don't believe that liberty is useless and only causes schism. It is
> >> you who boldly posted that on these public newsgroups.
> >
> >I have no answers, only opinions. But you have no opinions, only answers. Sometimes. When you don't feel > >like avoiding the hard ones.
>
> Why did you tell us that liberty is useless and only causes schism?
Because that is my OPINION.
> Why did you tell us that the scriptures support religious persecution
> because Ananias and Sapphira died before Peter?
Because that is my OPINION.
> >> Do you know I have a Jihad against America even though I don't believe
> >> that liberty is useless and only causes schism as you said?
> >
> >I know you have a Jihad against America because you support an outdated and incredibly stupid > >interpretation of the Constitution, and because you support the taking up of arms against your own > >government even in times of war.
>
> You told us that "liberty is useless and only causes schism." Now
> tell us, if this is outdated, when did this happen. When is the date
> this took place and what condition caused this to happen.
1500, when Luther invented the doctrine of Sola Scriptura and the Protestant Churches started following the primrose path of personal interpretation into untruth and lies.
> You told us that we cannot have liberty "just as yet" because of the
> current terrorist situation. You lied however because when you told
> us that "libert is useless and only causes schism," you said this long
> before this terrorist incident, therefore proving that you mean we are
> not to have privacy and liberty at all!
More that the terrorist situation has proven to me that not only liberty,
but also the Catholic ideal of a single world, the world just isn't ready
for yet.
> Since Seeber tells us that our interpretation of the Constitution is
> incredibly stupid and outdated, take a look at what he intends the
> interpretation should be here:
None of this page was written by ME.
> http://www.seventh-dayadventism.org/RomeProtestantsSame.htm
>
> As you read these interpretations, check the dates and you will see
> that these quotations depicting the revisions Seeber is telling us
> about DATES MUCH FURTHER BACK!
I'm telling nobody anything new.
> He hates the Constitution, but now comes to pretend that he loves it
> by destroying its principles THROUGH INTERPRETATION. His
> interpretation of it is exactly the opposite of the principles it
> supports.
But I don't want a society to run on my interpretation, but rather the interpretation of the Courts, who are given the job in Article 3 to interpret the constitution.
> >In fighting for privacy rights (which aren't in the constitution-ANYWHERE) against neccessary rules needed to > >fight against the Terrorists, you've chosen the wrong side.
>
> BUT WE ARE NOT DAMNED AND PARANOID! We are not Hitler's children! We
> don't come to such conclusions. If we did, we would start to pass
> laws against you and your Vatican!
But people like you HAVE, in the past, quite often in fact.
> >No it doesn't. That's just a worshiper of men talking.
>
> Will you Seeber accept that we now pass laws against you and your
> church and take away from you that "useless" thing called liberty?
If you become the competent authority, sure.
> Then why would Anti-Ted always try to remind us that the Waldenses
> were extincted by kind and smart people like Seeber, but he and his
> friends always do everything to take this truth out of the minds of
> the people?
Ah, now you side with yet another people who considered suicide the path to salvation, the Waldenses.
I suggest you start looking up the teachings of the cults you support.
> How is it that someone who tells us that "liberty is useless and only
> causes schism" can be a supporter of America and those who think
> differently are its enemies? Maybe this is because the despot proves
> everything with his mouth alone.
Since you seem to equate despot with democrat, sure.
> >So what? What good is liberty without a right to life?
>
> You said that liberty is useless and only causes schism. You made
> that statement well before this terrorist incident. Right to life
> doesn't take away the fact that you are an enemy of liberty and a
> despot rain or shine, then or now!
Unlike you, the terrorist incident changed quite a bit in my mind. I'm now much less willing to let incompetent religious authority in, but at the same time, I now stand behind competent secular authority.
> >Absolutely.
>
> Like on these newsgroups. Do anything to accuse others of being mean
> even though your ancestors with your same mnid depopulated whole
> communities, and now you step up to teach us about love and Christian
> courtesy. After Christians show that not just you, but your whole
> Vatican hates liberty, you tell the world that they hate Catholics.
The end justifies the means, and the words justify the insane.
> >Exactly right, that's exactly what I'm saying. If we're going to preserve our right to LIFE, we must give up a little > >of our LIBERTY. The right to life takes precedance against everything else.
>
> I have asked you again and again when you are going to be the example
> and offer for our government to make laws against you and your
> religion! I have told you again that we don't like your Hitleristic
> mindset. Hitler said the same thing.
You don't. Who is this We? Your sock puppet multiple personalities?
> Again, you are lying because you made your statements against liberty
> WELL BEFORE THIS TERRORIST INCIDENT!
So what? You keep rallying on this, but it's a moot point now.
> >YES. I'm 100% behind anything the current government does. Are you?
>
> No, I am not a globalist and I am not working to build again the Roman
> Empire under the Pope!
Last I saw, George W Bush was a Protestant. Do you stand behind him?
> I spent time showing that most of our national
> leaders have thoughts as Dark as yours and are loyal to the Pope also.
I doubt it. At least, I hope not. If they do, then within a month, Afghanistan will be glowing in the dark.
> Next, you are not 100% behind what this government does. That's why
> you protest the Constitution that allows people to even think
> differently than you. If you are 100% in favor with this government,
> you would not be imitating your hated heretic protestants by showing
> disaffection to its present Constitution and telling us that you work
> to destroy communities and build them back for your despot reforms.
Part of the Constitution includes the ability to amend it. Or haven't you read Article II yet?
> "Liberty is useless and only causes schism," is not something you
> should preach widely on American streets for your sake, for if you
> did, again I say American would become a much better country
> instantly, for the American people would put you to death quite
> quickly!
Thus, you are against liberty itself.
> >> The one who is determined that everyone
> >> else understand that liberty is useless and only causes schism?
> >
> >Isn't it obvious that it does? Who deserves liberty, the terrorists?
>
> You are 100% with this government, but you don't let the government
> decide this because you know the government has already decided this
> and it is against your despot opinions.
I'm perfectly willing to let the government decide that terrorists don't deserve liberty, are you?
> You have not shown how useless liberty is by telling the government to
> take it away from you and from your felllow workers of the Antichrist!
I thought that was EXACTLY what I was doing. How was I unclear?
> >The other attempts that were caught were NOT bin Laden's group, nor were they being carefull about > >communications.
>
> People are seeing them now arresting people left and right. A news
> correspondent asked how come they can now catch so many people so
> quickly and the politician avoided the question as the despot here
> does. The laws for privacy still stand and they are catching
> terrorists left and right to show that the government is still keen
> and strong. But after the terrorist attack we find the government
> AGAIN calling for the American people to give up their liberties.
They haven't caught them all yet.
> Terrorists use encryption email from the black market, so that if the
> government legislates against encryption, they would only affect the
> citizens ad not the terrorists. Seeber will still call for laws
> against privacy because, as his statement was made BEFORE the
> terrorist attacks, Seeber hates privacy for others than himself and
> his religion ONLY!
Oh, that's funny. Why bother legislating against encryption when it's much easier just to arrest the idiots who are into encryption?
> Privacy has always been a part of liberty,
So you should be able to show me the word "Privacy" in the Constitution or in it's ammendments.
Where is it?
>and no reader looking at
> these messages should allow despot Seeber to shave out a major piece
> of your mind. The two are inseparable unless you bring back a
> Hitleristic regime which Seeber favors.
Go find the word privacy in the constitution, then we'll talk.
> >Why have an issue with your own government, unless you really care only about personal power and not > >liberty as you claim?
>
> Why did the forefathers have an issue against our own government?
They didn't. They just knew that the Government wasn't infallible.
> They made the Constitution to protect the citizesn against our
> government and even gave them the right to bear arms for the upcoming
> possibility that the government can become tyrannical and see things
> the way Seeber does!
But where did they grant them a right to privacy?
> Why were the forefathers of our nation that paranoid and though much
> differently than Seeber?
Funny how they didn't seem to consider privacy important enough to put in the constitution.
> >I never said you speak out against liberty, I said you speak out against your government and their right to > >protect life.
>
> That is a lie. They can protect life all they want. They are waging
> a war right now, and I have no object to that as a decision itself.
Except that the war might require you to give up being able to fly on airplanes without a sky marshal, or communicate without other people hearing.
> Hitler also told the German people that for the good of society and to
> protect this and that, they must give up that "useless" thing separate
> from security called "Liberty." We therefore saw the result of
> Seeber's thoughts here also.
Really? How many terrorist attacks did Hitler have to deal with?
> >No, but you seem to be. Protect privacy at all costs, right?
>
> What did Hitler say? Did what he say resemble what I say? or resemble
> what you say?
I'm not the one saying we should protect privacy at the expense of human life.
> >E-mail has NEVER been private, nor has any other communication over publically owned systems.
>
> EVEN IF THAT WERE TRUE, I AM NOT ASKING HOW EMAIL WAS. I AM ASKING
> HOW EMAIL SHOULD BE!
It's a communication over a publically owned system, and thus, is in the public domain.
> I say these things should be private whether or not someone using it
> is an outlaw
And thus, you give aid and comfort to the enemy.
> because the government can accept Seeber's thoughs and
> become tyrannical as it already is as we speak right now!
Yep.
> Seeber then says that he supports the government 100%, but the
> government doesn't make laws against Arabs and Middleeastern peoples
> for security sake. But Seeber supports the government outlawing
> encrypted email because all terrorists encrypt theirs. But most
> encrypted email is sent by GOOD people!
outlaw behavior, not race. And what "good people" do you know who have to keep their e-mail so secret that they encrypt it?
