#SUPER-TERRORISTS AND TRAITORS FOUND ON USENET!!
Ted McMillan
still posting on usenet. He made very barbaric statements against
liberty and against the lives of all non-Catholics. After doing that,
I reproved the monster. Then a number of others entered the
discussion to attack me. They claimed that I didn't have love and I
wasn't civil. They then began to accuse me of horrible stuff and
name-call me. They refused to see what Seeber has done even though by
Seeber's words, the very religion and lives of some of them are
condemned.
Here is a sketch of the events that took place with Ted Seeber so that
you can know what was going on:
When told how long this terrorist incident took to plan and implement
compared to others that were planned quicker and yet caught, Seeber
said: ?There have been plenty of successfull terrorist attacks
against US interests where the terrorists stayed legal until the
attack.?
We find this difficult to believe since we know that America had been
considered a haven against terrorism and how this was surely mentioned
by all our news media as they were describing the impact of this
unprecedented act of terrorism.
Seeber tells us that:
The current Constitutional principles of liberty are incredibly
outdated and stupid. He said the principle is as old as the 1500s
with Martin Luther. When did his principles for no liberty or privacy
originate? When Christians reveal the Vatican hatred of religious
liberty of conscience and expose her continual conspiracy through
infiltration of our nation and the nations of the world, despot
Vatican Catholics like Seeber tell the world that we hate the Catholic
people. How long was this practice used? Since he told us that our
principles of liberty are outdated, how outdated is the constant
reflex habit that exposing people who slowly tortured Christians to
death makes one hateful of Catholics and more a criminal than the
people who committed the atrocities themselves? How outdated it is?
Seeber said that the terrorist incident provided a benefit to us in
that, ?we found out that privacy is not a luxury we can afford just
yet.? Notice that he said ?we? volunteering all opinions for us and
not allowing us to disagree. He includes himself among us as if he is
one of us even though he hates liberty for everything else except him
and his church. He doesn?t think like us nor agree with us, but he
includes himself in our communion. He gets upset when we say he is a
despot.
AFTER he already told us a year before on the newsgroups that ?liberty
is useless and only causes schism.? We therefore asked again and
again the question we have for our new American government:
?If the Citizens of America agree to give up their liberties in order
to take out terrorism, what will happen after terrorism is conquered?
Will we get our liberties back? Seeber has indeed answered that
question for us.
Soon Seeber began to lie to us telling us that what he said about
liberty being useless is just and only his opinion and that I should
not get upset about it or believe it. The problem is that there is
documentation showing that his church does believe that liberty is
useless and only causes schism.
Seeber accuses us of aiding and supporting the terrorists because we
believe that liberty and privacy is more important than stopping Bin
Laden. He despots us to believe that Bin Laden will only be caught if
privacy is eliminated.
Seeber tells all that Osama Bin Laden is my Idol because I determined
that the American citizens must retain their liberties.
In Seeber telling us that Privacy is outdated. He tells us that we
should provide all our private information to the government. Our
emails should not be private. Even our apartments that we rent, since
we did not build them, we should allow our landlords the rights to go
in and out as they please and to do what they want. Privacy and
liberty are not inseparable. Those who contend for privacy are
criminals.
Seeber claims that I support the terrorists because I oppose the
citizens giving up their privacy and liberties. He says that I
support those who would destroy liberty. When I replied that I don?t
support Seeber (who would destroy liberty), he asked if I support the
American citizens living their lives as if nothing had happened. Well
no I don?t. I want the citizens to remember this terrorist attack as
I want them to remember the worst terrorist attacks during the Dark
Ages. But as Seeber told everyone that I support terrorism because I
support the citizens living as if nothing has happened, you can see
that he also condemned President Bush for saying that America should
continue living on their lives and that we will not allow terrorists
to limit the freedoms of Americans.
Others have falsely claimed that Ted Seeber doesn't represent Catholic
thought, but this is not the fact. Although Ted Seeber already has
argued against liberty for all non-Catholics, he has shown just as
Rome has that he believes in a different type of liberty. Check for
example this Catholic statement of her position on this matter:
"The church does not, and cannot accept, or in any degree favor,
liberty IN THE PROTESTANT SENSE OF LIBERTY." -- (Catholic World,
April, 1870.
Ted Seeber, in another occasion talks about "fake liberty" after
telling us that liberty itself is useless and "only causes schism." He
is therefore showing that he supports a different kind of liberty even
though he has before condemned the concept entirely.
Ted Seeber charges Ted McMillan with aiding terrorists through his
support of the rights of the citizens of America to keep their
liberties. He says that by Ted McMillan?s determination along this
line, he provides, ?Aid and comfort to the enemy, is what you said and
did.? But he gets upset if people say he?s a despot.
Ted McMillan asked if we are entering a government now when those who
tell us that ?liberty is useless and only causes schism? are freedom
lovers and those who are apalled by such words are terrorists? Seeber
replies, ?Yep. Been that way for 40-odd years now.? Why then is he
calling for change to that setting if he now tells us it is and has
already been like that?
After Ted McMillan said that those who believe ?liberty is useless and
only causes schism? are the ones who believe in depopulation, Seeber
said, ?Really? You don't believe in depopulation? Then what are all
those guns for?? He is against the rights to bear arms which was
instituted as a last resort to the Citizens of America in case they
find themselves suddenly confronting a tyrannical United States
government through infiltration, having people who think like Seeber
all throughout it as it is today. But Seeber well knows that the US
military and the UN has lots of guns and far more devices of
destruction INCLUDING STICKY STRIPS. These are spread along highways
and arteries where people can enter or leave populated areas. They
get stuck there and can?t move. The criteria Seeber gave was that if
you own guns or support the ownership of it, you believe in
depopulation. But Seeber gets upset when we say he is a despot. Why
is the government planning a depopulation of the citizenry?
Seeber says:
I know you have a Jihad against America because you support an
outdated and incredibly stupid interpretation of the Constitution,
[the ?interpretation that always was] and because you support the
taking up of arms against your own government even in times of war.
Ted McMillan:
Ted Seeber knows the following very well, but he is working to
deliberately deceive the readers here. The framers of the
Constitution allowed for the citizens of America to be armed in case,
through infiltration, the American Government turns into a tyrannical
government. I assure all of you that the framers of the Constitution
do not have a Jihad against America. The guns are for the citizens to
protect themselves against despots like Seeber who would at times
claim themselves that they would infiltrate the government and work to
change it till it hates and outlaws liberty. Seeber even admitted
this very thing concerning himself.
Ted McMillan:
> Yes, I am on the side of those who love liberty. Where have I said
> whose side I was or was not on?
Ted Seeber:
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.
Ted McMillan?s comment:
Take note folks that he told us we shouldn?t have rights to privacy
?just yet? when he was in deceive mode. He now again shows us we were
to NEVER have it, for he claims it is nowhere in the Constitution.
He tells us privacy rights aren?t in the constitution, yet he is just
one of a vast army working to change the Constitution so that it can
take away the privacy rights. Where else have we seen thinking like
Seeber?s? Have any of you studied the Communists? Have any of you
studied the Nazis? If Seeber?s principles are so great, please show
us how these regimes were great throughout history. Where is the
benefit of them compared to America? Let us see if Vatican
Inquisitors, Communists, Facists, Nazis or Seeber can learn anything
even in lessons over the span of thousands of years! How come you
can?t see that the sources which told us there is an indelible
connection between Communism, Fascism, Nazism and every other horrible
regime to the Vatican is fact?? ?Well Seeber doesn?t speak for the
Catholic Church? the ?Ends Justifies the Means? people would say.
Well then why not then get upset at Seeber? Instead all emotion is
only on Ted McMillan. That is VERY revealing!
Seeber says that he destroys communities and builds them:
He says that he works against the government in order to reform it
from the inside in ?acceptable confines?, but though Ted McMillan is
in agreement with the present makeup of government, he is in a Jihad
against it. Anyone who repeats this fact about Seeber as Jack Chick
and others tell us, will be charged with being ?Anti-Catholic? and
with hating Catholics. How come Seeber is not being charged here?
All this shows that ROME HAS NOT CHANGED! Despot Catholics like
Seeber would never think of providing such unlimited power to the free
American government throughout its history. Why are they so eager and
determined that that be done now? That is because most of those in
government are secretly loyal to the Pope and would break any American
or Constitutional principle in a heartbeat at his command irregardless
of any oath that they have made. They could not do this so readily
historically because there were many true Americans who also held
posts side them and who would either stop them or report what they
were doing. As prophecy is about to be fulfilled, NOW THAT POPULATION
OF TRUE AMERICANS IS ALMOST NON-EXISTENT. They have retired, have
been dismissed, have been killed, or otherwise just are not there
anymore. Some have resigned in protest of the new outlaw movements.
I reprove despot Seeber for gloating over the dead bodies of the
Protestants! The following is the actual statement and reply:
Ted McMillan:
> > But you did understand how to hang people in chains. And your
> > founding Fathers also can't tell the difference between shedding the
> > blood of millions of bible-believers in the most unbelievable ways for
> > their descendants to now presume upon the world to teach them what is
> > the definition of love, hate and plagiarism.
>
Ted Seeber:
> Can you really be said to be believing in the Bible if you don't live it?
> NONE of the groups persecuted by the Catholics were living the Bible. They were living their personal interpretations of God, not the Bible.
Ted McMillan:
NO WONDER YOU DON'T CARE ABOUT ME BRINGING BACK YOUR RECORD OF
HORRIBLE ATROCITIES! They were not even living the bible! Why even
worry about them! Were the 5 to 6 thousands who were killed by the
terrorist attacks living by the bible? You don't have any consistent
principles, if you even know the meaning of the word! Your principles
change only for you to even look like you are winning an argument.
Your statement is incredibly insensitive and you constantly reveal
that what is written by your uncomparably bloody religion is true.
All I know is that you people murdered millions in the most horrible
ways. I DON'T CARE IF YOU MURDERED ATHEISTS!! I am not that
inhumanly insensitive for an animal like you to be worried about me
having guns!
Again, despot: WHY IS THE POPE APOLOGIZING!! You have just sent us
your bigoted despot opinions without providing any MAYBEES! Why not
try to prove what you are saying against me using the scriptures then?
How often have you even answered my questions?