> >Maybe because without life, there is no liberty or anything else?
>
> But we don't ask Hitler to determine that this is the case, and we
> therefore don't ask this of Seeber. Seeber told us that liberty is
> useless BEFORE this threat, and he is only demonstrating more than his
> lying tongue, but his lying religion.
Yep, kind of like your Constitutional Idolatry. I bet you even pray before the damned thing.
> >What about the Christian terrorists right here at home? David Koresh, or maybe even YOU?
> >That's what you're afraid of, isn't it?
>
> AGAIN:
> Liberty requires security first is the same as saying liberty requires
> a lack of liberty first. If we can see that most every Terrorist is
> Arabic and we yet cannot dare violate the rights of Arabic Americans
> living here, we can say that every email of terrorists is encrypted,
> but we dare not violate the rights of honest citizens who choose to
> encrypt their emails.
Obviously, there are no HONEST citizens who choose to encrypt their e-mail.
So therefore, this is a non-sequitor to begin with.
> >I'm not so sure of that one anymore. The world isn't ready for Catholic Idealism.
>
> You agree with our national leaders 100% while telling us that liberty
> is useless and only causes schism. You will then try to tell us that
> they are not working for Catholic idealism.
Catholic idealism, in this case, would be to try to convert, rather than kill, the terrorists.
The world isn't ready for that yet.
> >But it is what saves life right here on Earth.
> >Of course, the anti-Ted doesn't believe we should have a right to life.
>
> If they thought that, the Vatican would have stayed where she was with
> all her workers and would not have interfered and fought against our
> system for 200 years.
And gee, that's exactly what she did.
> Let us post this post on all the newsgroups to advertise the monsters
> that are still here with us telling us to focus only on Christ, but
> are active in every covert form of politics!
Oh, such horrible monsters, trying to convert the Anti-Ted to Christ!
Theodore M. Seeber
My goodness, found one I missed.
Address munged to prevent spam, remove "spam." to reply, In message <97htqtga80o1368p9...@4ax.com>, Ted McMillan <t-m...@juno.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Sep 2001 04:21:29 GMT, "Theodore M. Seeber"
> <see...@spam.seeberfamily.org> wrote:
>
> But I don't believe that liberty is useless and only causes schism.
Then why are you attempting to remove liberty from other citizens?
> You won't either if the "heretics" had the sense to imprison you and
> condemn you by denying you liberty--something you are certainly
> thinking of doing to them!
Better jail than death, at least to you.
> >By encouraging violent rebellion, such as what happened with David Koresh. By stockpiling weapons > >against the day you'll have to shoot your local deputy.
> >And for what, when the ballot box is a much better place to make your feelings heard?
> >
>
> WOW! If you can remember those things oh despot, you can surely
> remember alot more. Your despot friend Cindy told us about forgetting
> things in the past. I assure you she will have amnesia now viewing
> what you said!
So what? What does Cindy have to do with the tendency of so called "liberty lovers" to commit terrorist attacks against innocent people?
> >Insofar that they too, wished to squelch all opinions against their constitutions, yep.
>
> Good! They also believed that liberty is useless and only causes
> schism like Seeber!
Exactly. And in that, they fullfilled the primary purpose of government: to unite those of differeing opinions together under a single rule of law.
As opposed to you and your friends in the Islamic nations, who would unite everyone under the law of the gun.
> >:-) Just like Pat Robertson's regime.
> >
>
> Do we support Pat Robertson's regime? This point is only brought in
> to confuse.
You sure sound enough like him to be supporting his regime.
> >> This, of course is a lie. The framers of the Constitution unanimously
> >> interpreted it the way I understand it.
> >
> >ONE big difference though: They gave the Congress the right to amend it (thus admiting that they may be > >wrong, unlike you) and the COURTS the right to interpret it (not ordinary citizens).
> >Ever wonder why?
>
> OH SO ROME HAS APOLOGIZED FOR HER ATROCITIES OF THE PAST THUS
> ADMITTING THAT SHE WAS WRONG!
And this has exactly WHAT do do with the Court's right to interpret the Constitution?
> She is therefore not a reliable source
> to rule the world again! She has had too much of a chance already
> anyway and the only thing that appeared to be yielded in her mind is
> her amnesia of the horrible things she did, and her hatred of those
> who know what she did and is returning to do.
Which has nothing at all to do with your idolatry of the Constitution, does it. Now back to the original thread of thought:
> >> The Constitution was always
> >> to be understood by the people of America also to form checks and
> >> balances. It was interpreted properly by practice for generations.
> >> It is because outlaws have infiltrated among us why we are now idiots
> >> for interpreting it the way it was always interpreted.
> >
> >Yeah, right. Either that, or because the way it was interpreted before, changed.
> >
> Coming from an expert who seems to know that "liberty is useless and
> only causes schism!" This person will not accept the US government
> putting restrictions on his lilberty-hating church!
OTOH, I accept any legal restrictions that the US Government needs to place to insure
the safety of Catholics. One suggestion heard at my parish: Cameras in the sanctuary, plugged into 24-hour loop VCRs.
> >> Where in the Constitution is the support for a global government?
> >
> >In the granting to the office of the executive, AND NOT TO ORDINARY CITIZENS, the right to determine foreign > >policy.
>
> The question was, as was evaded here, WHERE IN THE CONSTITUTION IS THE
> SUPPORT FOR A GLOBAL GOVERNMENT!
And the question was answered. In the office of the executive, with treaties ratified by the legislature.
> >> Where does it say we must require that American soldiers swear support
> >> for the American government and then wear United Nations uniforms and
> >> obey the commanders of that foreign power?
> >
> >Because they must obey the commander in cheif first. Come on, this is easy stuff. Too bad you're too stupid > >to see the answer: competent authority.
>
> This is easy stuff for a grandson of perdition. If we are to obey the
> commander in chief first, we would not first swear loyalty to the
> United States and the Constitution without being first told that the
> whims of the president supersede these things.
The Constitution tells you that the whims of the president supercedes all other orders for the military. Or didn't you read the Constitution before taking the oath to uphold it?
> This is just another proof of treason coming from the despot who told
> us that "liberty is useless and only causes schism!"
Not at all, it's just an interpretation, an opinion, of the Constitution.
> Military members listen to the President, but they do not expect him
> to violate the Constitution, and if he does, they have every right to
> tell him he needs to go to hell!
He can't violate the Constitution by giving orders to the military. It doesn't matter what those orders are. He's in the office that is supposed to be giving orders to the military.
> >Kind of like you working for Ellen Govld V Vhite? Whose name adds up to 666?
>
> So does the Pope.
Actually, no. Vicarivs Filli Christvs is the correct title (unlike what Ellen Govld V Vhite told us, Vicarivs Filli Dei)
And that adds up to 777, not 666.
> The thing is that Revelation also tells us that
> ultimately the whole world will worship the Beast. It tells us that
> it is a woman in symbology that sits on a beast, meaning a church that
> sits in the seat of the civil power and control. It tells us that she
> will have in her hand a cup full of the blood of the Saints.
Or maybe it means a REAL woman, and the symological blood of the Saints is the control she had over the health customs of every Adventist at the time......
> Ellen Govld VVhite didn't have these things, but trying to convince
> Seeber of this is like trying to convince his master also from below.
Actually, I'm showing that she had these things as much as the Pope.
> When is the whole world going to worship Ellen White? When will the
> world say who is like unto Ellen White? Who is able to make war with
> her as we read in Revelation? Now even all our government leaders are
> globalists just like despot Seeber! Seeber tells us that "liberty is
> useless and only causes schism," and he gives much support to the
> globalism of our nation leaders. Do our national leaders believe the
> same thing about liberty?
Any thinking person knows that radio waves do not stop for border patrols.
> >> Then why do you speak as if you have answers. You have already
> >> confirmed in your dark mind that I am staging a Jihad against American
> >> government even though I agree with its principles and love liberty.
> >> I don't believe that liberty is useless and only causes schism. It is
> >> you who boldly posted that on these public newsgroups.
> >
> >I have no answers, only opinions. But you have no opinions, only answers. Sometimes. When you don't feel > >like avoiding the hard ones.
>
> Why did you tell us that liberty is useless and only causes schism?
> Why did you tell us that the scriptures support religious persecution
> because Ananias and Sapphira died before Peter?
Maybe because Ananias and Sapphira were worshiping money instead of God (a heresy most of America sadly has taken up)?
Maybe because it is my opinion that liberty is indeed useless and only causes schism, and as proven on September 11, 2001, death?
> >> Do you know I have a Jihad against America even though I don't believe
> >> that liberty is useless and only causes schism as you said?
> >
> >I know you have a Jihad against America because you support an outdated and incredibly stupid > >interpretation of the Constitution, and because you support the taking up of arms against your own > >government even in times of war.
>
> You told us that "liberty is useless and only causes schism." Now
> tell us, if this is outdated, when did this happen. When is the date
> this took place and what condition caused this to happen.
It originally happened when Martin Luther invented a new doctrine, Sola Scriptura. The resulting reformation tore apart Christianity into 29,000+ squabbling sects (including Catholics, estimated number from 1996, there are probabally more by now).
It continues to happen today with people like you, revolting against your own government in protection of an outdated ideal that isn't even in the Constitution (privacy), and attempting to make the entire concept of liberty linked to that.
> You told us that we cannot have liberty "just as yet" because of the
> current terrorist situation. You lied however because when you told
> us that "libert is useless and only causes schism," you said this long
> before this terrorist incident, therefore proving that you mean we are
> not to have privacy and liberty at all!