Thousands of people lost their lives in the World Trade Center
disaster. How many of them lived by the bible? They were not even in
rural settings nor under persecution. All those in the WTC were
products of the modern revolution. I would even say that most of them
believe that homosexual activity is acceptable behavior. They all
lived in the modern age and are products of it. I can bet you that
homosexuality was not a problem for those who were slain by Rome!
I don't care whether or not they lived by the bible according to a
murderous despot!
--------------------
For making these statements, I have been constantly attacked by
Vatican Cindy Ford, Angelo Braz and Paul Tooley Jr. who all falsely
claim to be Adventists. Their discussion specifically and
intentionally leaves out their fellow soldier of the Pope, Ted Seeber,
and they have even demanded that I not refer to Ted Seeber in any
discussion despite his very revealing comment involving the blood of
the Saints. These all claim to be Adventists. I have asked Vatican
Cindy a simple question. She moves heaven and earth to evade it but
later claims that she has answered it. Below is the question and
check the threads in order to see how she has answered it. She has
moved heaven and earth to evade and avoid it and then finally lied by
telling us that she has answered it. The statement of Ted Seeber not
only condemned the religion Cindy Ford falsely claims to be a part of,
but because of her claims, his statements also condemns her life. The
same is true for Vatican Angelo Braz. They have played the Jesuit and
done everything possible to avoid the very plain and clear question
while claiming that they have answered it.
For the Work Finished!
Ted McMillan
Tmac...@seventh-dayadventism.com
THE LAST WORD ON ADVENTIST TRUTH!
http://www.seventh-dayadventism.com
Cindy
What is going on? Apparently you have been missing me...
I have noticed that you are being besieged by the hoardes of the
Antichrist and yet you still have time to throw my name into various
posts.
I don't want to distract you for long but there are a couple of things
I would like to address:
1.About you calling me *Vatican Cindy* if it makes you happy to do so,
continue...
I have stated before when you asked me why I didn't defend myself,
that I prefer to have my words elsewhere speak for themselves.
2. The answer to your question is below. I would prefer to believe
that you are not willfully ignoring my answers, perhaps you are
distracted or tired and haven't noticed... although it seems to happen
everytime I answer,...we'll see what happens this time. If I was a
betting woman I could probably make some money here... Oh well.
3. My name is no longer Ford. I would appreciate you not addressing
me as Cindy Ford anymore, it is quite disconcerting. I haven't used it
in quite some time on this newsgroup, but apparently you haven't
noticed.
4. I have not claimed to be a member of the Seventh day adventist
church. I have stated on this Newsgroup that I am not affiliated with
nor a spokesman for any type of organization. I have stated on this
newsgroup what I do believe in. If you have a problem with those
beliefs address them...
5.And before you comment on it, or ask me...
Yes... I have noticed Lamarr's posts and those of others against you
and about you, but apparently my help is not wanted nor needed.
So..."That is all I have to say about that"
6.
This whole disagreement would not have gone on for so long if you
would have written this post long ago when I first asked for proof of
your statements about Ted Seeber, or when I told you I could not see
what you were talking about.
The fact that you have finally answered my question is good. "Better
late than never" :-) Thank you.
Much love...
In God's Grace,
Cindy
tmac...@seventh-dayadventism.com (Ted McMillan) wrote in message news:<c9dac66d.02030...@posting.google.com>...
Check this out.. Ted!!
From: Cindy (synt...@localline.com)
Subject: Re: #MORE SUPER TERRORISTS IN DISGUISE!!
Newsgroups: alt.religion.christian.adventist,
alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic, tnn.religion.catholic
View: Complete Thread (10 articles) | Original Format
Date: 2002-02-23 14:30:55 PST
Ted,
Here it is, I will answer this question no more. Your question above
is not
the same one you have been asking all along. There are more answers
elsewhere, but I am tired of looking, if you don't believe this you
never
will. I AM SENTIENT. You are proving by all the posts you write about
me
that YOU ARE UXORIOUS. ( I do not have a thing about namecalling. Only
false
accusations.)
My BIG MISTAKE was in having the attitude of " How could you do that?"
when
I first approached you, instead of asking "Why?" and then actually
listening and understanding what you were saying.
You:
> I ask you whether or not you "live the bible" according to Seeber's standards.
> I ask you this, for it is obvious that if you don't--if you are
> Seventh-day Adventists truly, then you are marked for death by your
> beloved Seeber whom you all have been snuggling up to.
Me:
First of all. I snuggle up to no one!!!!
Second of all I do not live the bible according to Catholic standards.
So as
Ted Seeber is a catholic... I am saying the answer is "No I don't."
You:
> I therefore asked whether or not you all live the bible according to
> Seeber's standards. From your strange anti-protestant behavior, I am
> demonstrating that in fact you do, and that is why the birds of a
> feather flock together. You are both infiltrating papists.
Me:
Hmmm... What strange anti-protestant behavior are you talking about?
You
have done one of those quantum leaps of reasoning you do, and left me
behind
again. I do not want to be blamed for not answering, so explain
please?
Especially since you are using this as a demonstration???
You:
Do not answer
Me:
now here we are again. SHOW ME THE EXACT WORDS WHERE TED
SEEBER SAID ALL THE PROTESTANTS WERE KILLED FOR NOT LIVING THE
BIBLE!!!! And
I will tell the world "I am wrong." If you cannot, then let it go.
Let's put
this subject to rest. I am weary of dealing with it!!
You:
Do not answer.
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl4269490353d&hl=en&selm=3c5756e0_6%40n
Instead you post the following:
As predicted, Vatican Cindy Ford did not answer the plain question I
had given her. First she put a question in I didn't give her and
began to answer it. Then she threw her hands up in a post and told us
that she gives up. Now she is back again and has chosen to use a new
technique: She has chosen to evade answering the question by giving
me questions to answer. From there, she naturally babbles how much of
a Child of Christ she is. This is Salvation by Despot Babbling:....I
will
here end the Vatican diatribe in following Cindy's trained
techniques back at the Vatican in evading questions. My first
question she said she gives up on is still waiting after many more.
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&selm=c9dac66d.0201301319.7f76f9a2%40po
sting.google.com&rnum=1
So I copy and paste my answer from the previous post:
I will make it easy for you. There seems to be an excess number of
threads
and posts on this subject. ( If only this NG had some of the rules
that some
forums do)
I have therefore deleted all other words.
Here is your question Ted:
Do they live the bible according to
> > > Seeber's standards being (as they say) Adventists?
Here you asked again:
I now ask you all
whether or not you "live the bible" according to Seeber's standards.
Here is my answer:
I do not live the bible according to Catholic standards. So as
> Ted Seeber is a catholic... I am saying the answer is "No I don't."
Case closed.
Then you post this:
It was a very easy question for a Christian Dolf, but first Cindy
ignores it and brings questions I did not ask to answer them. Then
she cops out and says she gives up. Then, naturally, she comes back
and doesn't give up after all and answers the question half-way. She
admits that she doesn't live to Seeber's standards and just leave it
at that amid the catasclysmic issues involved. All she saw is that I
am mean!
They are Jesuits, according to them, only because they disagree with
me. Cindy Ford and Angelo Braz claim to be Adventists and therefore
don't live to Seeber's standards. Why does Seeber love them and hate
me??
I getting tired of not being heard post this:
Judge not lest ye be judged. I am not required to answer you, nor is
there a
reason to. "By their fruits shall ye know them." Take your game of
Judge and
Jury elsewhere. I am not answering anymore questions! Believe as you
wish.
It is your choice to do whatever. Pray first ok?
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&threadm=c9dac66d.0201311702.8fd3431%40
posting.google.com&prev=/groups%3Fnum%3D25%26hl%3Den%26group%3Dalt.religion.
christian.adventist%26start%3D250
You:
I ask again that which you have evaded: Do you understand
> that Seeber by his words condemned your religion, your life, and the
> religions and lives of all others not Catholic?
Me:
YES I DO. How many ways do I have to answer this?
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&selm=3c6ae5b9_9%40news.teranews.com&rn
You:
Seeber has condemned you to death if you are
> Adventist. Why don't you have a problem with that, and why doesn't
> Seeber and the rest of the Vaticans here have a problem with you.
Me:
I DO HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT! but I am not afraid, Nor is it my
character
to attack when I have a problem. Prophesy says this will happen in the
end
times. AND.... If you think no one has a problem with me, then that is
only
because you do not read the NG's. Being civil doesn't mean there are
no
problems.
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&selm=3c6ae5b9_9%40news.teranews.com&rn
You:
> What is it about the simple questions that irks you
so?
Me:
That I would have to be judgemental in order to answer it the way you
ask
it.
If you had asked me about dead bodies I would have answered, if you
had
asked me what I felt about the inquisition, and how that fits in with
the
present and the future I would have answered...
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&threadm=Xns91A9EE30D5179webmastercatho
lictru%40216.166.71.232&rnum=65&prev=/groups%3Fq%3Dtmac1238%26hl%3Den%26scor
ing%3Dd%26start%3D60%26sa%3DN
> > That I would have to be judgemental in order to answer it the way you ask
> > it.
> >
> >
> > [snipped for context]
> >
> > DOLF BOEK RESPONDS:
> > Cindy,
> >
> > There is nothing wrong with judging between what is truth and what is not,
> > and having done so, calling sin [alt: shin] by its right name.
> >
> > --
>
> You are right Dolf. That is true. I do not have a problem with doing so.
> "All scripture is given by God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof,
> for correction, for instuction in righteousness" and "be not conformed to
> this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may
> prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God."
>
> But it is far different to reprove, or rebuke someone using scripture to
> point out the difference between truth and error, or to prove what is the
> perfect will of God; then it is to deliberately set out to accuse or judge
> another.
You:
Dolf, why are you wasting your time dialogueing with this one? Aren't
they incredible?? She says here she doesn't want to reprove, accuse
or judge another and people will think that she hasn't done that to
me.
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&threadm=Xns91A9EE30D5179webmastercatho
lictru%40216.166.71.232&rnum=65&prev=/groups%3Fq%3Dtmac1238%26hl%3Den%26scor
ing%3Dd%26start%3D60%26sa%3DN
> You have not answered my
> > questions. Why are you on good terms with Ted Seeber who condemned
> > all non-Catholics to persecution and death even though he condemned
> > your church and your life again?