So what? What has liberty got us, other than death and destruction? Should the Southern States have had the liberty to seccede from the union? Should Koresh have had the liberty to kill the children under his care? Where does liberty end and safety begin?
> Since Seeber tells us that our interpretation of the Constitution is
> incredibly stupid and outdated, take a look at what he intends the
> interpretation should be here:
>
> http://www.seventh-dayadventism.org/RomeProtestantsSame.htm
Nothing on this page was written by me, and thus, none of it reflects my opinions.
> As you read these interpretations, check the dates and you will see
> that these quotations depicting the revisions Seeber is telling us
> about DATES MUCH FURTHER BACK!
Absolutely, there are those who saw the problems with liberty early on.
> He hates the Constitution, but now comes to pretend that he loves it
> by destroying its principles THROUGH INTERPRETATION. His
> interpretation of it is exactly the opposite of the principles it
> supports.
There are no principles in the Constitution other than the protection of the rich.
> >> Yes, I am on the side of those who love liberty. Where have I said
> >> whose side I was or was not on?
> >
> >In fighting for privacy rights (which aren't in the constitution-ANYWHERE) against neccessary rules needed to > >fight against the Terrorists, you've chosen the wrong side.
> >
>
> BUT WE ARE NOT DAMNED AND PARANOID! We are not Hitler's children! We
> don't come to such conclusions. If we did, we would start to pass
> laws against you and your Vatican!
Then why are you fighting for privacy rights, when the word "privacy" cannot be found in the Constitution?
> Will you Seeber accept that we now pass laws against you and your
> church and take away from you that "useless" thing called liberty?
When you have the competent authority to do so, yes.
In the meantime, my church, my local parish, is cooperating with police in placement of cameras around and in the building. After all,we would be an obvious target for your fellow terrorists.
> Then why would Anti-Ted always try to remind us that the Waldenses
> were extincted by kind and smart people like Seeber, but he and his
> friends always do everything to take this truth out of the minds of
> the people?
Why are you sticking up for a gnostic heresy that if taught in your church, would teach that the flesh is evil and everybody should commit suicide? Oh yeah, you also support David Koresh and Jim Jones, who taught the same thing.
> How is it that someone who tells us that "liberty is useless and only
> causes schism" can be a supporter of America and those who think
> differently are its enemies? Maybe this is because the despot proves
> everything with his mouth alone.
Kind of like you do, proving by your own schism that an excessive belief in liberty causes schism.
> >> Isn't strange what you said is fact while Ted McMillan doesn't believe
> >> your statement that liberty is useless and only causes schism?
> >
> >So what? What good is liberty without a right to life?
>
> You said that liberty is useless and only causes schism. You made
> that statement well before this terrorist incident. Right to life
> doesn't take away the fact that you are an enemy of liberty and a
> despot rain or shine, then or now!
Liberty is only a right to death. As proven by this terrorist incident.
> >> I did not say that either. Or maybe someone believes in the end
> >> justifies the means: that we should do anything and everything to take
> >> them.
> >
> >Absolutely.
>
> Like on these newsgroups. Do anything to accuse others of being mean
> even though your ancestors with your same mnid depopulated whole
> communities, and now you step up to teach us about love and Christian
> courtesy. After Christians show that not just you, but your whole
> Vatican hates liberty, you tell the world that they hate Catholics.
Yep. As proven by their words.
> >Exactly right, that's exactly what I'm saying. If we're going to preserve our right to LIFE, we must give up a little > >of our LIBERTY. The right to life takes precedance against everything else.
> >
>
> I have asked you again and again when you are going to be the example
> and offer for our government to make laws against you and your
> religion! I have told you again that we don't like your Hitleristic
> mindset. Hitler said the same thing.
Have you no eyes? There have been many laws people like you have passed against Catholics in the past.
> Again, you are lying because you made your statements against liberty
> WELL BEFORE THIS TERRORIST INCIDENT!
Where's the lie? The terrorist incident proves my point: By giving everybody liberty indiscriminately, you set yourself up for schism, civil war, and death.
> >> Is this being said by the one working against the government on the
> >> inside for democratic reform?
> >
> >YES. I'm 100% behind anything the current government does. Are you?
>
> No,
Which means you're on bin Laden's side of the war against terrorism.
Thanks for proving me correct.
> >Isn't it obvious that it does? Who deserves liberty, the terrorists?
>
> You are 100% with this government, but you don't let the government
> decide this because you know the government has already decided this
> and it is against your despot opinions.
No it isn't. Their first move was quite correct by my despot opinions, and in fact,
was more in keeping with Catholic Idealism than my thoughts were.
So far, the financial attack seems a good start.
> You have not shown how useless liberty is by telling the government to
> take it away from you and from your felllow workers of the Antichrist!
I have, they didn't want to. You see, they're free agents too.
> >> Just like they missed every other terrorist attack that even took less
> >> time to attempt? They have caught every other in this country!
> >
> >The other attempts that were caught were NOT bin Laden's group, nor were they being carefull about > >communications.
> >
> People are seeing them now arresting people left and right. A news
> correspondent asked how come they can now catch so many people so
> quickly and the politician avoided the question as the despot here
> does.
Give time, date, and channel. Every politician I've seen says that they are simply following the evidence trail of legal activity the terrorists did to stop further incidents.
> The laws for privacy still stand
There are no "laws for privacy", that's a fiction made up by right-wing terrorist groups.
>and they are catching
> terrorists left and right to show that the government is still keen
> and strong. But after the terrorist attack we find the government
> AGAIN calling for the American people to give up their liberties.
That's because we haven't caught them all yet.
> Terrorists use encryption email from the black market, so that if the
> government legislates against encryption, they would only affect the
> citizens ad not the terrorists. Seeber will still call for laws
> against privacy because, as his statement was made BEFORE the
> terrorist attacks, Seeber hates privacy for others than himself and
> his religion ONLY!
And you have a problem why in that case? Why aren't you as smart as a terrorist and using encryption email from the black market?
> Privacy has always been a part of liberty,
But it's apparently not important enough to mention anywhere in the Constitution, so I guess it's not as important a part of liberty as you think.
> >Why have an issue with your own government, unless you really care only about personal power and not > >liberty as you claim?
>
> Why did the forefathers have an issue against our own government?
Because it stepped on their personal power by taxing their business interests.
> They made the Constitution to protect the citizesn against our
> government and even gave them the right to bear arms for the upcoming
> possibility that the government can become tyrannical and see things
> the way Seeber does!
They made the constitution to protect the rich. All else had to be ammended onto it later.
> Why were the forefathers of our nation that paranoid and though much
> differently than Seeber?
Why did they have to ammend your precious Constitution that you treat like it was scripture?
> >I never said you speak out against liberty, I said you speak out against your government and their right to > >protect life.
>
> That is a lie. They can protect life all they want. They are waging
> a war right now, and I have no object to that as a decision itself.
When you wage war, sacrifices MUST be made by the avarage citizen.
Why won't you support those sacrifices in your own life?
> >> Are you quoting from Hitler's Mein Kampf?
> >
> >No, but you seem to be. Protect privacy at all costs, right?
> >
>
> What did Hitler say? Did what he say resemble what I say? or resemble
> what you say? I see no virtue iin forming a police state except to
> make a test run first on the proposition by first legislating against
> Seeber and his constantly troublesome establishment!
Hitler considered law and order to be a God unto itself. I consider the creator of the Universe to be above any law, including the Constitution.
Gee, which one of us worships the Constitution?
> >> Are you telling me that
> >> once we get security to have the government read all our emails and
> >> everything about us that is private, when the threat goes we would
> >> receive it back?
> >
> >E-mail has NEVER been private, nor has any other communication over publically owned systems.
>
> EVEN IF THAT WERE TRUE, I AM NOT ASKING HOW EMAIL WAS. I AM ASKING
> HOW EMAIL SHOULD BE!
It should be how it always was. Those who own the hard drive, own the information that is stored upon it.
> I say these things should be private whether or not someone using it
> is an outlaw because the government can accept Seeber's thoughs and
> become tyrannical as it already is as we speak right now!
And what's so wrong with Tyranny, if it keeps you and your family safe?
> Seeber then says that he supports the government 100%, but the
> government doesn't make laws against Arabs and Middleeastern peoples
> for security sake. But Seeber supports the government outlawing
> encrypted email because all terrorists encrypt theirs. But most
> encrypted email is sent by GOOD people!
You just said that all terrorists are good people. I wonder if you meant it.
> >Maybe because without life, there is no liberty or anything else?
>
> But we don't ask Hitler to determine that this is the case, and we
> therefore don't ask this of Seeber. Seeber told us that liberty is
> useless BEFORE this threat, and he is only demonstrating more than his
> lying tongue, but his lying religion.
You asked why this is my opinion that liberty is a problem, and I told you. The fact that you don't like the answer is not a problem of mine.
> >What about the Christian terrorists right here at home? David Koresh, or maybe even YOU?
> >That's what you're afraid of, isn't it?
>
> AGAIN:
> Liberty requires security first is the same as saying liberty requires
> a lack of liberty first.
Which it does, but continue:
> If we can see that most every Terrorist is
> Arabic
And we can't. Some of the most fanatical terrorists live right here in the United States and are made up of American citizens.
>and we yet cannot dare violate the rights of Arabic Americans
> living here,
No more than we should be arresting Quakers for your point of view.
> we can say that every email of terrorists is encrypted,
> but we dare not violate the rights of honest citizens who choose to
> encrypt their emails.
Ah, but honest citizens don't have to encrypt their emails, because honest people don't keep secrets.