>
> "I AM NOT anymore. Accusing him of lying, and asking him to explain his
> comments on the Catholic church killing because the martyrs didn't live the
> bible ended that, or haven't you noticed he's not around? Also my
> conversations with others on the subject did not help I am sure.
> You mean you noticed that Ted Seeber condemned even your life and
> reproved him?
I am not the same woman I was all those months ago.
I noticed nothing at first. You know that. How long did you try to
explain
while I saw nothing? Neither will most others reading this understand.
Without studying and comparing and really looking into the History and
polic
ies of the Vatican, it seems preposterous. I tried to talk to him, he
did
not answer, now he is not posting. The issues are still there they
exist
without Ted Seeber. And.. there are others who say and believe the
same
things.
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&selm=3c6ae5b9_9%40news.teranews.com&rn
um=6
I will just say now, That No, I do not live up to Catholic standards,
and
so that includes Ted Seeber's, I got along with him and considered
him a
friend clear up till the day I caught him lying, and he wouldn't admit
it. I
do not appreciate lying, it made me think where there is one lie there
are
more,and so I did a search on him in usenet and read alot of things I
disagreed with, these were things I didn't know before. It changed my
opinion about him. My opinions, and beliefs about our first
conversations
on this newsgroup had already changed before this. The lie was the
finishing
touch.
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&threadm=3c75b859_2%40news.teranews.com
&prev=/groups%3Fnum%3D25%26hl%3Den%26group%3Dalt.religion.christian.adventis
t%26start%3D25
> Does she yet know that Vatican Ted Seeber condemned all non-catholics
> to persecution and death?
His attitudes, and beliefs are the same as those who have condemmned
and
killed those in the past, and will in the near future again.
Cindy
Ted McMillan
For the Work Finished!
Ted McMillan
tmac...@seventh-dayadventism.com
Ted McMillan
> Ted,
>
>
> What is going on? Apparently you have been missing me...
> I have noticed that you are being besieged by the hoardes of the
> Antichrist and yet you still have time to throw my name into various
> posts.
<snip> This is what she said:
> 5.And before you comment on it, or ask me...
> Yes... I have noticed Lamarr's posts and those of others against you
> and about you, but apparently my help is not wanted nor needed.
> So..."That is all I have to say about that"
Again: Vatican Cindy knows that I was not asking her help. She made
such a big deal about civility in posting, that she constantly
attacked and accused me with uncivility because I reproved a man who
condemned the religion and lives of all non-Catholics. She refused to
see what Ted Seeber did. Since therefore she made such a usual
Vatican big deal about attacking another person and put it as worse
than mass-murdering multitudes of people, I asked her to notice
uncivil posts when they are posted by others and not just by Ted
McMillan against the Vatican people posting here.
For some reason when the fellow Vatican trained people break all their
rules easily and submit hate posts, she doesn't care, but would babble
that she does. Vatican Cindy knows the issues. She is just
demonstrating a training not acquired by prayer and fasting.
For the Work Finished!
Ted McMillan
tmac...@seventh-dayadventism.com
Cindy
"Ted McMillan" <tmac...@seventh-dayadventism.com> wrote in message
news:c9dac66d.02030...@posting.google.com...
Cindy
IS THAT I DO NOT HAVE A GOOGLE ACCOUNT WITH MY HOTMAIL ADDRESS!! and I have
never used my hotmail account to post with, very few are even aware I have
one... (Somebody is getting careless)
Also I have been out of the state and haven't posted in over a week.
Make of that what you will... For the most part it sounds like me, BUT I
DIDN'T"TO POST IT!!
I am well aware that although you sounded like you wanted help, you were
just trying to prove what you always say; that I only attacked you, and that
you were the sole focus of my vatican love. (Your words not mine) However
having apologized to you for causing you offense, I would prove I had
learned nothing if I started running around willy nilly attacking others
just to try and prove a point to you.. I will address issues with others not
attack! You may keep pointing things out forever and it will not affect how
I feel. Wrong remains wrong!
You have proved nothing, except that strange things happen where you are
concerned. I for one .. am tired of it.
In His Grace and infinite love,
Cindy
"Ted McMillan" <tmac...@seventh-dayadventism.com> wrote in message
news:c9dac66d.02030...@posting.google.com...
Someone is...
Ted McMillan
very uncivil in their posts on the newsgroups. Because of this
apparent crime, Vatican Cindy Ford has attacked me and only me
practically since the terrorist disaster. Ted Seeber, a Dark Ages
Catholic, gloated that all non-Catholics were persecuted and killed by
Rome because, according to him, they did not "live the bible." I
reproved the monster for such an unbelievable and terroristic
disregard for human life even right in the climate of the terror
attacks. Vatican Cindy, Angelo Braz and others came upon he scene to
address a problem they had with the exchange. According to them, the
problem was only Ted McMillan. They claimed that Ted McMillan, unlike
Ted Seeber who condemned all non-Catholics, I have damaged the
reputation of their church which is my church: the Seventh-day
Adventist Church. They then came with the usual Jesuit claim that it
is worse to accuse or reprove or what they call "name-call" than to
mass murder.
From that time to this all of them--including the Catholics--lumped
together have been constantly preaching to me about the terrors of not
being civil. The lesson they were teaching was that it was
intolerable to criticize or to PROTEST. In other words, as we have
well seen before, the worst thing anyone can be IS A PROTESTANT!
Now Vatican Cindy has returned to make some startling statements and
to again demonstrate that long imbredded talent for deception she
learned back at the papacy. For example, in point number 5, Vatican
Cindy wrote:
5. And before you comment on it, or ask me...
> Yes... I have noticed Lamarr's posts and those of others against you
> and about you, but apparently my help is not wanted nor needed.
> So..."That is all I have to say about that"
The point was not that I was asking for help, and Vatican Cindy knows
this. The point is that her whole arguments and attacks against me
were for being uncivil. If someone else, especially another Jesuit
teacher of love and civility, comes in and posts in an uncivil manner,
it is not to be believed that she must naturally react for the purpose
of protecting me. The purpose is supposed to be to deal with uncivil
posts. She intentionally reworded the whole scenario in order to
demonstrate a talent not acquired through prayer and fasting.
Next she writes thusly:
> 6.
> This whole disagreement would not have gone on for so long if you
> would have written this post long ago when I first asked for proof of
> your statements about Ted Seeber, or when I told you I could not see
> what you were talking about.
This is again a lie. After Seeber gloated that the non-Catholics were
destroyed, I reproved him and demonstrated that he is a
super-terrorist. Immediately after that, Ted Seeber suddenly
disappeared from the tit-for-tat wrangling that we had been undergoing
without break. Then came Vatican Cindy.
When I did all I could to make her to know the issues of blood and
what Seeber did, Vatican Cindy boldly posted to me that "YOU HAVE
TAKEN HIS WORDS OUT OF CONTEXT." By that statement it was apparent
that she was familiar with what Ted Seeber said. The problem is that
if Ted Seeber's words were not bad or misinterpreted, WHY NOT LET TED
SEEBER TELL US THIS?? Vatican Cindy, Angelo Braz and others appeared
as helpers to him. TO THIS DAY TED SEEBER HAS NOT EVEN DARED TO
COMMENT ON WHAT I DEMONSTRATED ABOUT HIS SUPER-TERRORIST REMARKS! He
appears to know something Vatican Cindy does not.
Vatican Cindy wrote in another ATTEMPT to claim that she is answering
my questions:
> Here it is, I will answer this question no more.
That's a great record since she never answered it. She just followed
through since the first time in ignoring it and putting more questions
I did not ask then aswering those, and next telling us that she gives
up and don't understand the questions, and then telling us she doesn't
have to answer.
>Your question above
> is not the same one you have been asking all along. There are more answers
> elsewhere, but I am tired of looking, if you don't believe this you never
> will.
If Vatican Cindy doesn't believe that I am loving and not uncivil,
well then she never will. That is still hard to swallow in her
crusade against name-calling, accusations and being uncivil.
> I AM SENTIENT. You are proving by all the posts you write about me
> that YOU ARE UXORIOUS. ( I do not have a thing about namecalling. Only
> false accusations.)
Naturally the disclaimer has to be added to enable strange people to
violate their own rules. Will they allow Christians to use
disclaimers? Vatican Cindy name-called me there.
> My BIG MISTAKE was in having the attitude of " How could you do that?"
> when I first approached you, instead of asking "Why?" and then actually
> listening and understanding what you were saying.
Indeed I, with every post, was talking about why I reproved Ted Seeber
after being constantly accused by Vatican Cindy and the others. They
saw a disagreement and immediately went into attack mode against me
only. In any disagreement the proper thing to do is to find out the
whys about everything. Vatican Cindy and the rest not only told me
they will not even mention Ted Seeber, but they told me that I must
not bring him up. Vatican Cindy told me that Ted Seeber is not her
business, but that the Lord showed her that I had a problem with love.
She therefore entered in for the attack even to the extent of
offering my private information to anyone who requested it of her on
these newsgroups. What kind of novice would enter into a dispute and
only attack one person against all appeals and conscience to now tell
us that the proper thing to do is to find out the whys in everything?
I wrote:
> You:
> > I therefore asked whether or not you all live the bible according to
> > Seeber's standards. From your strange anti-protestant behavior, I am
> > demonstrating that in fact you do, and that is why the birds of a
> > feather flock together. You are both infiltrating papists.
>
Vatican Cindy replied:
> Me:
> Hmmm... What strange anti-protestant behavior are you talking about?
> You
> have done one of those quantum leaps of reasoning you do, and left me
> behind
> again. I do not want to be blamed for not answering, so explain
> please?
> Especially since you are using this as a demonstration???
Of course, I have been answering this for a long time. The problem
was that a statement against the blood of all non-Catholics was
treated as nothing. Vatican Cindy, Angelo and the rest moved in to
smother out what was done by posting how horrid Ted McMillan was
because he insulted Ted Seeber: the man who made the super-terroristic
statement. I even brought out the example of how they react when they
hear people reproving or even insulting Osama Bin Laden. That
scenario was always left without an answer for obvious reasons. So
now Vatican Cindy has to pretend she doesn't know what I was talking
about.