> >I'm not so sure of that one anymore. The world isn't ready for Catholic Idealism.
>
> You agree with our national leaders 100% while telling us that liberty
> is useless and only causes schism. You will then try to tell us that
> they are not working for Catholic idealism.
Catholic idealism would say that we must convert the terrorists, not kill them. In this case, however, I believe conversion to be impossible. We will have to commit genocide to stop the attacks.
> >But it is what saves life right here on Earth.
> >Of course, the anti-Ted doesn't believe we should have a right to life.
> >Ted
>
> If they thought that, the Vatican would have stayed where she was with
> all her workers and would not have interfered and fought against our
> system for 200 years.
Who is they? Have your multiple personalities of Susan and Glen escaped again?
> Let us post this post on all the newsgroups to advertise the monsters
> that are still here with us telling us to focus only on Christ, but
> are active in every covert form of politics!
I wish we could focus on Christ, but the world isn't ready yet.
Ted McMillan
news:<CeRr7.52445$ey1.1...@sjcpnn01.usenetserver.com>...
> Address munged to prevent spam, remove "spam." to reply, In message <joetqtk0g763ri1vq...@4ax.com>, Ted McMillan <t-m...@juno.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, 24 Sep 2001 04:21:29 GMT, "Theodore M. Seeber"
> > <see...@spam.seeberfamily.org> wrote:
> >
> > >> > > >
> > >>
> > >> It is only as the Antichrist is gaining power that we can come to the
> > >> conclusion that someone telling us that "liberty only creates schism"
> > >> (Ted Seeber) can be defenders of American Government. I say that the
> > >> despots think we're stupid, but we have to more show us this is not
> > >> true as they amass weapons of force and destruction against us.
> > >
> > >Yep, and then you let rip with this and PROVE THE DESPOTS RIGHT!
> > >
> >
>
>
> > condemn you by denying you liberty--something you are certainly
> > thinking of doing to them!
>
>
THEN WHY DON'T YOU PUBLICLY ADVERTISE WHAT'S IN YOUR SKULL LOUDLY AND
PLAINLY SO THAT YOU CAN AT THE VERY LEAST GO THERE!!
> As Augustine of Hippo wrote, the whole point of Christianity is to learn to live well. For if you live well, you will die well. And if you die well, then all is well.
You can do the same by taking your despot Hitler nose out of the
affairs of a free people and country.
> > >By encouraging violent rebellion, such as what happened with David Koresh. By stockpiling weapons
> >against the day you'll have to shoot your local deputy.
> > >And for what, when the ballot box is a much better place to make your feelings heard?
What about the opposite when tyranny reigns? You are one of those who
defended your Ustashi brothers by telling us that pictures can be
faked. Pictures of them cutting people's heads off and gourging out
their eyes not only didn't cause much emotion from you, but you all
told us pictures can be faked but swore that pictures of David Koresh
are accurate.
> >
> > WOW! If you can remember those things oh despot, you can surely
> > remember alot more. Your despot friend Cindy told us about forgetting
> > things in the past. I assure you she will have amnesia now viewing
> > what you said!
>
> That stockpiling weapons is wrong? I hope she not only knows about it, but agrees!
That cutting off peoples' heads with axes while smiling for the camera
is wrong? That we shouldn't defend such people by telling the world
that "pictures can be faked?" The Ustashis were not citizens. They
were government.
Seeber just brought this up to cloud the subject. Of course, he, like
Cindy, would post that I'm a wacko and insignificant, but you will
notice here what we will all see when truth comes around: they cannot
dare to stop posting knowing who they work for.
> > >Insofar that they too, wished to squelch all opinions against their constitutions, yep.
> >
> > Good! They also believed that liberty is useless and only causes
> > schism like Seeber!
>
> And thus, they didn't have to deal with schism as a problem. Gee, how interesting.
I don't think the American people think this is very interesting.
Your brother Hitler and all the communist dictators also didn't worry
much about schism. Me disagreeing with despot Seeber is also another
form of disagreement. Coming from despots who normally approach the
victims telling them that it is good to be able to disagree, this is
again very revealing! It is just that people who have one head like
Seeber (in number only, thank God!) and two arms and two legs, are not
interested in controlling the despot. Their minds are not into trying
to establish laws to limit Seeber's freedom. Their minds are not into
reading the emails or snail mails of anybody else. Seeber, as a Dark
Ages Catholic is the one who has his mind and nose on these things for
his Pope.
> > >:-) Just like Pat Robertson's regime.
> >
> > Do we support Pat Robertson's regime? This point is only brought in
> > to confuse.
>
> You seem to support any right-wing terrorist regime.
>
I am the devil to you Seeber! You believe liberty is useless and I
believe it is precious. How can you not see me as Satan's son? How
can I not SEEM like the biggest traitor and anti-goverment WACKO
around?
> > >> This, of course is a lie. The framers of the Constitution unanimously
> > >> interpreted it the way I understand it.
> > >
> > >ONE big difference though: They gave the Congress the right to amend it (thus admiting that they may be > >wrong, unlike you) and the COURTS the right to interpret it (not ordinary citizens).
They didn't give it the power to ammend it and evolve it till it meant
the opposite of what it said to promote the despots who would tell us
that "liberty is useless and only causes schism." If the framers knew
it would work out to that, they would not provide any provision for
ammendment.
> > >Ever wonder why?
> > >
> >
> > OH SO ROME HAS APOLOGIZED FOR HER ATROCITIES OF THE PAST THUS
> > ADMITTING THAT SHE WAS WRONG!
>
> Yep, but what has this to do with your constitutional idolatry?
>
Idolatry involves taking the mind off of the Lord. We will not be
accused by a despot who has to post when people stand up for others
being able to be private in their own business, telling us how liberty
is useless.
Let despot Seeber worship God. He already has alot more work to do in
this than the common man since he also cannot rest while people are
free.
Still, he passed over the fact that the Pope is apologizing, thus
either showing that he never knew what he was talking about, is
vascillating, unstable, even WACKO nut as his servants say of good
people all the time on the internet. He is not to rule!
> > She is therefore not a reliable source
> > to rule the world again! She has had too much of a chance already
> > anyway and the only thing that appeared to be yielded in her mind is
> > her amnesia of the horrible things she did, and her hatred of those
> > who know what she did and is returning to do.
>
> It's the "returning to do" part that is a lie.
>
Well we don't want to hear anything from Rome again about leading,
ruling, against liberty, about community, about heretics, about true
church, about temporal power, about Christ giving her the keys to
heaven and hell nor any doctrine that made her to commit the
atrocities she has done.
There must be some reason why Adventist leaders put the entire church
into debate before then attacking it and putting it in the worst
schism, telling us about the virtues of the Eucharist, even putting
Vatican flags in her most prominent meetings and fighting true
Adventists who want them taken away!
> > >Yeah, right. Either that, or because the way it was interpreted before, changed.
> >
> > Coming from an expert who seems to know that "liberty is useless and
> > only causes schism!" This person will not accept the US government
> > putting restrictions on his lilberty-hating church!
>
> Rather, I hope my church goes along with such restrictions, in hopes that they can prevent your suicide in the middle of a crowded mass.
Oh we have alot of suggested restriction on you and your church you
surely will be proud of if your statement against liberty is truly
balanced. We are right now waiting to see you step forward to give us
a virtuous example of how pesty and useless liberty is. We are
waiting!
>
> > >> Where in the Constitution is the support for a global government?
> > >
> > >In the granting to the office of the executive, AND NOT TO ORDINARY CITIZENS, the right to determine foreign
> >policy.
> >
> > The question was, as was evaded here, WHERE IN THE CONSTITUTION IS THE
> > SUPPORT FOR A GLOBAL GOVERNMENT!
>
> And I told you, in the powers granted to the office of the executive. How stupid can you be?
Stupid enough to know that Seeber is a despot. Would the despot mind
describing this to us instead of using one sentence to prove his
ability to lie? We want proof now. If a president is to have the
power to form a global government, let despot Seeber be more specific
and educate the American people to this very new concept. Knowing the
Constitution, the President is not allowed to be a despot dictator
like Seeber. The government is supposed to be by the people and for
the people. I mean, someone pays taxes.
Again, being proud to be called stupid by a Hitleristic despot: WHERE
IN THE CONSTITUTION IS THE SUPPORT FOR A GLOBAL GOVERNMENT!
>
> > >> Where does it say we must require that American soldiers swear support
> > >> for the American government and then wear United Nations uniforms and
> > >> obey the commanders of that foreign power?
> > >
> > >Because they must obey the commander in cheif first. Come on, this is easy stuff. Too bad you're too stupid > >to see the answer: competent authority.
> >
> > This is easy stuff for a grandson of perdition. If we are to obey the
> > commander in chief first, we would not first swear loyalty to the
> > United States and the Constitution without being first told that the
> > whims of the president supersede these things.
>
> The Constitution requires that the "whims of the president" supercede things. You cannot uphold the Constitution without obeying the commander in cheif.
I STILL DON'T SEE ANY PROOF OR EVIDENCE HERE! Can someone who is sane
and intelligent kindly grant us proof so that we don't continually
want to be proud to be WACKO NUTS? I want Seeber to post proof here,
for I fully intend to even inform military personnel of these new
findings.
>
> > This is just another proof of treason coming from the despot who told
> > us that "liberty is useless and only causes schism!"
>
> Ok, so now the Constitution itself is treason to you.
>
Well yes, to a despot it would look that way, but I don't believe that
"liberty is useless and only causes schism." Sometimes Seeber asks
questions and other times he presumes to tell the gospel about
everyone and everything.
> > Military members listen to the President, but they do not expect him
> > to violate the Constitution, and if he does, they have every right to
> > tell him he needs to go to hell!
>
> And to get executed for treason.
It is hard for the President, in this form of free government, to be
doing that while being impeached for improprieties with an intern.
Maybe one is wishing this government was just as tyrannical as the one
sponsored by his church, but he is wishing just too much ahead too
quickly.
>
> > >Kind of like you working for Ellen Govld V Vhite? Whose name adds up to 666?
> >
> > So does the Pope. The thing is that Revelation also tells us that
> > ultimately the whole world will worship the Beast. It tells us that
> > it is a woman in symbology that sits on a beast, meaning a church that
> > sits in the seat of the civil power and control. It tells us that she
> > will have in her hand a cup full of the blood of the Saints.
>
> The only woman head of a church is:
>
So Ellen sits in control of nations? Ellen has the blood of the
saints? She staged inquisitions or killed people? Ellen will fight
against Christ coming in the clouds in the future? Ellen White is
dead! Why are those who claim sanity and call us WACKO so PARANOID of
someone who is no longer alive?
Still, Ellen does not fulfill those prophecies. She has not
persecuted, and she surely doesn't quote scripture like Seeber to
justify persecution.
> > Ellen Govld VVhite didn't have these things, but trying to convince
> > Seeber of this is like trying to convince his master also from below.
>
> Seems to me she did. After all, she was the head of a church.
She WAS? You need to read prophecy again? Some Christians are even
now speculating and trying to prepare for the Antichrist who is going
to deceive and lead the world. Where is Ellen White now? Your
reasoning is consistent with your claims that Christian history saw
the persecution of the Catholics by the Protestants.
The question is waiting for you!
>
> > When is the whole world going to worship Ellen White?
>
> When nuts like you kill everyone else.
>
So we here see that Seeber never meant to deal with questions or
answer any comments. We see demonstrated the principles shown in
Foxe's Book of Martyrs of the servants of the Pope: they don't care
what they do or have to do to further their ends. There is no crime
to great for them and they aim to destroy liberty and put control of
the world under their pope.
> > When will the
> > world say who is like unto Ellen White?
>
> You've been saying it already.
I will say it: Ellen White is dead. All despots kindly stop being
PARANOID, go back to sleep and point to the REAL Antichrist!
>
> > Who is able to make war with
> > her as we read in Revelation? Now even all our government leaders are
> > globalists just like despot Seeber! Seeber tells us that "liberty is
> > useless and only causes schism," and he gives much support to the
> > globalism of our nation leaders. Do our national leaders believe the
> > same thing about liberty?
>
> No, they currently do not. They will, in time.
>
LIE! They do believe that, but the laws of the land to not permit
them to reveal that their minds are just like Seeber. Most of them
think like Seeber.
> > >> Then why do you speak as if you have answers. You have already
> > >> confirmed in your dark mind that I am staging a Jihad against American
> > >> government even though I agree with its principles and love liberty.
> > >> I don't believe that liberty is useless and only causes schism. It is
> > >> you who boldly posted that on these public newsgroups.
> > >
> > >I have no answers, only opinions. But you have no opinions, only answers. Sometimes. When you don't feel > >like avoiding the hard ones.
> >
> > Why did you tell us that liberty is useless and only causes schism?
>
> Because that is my OPINION.
Which person who loves liberty is going to care? And why haven't you
shown us by example this wonderful utopia lacking in liberty for
yourself and your church again?
>
> > Why did you tell us that the scriptures support religious persecution
> > because Ananias and Sapphira died before Peter?
>
> Because that is my OPINION.
Why then would I be stupid, nut, WACKO when I don't just state reasons
for my beliefs as you do? I would need more than just saying that's
my own opinion to substantiate something!
>
> > >> Do you know I have a Jihad against America even though I don't believe
> > >> that liberty is useless and only causes schism as you said?
> > >
> > >I know you have a Jihad against America because you support an outdated and incredibly stupid > >interpretation of the Constitution, and because you support the taking up of arms against your own > >government even in times of war.
> >
> > You told us that "liberty is useless and only causes schism." Now
> > tell us, if this is outdated, when did this happen. When is the date
> > this took place and what condition caused this to happen.
>
> 1500, when Luther invented the doctrine of Sola Scriptura and the Protestant Churches started following the primrose path of personal interpretation into untruth and lies.
Alright then, when did the opposite doctrines originate since you are
so much upset about the oldness of the doctrines of liberty? WHY IS
YOUR SCHIZOPHRENIC POPE apologizing for the results of those doctrines
which came EARLIER than Luther's?
>
> > You told us that we cannot have liberty "just as yet" because of the
> > current terrorist situation. You lied however because when you told
> > us that "libert is useless and only causes schism," you said this long
> > before this terrorist incident, therefore proving that you mean we are
> > not to have privacy and liberty at all!
>
> More that the terrorist situation has proven to me that not only liberty,
> but also the Catholic ideal of a single world, the world just isn't ready
> for yet.
>
You have answered in the context of this terrorist incident. You told
us that we cannot have liberty as yet, because you were urging the
American people to give up their liberties.
Again, why did you tell us that it is not wise for us to maintain our
liberties, "as yet" when before you told us that "liberty is useless
and only causes schism?" Why did you use the words "as yet" when
earlier you made it known that the American people were not to
maintain their liberties AT ALL?
Ted McMillan
> > On Mon, 24 Sep 2001 04:21:29 GMT, "Theodore M. Seeber"
> > <see...@spam.seeberfamily.org> wrote:
> >
> > >> > > > The point is that you'd rather draw people to your website to join in your Jihad against American Government than help people!
> > >> > > >
> > >>
> > >> It is only as the Antichrist is gaining power that we can come to the
> > >> conclusion that someone telling us that "liberty only creates schism"
> > >> (Ted Seeber) can be defenders of American Government. I say that the
> > >> despots think we're stupid, but we have to more show us this is not
> > >> true as they amass weapons of force and destruction against us.
> > >
> > >Yep, and then you let rip with this and PROVE THE DESPOTS RIGHT!
> > >
> >
> > But I don't believe that liberty is useless and only causes schism.
>
> Yep, obviously too stupid to learn from history, and thus proving that you are stupid.
>
> > You won't either if the "heretics" had the sense to imprison you and
> > condemn you by denying you liberty--something you are certainly
> > thinking of doing to them!
>
> I can work just as easily from jail as from anywhere else. My mind is not fettered by geographic location, unlike yours.
>
THEN WHY DON'T YOU PUBLICLY ADVERTISE WHAT'S IN YOUR SKULL LOUDLY AND
PLAINLY SO THAT YOU CAN AT THE VERY LEAST GO THERE!!
> As Augustine of Hippo wrote, the whole point of Christianity is to learn to live well. For if you live well, you will die well. And if you die well, then all is well.
You can do the same by taking your despot Hitler nose out of the
affairs of a free people and country.
> > >By encouraging violent rebellion, such as what happened with David Koresh. By stockpiling weapons
> >against the day you'll have to shoot your local deputy.
> > >And for what, when the ballot box is a much better place to make your feelings heard?
What about the opposite when tyranny reigns? You are one of those who
defended your Ustashi brothers by telling us that pictures can be
faked. Pictures of them cutting people's heads off and gourging out
their eyes not only didn't cause much emotion from you, but you all
told us pictures can be faked but swore that pictures of David Koresh
are accurate.
> >
> > WOW! If you can remember those things oh despot, you can surely
> > remember alot more. Your despot friend Cindy told us about forgetting
> > things in the past. I assure you she will have amnesia now viewing
> > what you said!
>
> That stockpiling weapons is wrong? I hope she not only knows about it, but agrees!
That cutting off peoples' heads with axes while smiling for the camera
is wrong? That we shouldn't defend such people by telling the world
that "pictures can be faked?" The Ustashis were not citizens. They
were government.
Seeber just brought this up to cloud the subject. Of course, he, like
Cindy, would post that I'm a wacko and insignificant, but you will
notice here what we will all see when truth comes around: they cannot
dare to stop posting knowing who they work for.
> > >Insofar that they too, wished to squelch all opinions against their constitutions, yep.
> >
> > Good! They also believed that liberty is useless and only causes
> > schism like Seeber!
>
> And thus, they didn't have to deal with schism as a problem. Gee, how interesting.
I don't think the American people think this is very interesting.
Your brother Hitler and all the communist dictators also didn't worry
much about schism. Me disagreeing with despot Seeber is also another
form of disagreement. Coming from despots who normally approach the
victims telling them that it is good to be able to disagree, this is
again very revealing! It is just that people who have one head like
Seeber (in number only, thank God!) and two arms and two legs, are not
interested in controlling the despot. Their minds are not into trying
to establish laws to limit Seeber's freedom. Their minds are not into
reading the emails or snail mails of anybody else. Seeber, as a Dark
Ages Catholic is the one who has his mind and nose on these things for
his Pope.
> > >:-) Just like Pat Robertson's regime.
> >
> > Do we support Pat Robertson's regime? This point is only brought in
> > to confuse.
>
> You seem to support any right-wing terrorist regime.
>
I am the devil to you Seeber! You believe liberty is useless and I
believe it is precious. How can you not see me as Satan's son? How
can I not SEEM like the biggest traitor and anti-goverment WACKO
around?
> > >> This, of course is a lie. The framers of the Constitution unanimously
> > >> interpreted it the way I understand it.