Then came the discussion where I pointed out that the Albigenses of
the Reformation were completely exterminated by Rome. Again Vatican
Cindy and Vatican Angelo not only showed no consideration for them at
all, but told me I must not bring them up. They then went to
encyclopedias and came back with the Vatican version of what they were
as a people. Encyclopedias claimed that they were a suicide cult.
Vatican Angelo followed through by asking then why Ted McMillan would
support them and stated that Ted McMillan must also be a terrorist for
supporting such people. After that posting with the documentation
from the encyclopedias, Vatican Cindy replied, "Niiiice" to Vatican
Angelo.
So a whole groups of people were horribly and completely exterminated
and for what would be the first time in my life, I witness Protestants
condemning the Albigenses. Protestant literature does not condemn
them, but supports them. That includes Foxe's Book of Martyrs, The
Great Controversy and even writings or sermons by Charles Spurgeon.
Vatican Angelo claimed that the sources given via the encyclopedias
were neutral. The problem is that the encyclopedias ONLY gave the
Catholic version of history or he version of the murderers of the
Albigesnes. In the process of the extermination, ALL of their
writings were destroyed for obvious reasons.
I had pointed out the falsity of the claim by the encyclopedias. No
government has to move in to exert effort to destroy suicide cults.
How did the government destroy the Heaven's Gate Cult? How did any
government take care of the Jim Jones Cult? Even then, what is this
Cindy was doing when she commented "Niiice" to Angelo for writing
against the Albigenses and then telling the world I must be a
terrorist for supporting them? If you met people who were engaged in
cultic behavior, would you advance to kill them? or would you approach
to them with love?
Vatican Cindy writes:
> now here we are again. SHOW ME THE EXACT WORDS WHERE TED
> SEEBER SAID ALL THE PROTESTANTS WERE KILLED FOR NOT LIVING THE
> BIBLE!!!! And I will tell the world "I am wrong." If you cannot, then let it go.
> Let's put this subject to rest. I am weary of dealing with it!!
>
> You:
> Do not answer.
Here Vatican Cindy volunteers for me that I don't answer even though I
have been answering for so long and with many posts. She now, after
telling me for sure that I took the words of Ted Seeber out of
context, and after viewing how Ted Seeber to date has not been denying
anything I have declared about his statement, tells me she wants to
see the exact words!
Now here is a question I have been asking all the time. The problem
is that Vatican Cindy wants to cut down the question away from the
complete answer I was asking: Since Ted Seeber gloated that many
non-Catholics were put to death by Rome because they did not live the
bible according to his Vatican standards, the question was why she,
Angelo and all the other Vaticans were so snuggly and friendly with
him to move in to attack me ONLY because I reproved Ted Seeber for his
remarks. They made it look like it was a great crime to reprove or
attack someone they claimed, but nothing could make them to understand
that Seeber's remarks condemned their religion, their relatives and
posterity and their very lives. Here is the question reconstructed as
it was done before by Vatican Cindy:
> Here is my answer:
>
> I do not live the bible according to Catholic standards. So as
> > Ted Seeber is a catholic... I am saying the answer is "No I don't."
>
> Case closed.
She added "case closed" in order to seal off the other question as to
why all her attacks went to me and how she was posting rather friendly
with the man who by his words condemned the very religion and life of
Vatican Cindy and the rest.
I don't agree with the despot that the case is closed. I already knew
that any Adventist would not live according to Ted Seeber's Vatican
standards. So again I have to ask what is the secret of her being
friendly with a super-terrorist from the Dark Ages who has condemned
everything she is. I was not asking just whether or not she lives
according to Seeber's religious standards and she knows this.
After posting about her tactics, she then writes:
> I getting tired of not being heard post this:
>
> Judge not lest ye be judged. I am not required to answer you, nor is
> there a reason to. "By their fruits shall ye know them." Take your game of
> Judge and Jury elsewhere. I am not answering anymore questions! Believe as you
> wish.It is your choice to do whatever. Pray first ok?
Here Vatican Cindy forgot that she called me an "Ass" in email, and
that she constantly posted about my lack of love and meanness, and she
forgets her wonderful talent and disregarding this scripture she has
here blasphemously brought up.
Now she says she is not answering anymore questions JUST AS BEFORE.
She tells me I must believe as I wish JUST AS BEFORE.
Cindy
>
> She added "case closed" in order to seal off the other question as to
> why all her attacks went to me and how she was posting rather friendly
> with the man who by his words condemned the very religion and life of
> Vatican Cindy and the rest.
>
> I don't agree with the despot that the case is closed. I already knew
> that any Adventist would not live according to Ted Seeber's Vatican
> standards. So again I have to ask what is the secret of her being
> friendly with a super-terrorist from the Dark Ages who has condemned
> everything she is. I was not asking just whether or not she lives
> according to Seeber's religious standards and she knows this.
The answer to how I could post so friendly to Ted Seeber is LOVE. It is the
same reason I can post to you while others warn me and advise me not to.
LOVE...
Love doesn't mean I accept things that are wrong, or have to agree with
those I care about. Love is unconditional, as is forgiveness. We forgive and
we are forgiven, that is the way it works. We love God because he first
loved us, and we love others as ourselves. Not just those who love us back
or have our well being at heart. We are also called to love our enemies and
those who despitefully use us. You know this.. I do as well .