> > >
> > >ONE big difference though: They gave the Congress the right to amend it (thus admiting that they may be > >wrong, unlike you) and the COURTS the right to interpret it (not ordinary citizens).
They didn't give it the power to ammend it and evolve it till it meant
the opposite of what it said to promote the despots who would tell us
that "liberty is useless and only causes schism." If the framers knew
it would work out to that, they would not provide any provision for
ammendment.
> > >Ever wonder why?
> > >
> >
> > OH SO ROME HAS APOLOGIZED FOR HER ATROCITIES OF THE PAST THUS
> > ADMITTING THAT SHE WAS WRONG!
>
> Yep, but what has this to do with your constitutional idolatry?
>
Idolatry involves taking the mind off of the Lord. We will not be
accused by a despot who has to post when people stand up for others
being able to be private in their own business, telling us how liberty
is useless.
Let despot Seeber worship God. He already has alot more work to do in
this than the common man since he also cannot rest while people are
free.
Still, he passed over the fact that the Pope is apologizing, thus
either showing that he never knew what he was talking about, is
vascillating, unstable, even WACKO nut as his servants say of good
people all the time on the internet. He is not to rule!
> > She is therefore not a reliable source
> > to rule the world again! She has had too much of a chance already
> > anyway and the only thing that appeared to be yielded in her mind is
> > her amnesia of the horrible things she did, and her hatred of those
> > who know what she did and is returning to do.
>
> It's the "returning to do" part that is a lie.
>
Well we don't want to hear anything from Rome again about leading,
ruling, against liberty, about community, about heretics, about true
church, about temporal power, about Christ giving her the keys to
heaven and hell nor any doctrine that made her to commit the
atrocities she has done.
There must be some reason why Adventist leaders put the entire church
into debate before then attacking it and putting it in the worst
schism, telling us about the virtues of the Eucharist, even putting
Vatican flags in her most prominent meetings and fighting true
Adventists who want them taken away!
> > >Yeah, right. Either that, or because the way it was interpreted before, changed.
> >
> > Coming from an expert who seems to know that "liberty is useless and
> > only causes schism!" This person will not accept the US government
> > putting restrictions on his lilberty-hating church!
>
> Rather, I hope my church goes along with such restrictions, in hopes that they can prevent your suicide in the middle of a crowded mass.
Oh we have alot of suggested restriction on you and your church you
surely will be proud of if your statement against liberty is truly
balanced. We are right now waiting to see you step forward to give us
a virtuous example of how pesty and useless liberty is. We are
waiting!
>
> > >> Where in the Constitution is the support for a global government?
> > >
> > >In the granting to the office of the executive, AND NOT TO ORDINARY CITIZENS, the right to determine foreign
> >policy.
> >
> > The question was, as was evaded here, WHERE IN THE CONSTITUTION IS THE
> > SUPPORT FOR A GLOBAL GOVERNMENT!
>
> And I told you, in the powers granted to the office of the executive. How stupid can you be?
Stupid enough to know that Seeber is a despot. Would the despot mind
describing this to us instead of using one sentence to prove his
ability to lie? We want proof now. If a president is to have the
power to form a global government, let despot Seeber be more specific
and educate the American people to this very new concept. Knowing the
Constitution, the President is not allowed to be a despot dictator
like Seeber. The government is supposed to be by the people and for
the people. I mean, someone pays taxes.
Again, being proud to be called stupid by a Hitleristic despot: WHERE
IN THE CONSTITUTION IS THE SUPPORT FOR A GLOBAL GOVERNMENT!
>
> > >> Where does it say we must require that American soldiers swear support
> > >> for the American government and then wear United Nations uniforms and
> > >> obey the commanders of that foreign power?
> > >
> > >Because they must obey the commander in cheif first. Come on, this is easy stuff. Too bad you're too stupid > >to see the answer: competent authority.
> >
> > This is easy stuff for a grandson of perdition. If we are to obey the
> > commander in chief first, we would not first swear loyalty to the
> > United States and the Constitution without being first told that the
> > whims of the president supersede these things.
>
> The Constitution requires that the "whims of the president" supercede things. You cannot uphold the Constitution without obeying the commander in cheif.
I STILL DON'T SEE ANY PROOF OR EVIDENCE HERE! Can someone who is sane
and intelligent kindly grant us proof so that we don't continually
want to be proud to be WACKO NUTS? I want Seeber to post proof here,
for I fully intend to even inform military personnel of these new
findings.
>
> > This is just another proof of treason coming from the despot who told
> > us that "liberty is useless and only causes schism!"
>
> Ok, so now the Constitution itself is treason to you.
>
Well yes, to a despot it would look that way, but I don't believe that
"liberty is useless and only causes schism." Sometimes Seeber asks
questions and other times he presumes to tell the gospel about
everyone and everything.
> > Military members listen to the President, but they do not expect him
> > to violate the Constitution, and if he does, they have every right to
> > tell him he needs to go to hell!
>
> And to get executed for treason.
It is hard for the President, in this form of free government, to be
doing that while being impeached for improprieties with an intern.
Maybe one is wishing this government was just as tyrannical as the one
sponsored by his church, but he is wishing just too much ahead too
quickly.
>
> > >Kind of like you working for Ellen Govld V Vhite? Whose name adds up to 666?
> >
> > So does the Pope. The thing is that Revelation also tells us that
> > ultimately the whole world will worship the Beast. It tells us that
> > it is a woman in symbology that sits on a beast, meaning a church that
> > sits in the seat of the civil power and control. It tells us that she
> > will have in her hand a cup full of the blood of the Saints.
>
> The only woman head of a church is:
>
So Ellen sits in control of nations? Ellen has the blood of the
saints? She staged inquisitions or killed people? Ellen will fight
against Christ coming in the clouds in the future? Ellen White is
dead! Why are those who claim sanity and call us WACKO so PARANOID of
someone who is no longer alive?
Still, Ellen does not fulfill those prophecies. She has not
persecuted, and she surely doesn't quote scripture like Seeber to
justify persecution.
> > Ellen Govld VVhite didn't have these things, but trying to convince
> > Seeber of this is like trying to convince his master also from below.
>
> Seems to me she did. After all, she was the head of a church.
She WAS? You need to read prophecy again? Some Christians are even
now speculating and trying to prepare for the Antichrist who is going
to deceive and lead the world. Where is Ellen White now? Your
reasoning is consistent with your claims that Christian history saw
the persecution of the Catholics by the Protestants.
The question is waiting for you!
>
> > When is the whole world going to worship Ellen White?
>
> When nuts like you kill everyone else.
>
So we here see that Seeber never meant to deal with questions or
answer any comments. We see demonstrated the principles shown in
Foxe's Book of Martyrs of the servants of the Pope: they don't care
what they do or have to do to further their ends. There is no crime
to great for them and they aim to destroy liberty and put control of
the world under their pope.
> > When will the
> > world say who is like unto Ellen White?
>
> You've been saying it already.
I will say it: Ellen White is dead. All despots kindly stop being
PARANOID, go back to sleep and point to the REAL Antichrist!
>
> > Who is able to make war with
> > her as we read in Revelation? Now even all our government leaders are
> > globalists just like despot Seeber! Seeber tells us that "liberty is
> > useless and only causes schism," and he gives much support to the
> > globalism of our nation leaders. Do our national leaders believe the
> > same thing about liberty?
>
> No, they currently do not. They will, in time.
>
LIE! They do believe that, but the laws of the land to not permit
them to reveal that their minds are just like Seeber. Most of them
think like Seeber.
> > >> Then why do you speak as if you have answers. You have already
> > >> confirmed in your dark mind that I am staging a Jihad against American
> > >> government even though I agree with its principles and love liberty.
> > >> I don't believe that liberty is useless and only causes schism. It is
> > >> you who boldly posted that on these public newsgroups.
> > >
> > >I have no answers, only opinions. But you have no opinions, only answers. Sometimes. When you don't feel > >like avoiding the hard ones.
> >
> > Why did you tell us that liberty is useless and only causes schism?
>
> Because that is my OPINION.
Which person who loves liberty is going to care? And why haven't you
shown us by example this wonderful utopia lacking in liberty for
yourself and your church again?
>
> > Why did you tell us that the scriptures support religious persecution
> > because Ananias and Sapphira died before Peter?
>
> Because that is my OPINION.
Why then would I be stupid, nut, WACKO when I don't just state reasons
for my beliefs as you do? I would need more than just saying that's
my own opinion to substantiate something!
>
> > >> Do you know I have a Jihad against America even though I don't believe
> > >> that liberty is useless and only causes schism as you said?
> > >
> > >I know you have a Jihad against America because you support an outdated and incredibly stupid > >interpretation of the Constitution, and because you support the taking up of arms against your own > >government even in times of war.
> >
> > You told us that "liberty is useless and only causes schism." Now
> > tell us, if this is outdated, when did this happen. When is the date
> > this took place and what condition caused this to happen.
>
> 1500, when Luther invented the doctrine of Sola Scriptura and the Protestant Churches started following the primrose path of personal interpretation into untruth and lies.
Alright then, when did the opposite doctrines originate since you are
so much upset about the oldness of the doctrines of liberty? WHY IS
YOUR SCHIZOPHRENIC POPE apologizing for the results of those doctrines
which came EARLIER than Luther's?
Ted McMillan
Lamarr Edwards
many Catholic doctrines,and yes,Catholicism was brutal and wrong in the
past,when dealing with those who had other beliefs.
Having said those things however,I must clearly state that the other
Teds tirades are in no way representative of Protestant or Adventist
views .
I am convinced more than ever that he is truly ill,and like most
conspiracy nuts,focused on a particular group,in this case Catholics,to
be "them". Pray for him,he truly needs help.LE
Theodore M. Seeber
> "Theodore M. Seeber" <see...@spam.seeberfamily.org> wrote in message
> news:<CeRr7.52445$ey1.1...@sjcpnn01.usenetserver.com>...
>
> THEN WHY DON'T YOU PUBLICLY ADVERTISE WHAT'S IN YOUR SKULL LOUDLY AND
> PLAINLY SO THAT YOU CAN AT THE VERY LEAST GO THERE!!
I have been. Heck, I even started a political party to promote my beliefs: http://seeberfamily.org/IDIC/public_html/ . Most of the government officials seem to think that people who stockpile weapons and threaten terrorist attacks are more worthy of jail than I am.
> > As Augustine of Hippo wrote, the whole point of Christianity is to learn to live well. For if you live well, you will > >die well. And if you die well, then all is well.
>
> You can do the same by taking your despot Hitler nose out of the
> affairs of a free people and country.
Ah, but you see, my opinions are required by the First Amendment.
> What about the opposite when tyranny reigns? You are one of those who
> defended your Ustashi brothers by telling us that pictures can be
> faked. Pictures of them cutting people's heads off and gourging out
> their eyes not only didn't cause much emotion from you, but you all
> told us pictures can be faked but swore that pictures of David Koresh
> are accurate.
The Utashi are not my "brothers". Even if they were, your pictures are not evidence, there's no such thing as evidence. That goes for the pictures of David Koresh as well, whatever they are.
> > That stockpiling weapons is wrong? I hope she not only knows about it, but agrees!
>
> That cutting off peoples' heads with axes while smiling for the camera
> is wrong? That we shouldn't defend such people by telling the world
> that "pictures can be faked?" The Ustashis were not citizens. They
> were government.
See what I mean by liberty causing schism? You separate the people from the government.
> Seeber just brought this up to cloud the subject. Of course, he, like
> Cindy, would post that I'm a wacko and insignificant, but you will
> notice here what we will all see when truth comes around: they cannot
> dare to stop posting knowing who they work for.
I work for Truth, for God, for my Country, and for my Religion. The order of importance I place on those has changed in the last three weeks.
As opposed to the anti-Ted, who works for schism, for satan, and for himself.
> > And thus, they didn't have to deal with schism as a problem. Gee, how interesting.
>
> I don't think the American people think this is very interesting.
> Your brother Hitler and all the communist dictators also didn't worry
> much about schism.
Actually, they worried about it enough to kill over it.
As will the American government real soon. As President Bush said, "Those who harbor terrorists will meet their fate".
> Me disagreeing with despot Seeber is also another
> form of disagreement.
All disagreement is schism. See what I mean by liberty causing schism? Give the anti-Ted liberty, and he immediately uses that liberty to create schism.
> Coming from despots who normally approach the
> victims telling them that it is good to be able to disagree, this is
> again very revealing!
Go look up the word schism.
Apparently, by this sentence, you've proven that you're too stupid to understand basic Latin.
>It is just that people who have one head like
> Seeber (in number only, thank God!) and two arms and two legs, are not
> interested in controlling the despot.
Unlike you, I suppose, who has seven heads, tentacles, and four legs?
Where the heck do you get this stuff?
> Their minds are not into trying
> to establish laws to limit Seeber's freedom. Their minds are not into
> reading the emails or snail mails of anybody else. Seeber, as a Dark
> Ages Catholic is the one who has his mind and nose on these things for
> his Pope.
Ok, so the five headed people agree with you on the meaning of the word liberty.
:-) So what, they ain't human.
> > You seem to support any right-wing terrorist regime.
>
> I am the devil to you Seeber! You believe liberty is useless and I
> believe it is precious. How can you not see me as Satan's son? How
> can I not SEEM like the biggest traitor and anti-goverment WACKO
> around?
Maybe because at the moment at least, bin Laden has beat you out for that role,
and you're jealous of him?
> > > >ONE big difference though: They gave the Congress the right to amend it (thus admiting that they may be > >wrong, unlike you) and the COURTS the right to interpret it (not ordinary citizens).
>
> They didn't give it the power to ammend it and evolve it till it meant
> the opposite of what it said to promote the despots who would tell us
> that "liberty is useless and only causes schism."
Actually, that's exactly what they did. That's the point.
> If the framers knew
> it would work out to that, they would not provide any provision for
> ammendment.
But unfortuneately for you, they did. They did because unlike you,
they knew that they were human and fallible. Heck, I bet you've never
even read the unammended constitution. I'll give you a hint about a few
things missing from it:
1. Freedom of speech and religion.
2. Right of states to create militias that keep and bear arms
3. Right of people not to have their houses used as forts for soldiers
4. The right of people to be secure in their property, and not have it taken from them unless they are suspected of a crime (terrorism is a crime, in case you've forgotten).
5. No person shall be held to answer for a crime unless indictment of grand jury, excepting in cases of war or public danger (we're now at war, Ammendment 5 is suspended by it's own text).
6. All criminals have the right to a speedy and public trial. No criminal has the right to privacy.
7. If a civil lawsuit is above $20, the rigt to trial by jury shall be preserved.
8. Excessive bail shall not be required, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
9. Rights listed in the constitution shall not be construed to deny or disparage the rights of other people. (this one you really need to read twice).
10. The powers not delegated to the Federal government are to be delegated to the states or to individuals.
11. Foriegners can't sue a citizen.
12. The electoral college and laws about elections.
13. Slavery shall not exist in the United States. (it took 13 Amendments to get to this one!)
14. Changes to rights of states and the handling of public debt, income tax.
15. Refutation of Racism
16. Congressional power to collect income taxes (Just how long did they think they could run a government without money, anyway?).
17. Equalization of authority for states in the Senate.
18. Prohibition against alcohol (I believe your church was one among many churches asking for this one, so we've tried your form of government).
19. Women get the vote, and thus become people.
20. Term limits and meeting times for congress.
21. Repeal of the 18th ammendment after prohibition failed utterly.
22. Presidental term limits, this time on number of terms rather than on the length of the terms as in 20.
23. Electoral college expanded for expanding population.
24. Failure to pay taxes not a reason to remove the vote.
25. Order of succession in case of death of the president.
26. 18 year olds get to vote.
Up until this point, we had an avarage of two ammendments a decade. Since 1971, we've had none. I charge that it is the worshipers of the constitution that are blocking ammendments.
> > > OH SO ROME HAS APOLOGIZED FOR HER ATROCITIES OF THE PAST THUS
> > > ADMITTING THAT SHE WAS WRONG!
> >
> > Yep, but what has this to do with your constitutional idolatry?
>
> Idolatry involves taking the mind off of the Lord.
Which you do when you put the constitution above the Bible.
> We will not be
> accused by a despot who has to post when people stand up for others
> being able to be private in their own business, telling us how liberty
> is useless.
I do not accuse you, your use of the Constitution above and beyond scripture accuses you.
> Let despot Seeber worship God. He already has alot more work to do in
> this than the common man since he also cannot rest while people are
> free.
Where does, in your opinion, our duty to worship God end?
> Still, he passed over the fact that the Pope is apologizing, thus
> either showing that he never knew what he was talking about, is
> vascillating, unstable, even WACKO nut as his servants say of good
> people all the time on the internet. He is not to rule!
Neither. What he is saying fits in with what a speaker of truth MUST do:
Acknowledge mistakes.
Those who do not acknowledge their own mistakes are liars.
> > It's the "returning to do" part that is a lie.
>
> Well we don't want to hear anything from Rome again about leading,
> ruling, against liberty, about community, about heretics, about true
> church, about temporal power, about Christ giving her the keys to
> heaven and hell nor any doctrine that made her to commit the
> atrocities she has done.
So, in other words, you'd rather hear LIES than the truth.
> There must be some reason why Adventist leaders put the entire church
> into debate before then attacking it and putting it in the worst
> schism, telling us about the virtues of the Eucharist, even putting
> Vatican flags in her most prominent meetings and fighting true
> Adventists who want them taken away!
Just what does a "Vatican Flag" look like? I'm not aware that the Vatican has a single official flag.
And are you sure it wasn't christ telling you about the virtues of the Eucharist? Oh yeah, John Chapter
6 isn't in the constitution, which is the only scripture you accept, right?
> > > Coming from an expert who seems to know that "liberty is useless and
> > > only causes schism!" This person will not accept the US government
> > > putting restrictions on his lilberty-hating church!
> >
> > Rather, I hope my church goes along with such restrictions, in hopes that they can prevent your suicide in > >the middle of a crowded mass.
>
> Oh we have alot of suggested restriction on you and your church you
> surely will be proud of if your statement against liberty is truly
> balanced. We are right now waiting to see you step forward to give us
> a virtuous example of how pesty and useless liberty is. We are
> waiting!
It's happening right now, in my local parish and in airports accross the country; in any public building you care to name. The installation of cameras, metal detectors, etc. The training of security forces to use these tools. Yes, in the fight against terrorism, liberty is useless. And guess what? The 5th Ammendment to the Constitution acknowledges this!
> > > The question was, as was evaded here, WHERE IN THE CONSTITUTION IS THE
> > > SUPPORT FOR A GLOBAL GOVERNMENT!
> >
> > And I told you, in the powers granted to the office of the executive. How stupid can you be?
>
> Stupid enough to know that Seeber is a despot.
And thus, you throw out the constitution too? I'm not involved in that. You're going AGAINST THE CONSTITUTION, in your fight against what you call globalism! So much for "the wisdom of the fathers of the country".
> Would the despot mind
> describing this to us instead of using one sentence to prove his
> ability to lie?
I guess I have to. The Constitution grants the right to the President of the United States to form treaties with foriegn nations, and the Congress the right to ratify, that is, to accept or deny such treaties. All of the warnings of globalism are against treaties signed by the President and Ratified by Congress, and thus, all of globalism is constitutionally legal.
> We want proof now.
I suggest reading the Constitution, it's all in there.
> If a president is to have the
> power to form a global government, let despot Seeber be more specific
> and educate the American people to this very new concept.
Alone, he does not. In concert with other local national governments, he does. All of these treaties forming the global government have been ratified by Congress, the only way the American people are involved is in voting for congressional representatives.
And guess what: This is all in the original constitution as written by the founding fathers. No new concepts are required.
> Knowing the
> Constitution, the President is not allowed to be a despot dictator
> like Seeber.
And he isn't. Globalism has been ratified by Congress.
> The government is supposed to be by the people and for
> the people. I mean, someone pays taxes.
Nope, that's a democracy. The United States is a republic, where government is by the people and for the rich.
> Again, being proud to be called stupid by a Hitleristic despot: WHERE
> IN THE CONSTITUTION IS THE SUPPORT FOR A GLOBAL GOVERNMENT!
In the granting of the power to make treaties with other nations. Like I said before. Don't like it, you've got to propose a constitutional ammendment to stop it.
> > > >> Where does it say we must require that American soldiers swear support
> > > >> for the American government and then wear United Nations uniforms and
> > > >> obey the commanders of that foreign power?
> > > >
> > > >Because they must obey the commander in cheif first. Come on, this is easy stuff. Too bad you're too > > > > stupid to see the answer: competent authority.
> > >
> > > This is easy stuff for a grandson of perdition. If we are to obey the
> > > commander in chief first, we would not first swear loyalty to the
> > > United States and the Constitution without being first told that the
> > > whims of the president supersede these things.
> >
> > The Constitution requires that the "whims of the president" supercede things. You cannot uphold the > > Constitution without obeying the commander in cheif.
>
> I STILL DON'T SEE ANY PROOF OR EVIDENCE HERE! Can someone who is sane
> and intelligent kindly grant us proof so that we don't continually
> want to be proud to be WACKO NUTS?
http://seeberfamily.org/idic/public_html/const.html
It's all there, every last word.
> I want Seeber to post proof here,
> for I fully intend to even inform military personnel of these new
> findings.
Most military personnel have already been informed of thier duty by their commanding officer, and their chain of command. It's only TRAITORS who go against their chain of command.
> > > This is just another proof of treason coming from the despot who told
> > > us that "liberty is useless and only causes schism!"
> >
> > Ok, so now the Constitution itself is treason to you.
> >
> Well yes, to a despot it would look that way, but I don't believe that
> "liberty is useless and only causes schism." Sometimes Seeber asks
> questions and other times he presumes to tell the gospel about
> everyone and everything.
Nope, just my opinion. As opposed to your fantasies.
> > > Military members listen to the President, but they do not expect him
> > > to violate the Constitution, and if he does, they have every right to
> > > tell him he needs to go to hell!
> >
> > And to get executed for treason.
>
> It is hard for the President, in this form of free government, to be
> doing that while being impeached for improprieties with an intern.
What improprieties with an intern has President George W Bush committed?
Or did you forget we had an ellection in there (and btw, the guy I voted for, won, even if he had to go to the Supreme Court to get his prize).
> Maybe one is wishing this government was just as tyrannical as the one
> sponsored by his church, but he is wishing just too much ahead too
> quickly.
Not at all, it was President George Bush who proposed and signed the treaties for the "New World Order", and it is his son that is upholding them (unlike what that lying scum Clinton did).
> > The only woman head of a church is:
>
> So Ellen sits in control of nations? Ellen has the blood of the
> saints? She staged inquisitions or killed people? Ellen will fight
> against Christ coming in the clouds in the future? Ellen White is
> dead! Why are those who claim sanity and call us WACKO so PARANOID of
> someone who is no longer alive?
Just read _The Great Contriversy_ and you will see an attempt for all of these actions.
> Still, Ellen does not fulfill those prophecies. She has not
> persecuted, and she surely doesn't quote scripture like Seeber to
> justify persecution.
I most certainly DO call her anti-Catholic attitudes persecution. And she most certainly
seems to justify her attitudes with scripture.
> > > Ellen Govld VVhite didn't have these things, but trying to convince
> > > Seeber of this is like trying to convince his master also from below.
> >
> > Seems to me she did. After all, she was the head of a church.
>
> She WAS? You need to read prophecy again? Some Christians are even
> now speculating and trying to prepare for the Antichrist who is going
> to deceive and lead the world. Where is Ellen White now? Your
> reasoning is consistent with your claims that Christian history saw
> the persecution of the Catholics by the Protestants.
The anti-Christ has already decieved the world; her work is still in those who prepare
for the anti-Christ, deceiving and leading the world away from Christ.
> The question is waiting for you!
And was answered! After all, you are among the decieved.
> > > When is the whole world going to worship Ellen White?
> >
> > When nuts like you kill everyone else.
>
> So we here see that Seeber never meant to deal with questions or
> answer any comments.
Ah, but I answered it. Ellen Govld V Vhite will have controled the world when
the gun-toting militias kill everybody else.
> We see demonstrated the principles shown in
> Foxe's Book of Martyrs of the servants of the Pope: they don't care
> what they do or have to do to further their ends. There is no crime
> to great for them and they aim to destroy liberty and put control of
> the world under their pope.
Kind of like you aim to destroy Catholic liberty and put the control of the
world under EGW. Or at least, your personal interpretation of her.
> > You've been saying it already.
>
> I will say it: Ellen White is dead. All despots kindly stop being
> PARANOID, go back to sleep and point to the REAL Antichrist!
IF she is so dead, then why does her fake prophecy still live?
She is not dead, she is alive and well in all who would put her prophecies above scripture!
> > No, they currently do not. They will, in time.
> >
> LIE! They do believe that, but the laws of the land to not permit
> them to reveal that their minds are just like Seeber. Most of them
> think like Seeber.
Not at all. In fact, most of them are rich, and thus think first about controlling their wealth and power, rather than in granting wealth and power to others, which is what I proclaim should be done.
> > > >I have no answers, only opinions. But you have no opinions, only answers. Sometimes. When you don't > > > >feel like avoiding the hard ones.
> > >
> > > Why did you tell us that liberty is useless and only causes schism?
> >
> > Because that is my OPINION.
>
> Which person who loves liberty is going to care?
Only the one who loves freedom more than the gun.
> And why haven't you
> shown us by example this wonderful utopia lacking in liberty for
> yourself and your church again?
I don't know, why haven't you killed your children yet?
> > > Why did you tell us that the scriptures support religious persecution
> > > because Ananias and Sapphira died before Peter?
> >
> > Because that is my OPINION.
>
> Why then would I be stupid, nut, WACKO when I don't just state reasons
> for my beliefs as you do? I would need more than just saying that's
> my own opinion to substantiate something!
I've yet to see you substantiate anything you say with anything objective.
> > > You told us that "liberty is useless and only causes schism." Now
> > > tell us, if this is outdated, when did this happen. When is the date
> > > this took place and what condition caused this to happen.
> >
> > 1500, when Luther invented the doctrine of Sola Scriptura and the Protestant Churches started following the > >primrose path of personal interpretation into untruth and lies.
>
> Alright then, when did the opposite doctrines originate since you are
> so much upset about the oldness of the doctrines of liberty?
As soon as the reality of the problem with Sola Scriptura was shown.
>WHY IS
> YOUR SCHIZOPHRENIC POPE apologizing for the results of those doctrines
> which came EARLIER than Luther's?
Maybe because they were not doctrines? How stupid do you have to be to see that humanity isn't perfect?
> > More that the terrorist situation has proven to me that not only liberty,
> > but also the Catholic ideal of a single world, the world just isn't ready
> > for yet.
> >
> You have answered in the context of this terrorist incident. You told
> us that we cannot have liberty as yet, because you were urging the
> American people to give up their liberties.
But did you notice the second half of that, that the world isn't ready for a Catholic United Humanity?
> Again, why did you tell us that it is not wise for us to maintain our
> liberties, "as yet" when before you told us that "liberty is useless
> and only causes schism?" Why did you use the words "as yet" when
> earlier you made it known that the American people were not to
> maintain their liberties AT ALL?
Because there are some liberties that DO NOT cause schism.
To bad you can't figure out how they wouldn't.
Theodore M. Seeber
> Ted Seeber- As you know,I am a Protestant who has had disputes with
> many Catholic doctrines,and yes,Catholicism was brutal and wrong in the
> past,when dealing with those who had other beliefs.
And in a way, I believe you are CORRECT to do so, within the confines of Sola Scriptura.
> Having said those things however,I must clearly state that the other
> Teds tirades are in no way representative of Protestant or Adventist
> views .
Thank goodness. Or at least, mainstream Protestant or Adventist views. But all you need to do to get the anti-Ted's views is let the mythology of Fundamentalism run rampant. In that way, Ted Mac is to Adventism what bin Laden is to Islam: Twisting the words until the concepts break.
> I am convinced more than ever that he is truly ill,and like most
> conspiracy nuts,focused on a particular group,in this case Catholics,to
> be "them". Pray for him,he truly needs help.LE
I am. He most certainly needs help, but he may yet convert. We can have that moral hope.