I am sorry if you can't accept my answer but that is just me, if it makes me
more guilty in your eyes so be it.
I understand why it appeared I was attacking you in the beginning, but Ted I
have apologized. I honestly don't even want to look at those posts that I
wrote then because it is embarassing, although I thought I was being loving,
I realize now how ignorant I was, and I realize that although I accused you
of being judgemental, the truth is I was judging you as well although I
didn't realize it then. I am deeply sorry, I do know what I am apologising
for, and I do know now, why you were angry.
I have been told just today that I just give you more reason to post spam,
and that I am ruining my reputation by answering you, and that I have
changed, I don't know how to answer that..
One thing you are confused about:
It is not true that the lord showed me you had a problem with love, I never
actually said that. The words about Love were my own words.
The Lord showed me you, and showed me how to love you, I don't really know
why, I have a couple of ideas but they are my own.. I let him and you both
down by following my own ideas. I do know he was trying to talk to you
and... you weren't listening at the time. Someday I will know why, that is
good enough for me.
In Love,
Cindy
>
Ted McMillan
> Ted wrote:
> >
> > She added "case closed" in order to seal off the other question as to
> > why all her attacks went to me and how she was posting rather friendly
> > with the man who by his words condemned the very religion and life of
> > Vatican Cindy and the rest.
> >
> > I don't agree with the despot that the case is closed. I already knew
> > that any Adventist would not live according to Ted Seeber's Vatican
> > standards. So again I have to ask what is the secret of her being
> > friendly with a super-terrorist from the Dark Ages who has condemned
> > everything she is. I was not asking just whether or not she lives
> > according to Seeber's religious standards and she knows this.
>
> The answer to how I could post so friendly to Ted Seeber is LOVE. It is the
> same reason I can post to you while others warn me and advise me not to.
> LOVE...
You mean you called Ted Seeber an ASS like you called me in email?
You mean you took his private information and told anyone you would
give it to them upon asking? You mean you appeared on the newsgroups
to tell the world you noticed he had a problem with love? You mean
you then told him that Ted McMillan is none of your business, but he
was the one with a problem?
If you showed him love, and didn't do all this to him as you have done
to me, what have you shown me?
THAT'S ALL RIGHT!! I'M TIRED OF THE VATICAN LIES!
> Love doesn't mean I accept things that are wrong, or have to agree with
> those I care about. Love is unconditional, as is forgiveness. We forgive and
> we are forgiven, that is the way it works.
If you treated him so well to not even reprove him for condemning all
non-Catholics to persecution and death, and call that love. What
attribute did you show me since you have treated me so much different.
I can see why you are not offended that all non-Catholics have been
condemned by Seeber!
I don't care for your Vatican lies, by the way!
Now here comes some more of the blasphemous Jesuit preaching:
> We love God because he first
> loved us, and we love others as ourselves. Not just those who love us back
> or have our well being at heart. We are also called to love our enemies and
> those who despitefully use us. You know this.. I do as well .
> I am sorry if you can't accept my answer but that is just me, if it makes me
> more guilty in your eyes so be it.
I'm sorry if you never could accept Ted McMillan and attacked him from
day one claiming that you love him, and did something totally
different with Ted Seeber claiming that it was also love. I'm sorry
when you came to attack me telling the world that you can't stand
uncivil postings, but when the worst examples came from MSiciliana,
Seeber and Lamarr Edwards you couldn't find a problem. I'm sorry that
you work for the Antichrist.
> I understand why it appeared I was attacking you in the beginning, but Ted I
> have apologized.
I'm sorry you apologized for attacking me. It didn't "appear" that
you were attacking me. I'm sorry you are a despot of the Papacy.
> I honestly don't even want to look at those posts that I
> wrote then because it is embarassing, although I thought I was being loving,
> I realize now how ignorant I was, and I realize that although I accused you
> of being judgemental, the truth is I was judging you as well although I
> didn't realize it then. I am deeply sorry, I do know what I am apologising
> for, and I do know now, why you were angry.
You mean I know you work for the Papacy. You are sorry? Now you see
empty posts with the most vicious attacks by Antichrist Lamarr
Edwards, and it doesn't bother you? I remind you about it and you
tell the world that you will not help me from their attacks as if I
was asking that of you? If posting civil posts was that important for
you and Antichrist Angelo Braz to attack only me on the forums, how
come the most uncivil posts submitted by other workers of the
Antichrist don't bother you???
> I have been told just today that I just give you more reason to post spam,
> and that I am ruining my reputation by answering you, and that I have
> changed, I don't know how to answer that..
You evade and deceive. I will show how you do that and demonstrate
how you believe that Protestants are not only heretics, but are
flamingly stupid.
> One thing you are confused about:
>
> It is not true that the lord showed me you had a problem with love, I never
> actually said that. The words about Love were my own words.
>
> The Lord showed me you, and showed me how to love you, I don't really know
> why, I have a couple of ideas but they are my own.. I let him and you both
> down by following my own ideas. I do know he was trying to talk to you
> and... you weren't listening at the time. Someday I will know why, that is
> good enough for me.
>
> In Love,
> Cindy
You mean that the Lord showed you His children throughout the ages who
were brutally murdered, men, women and children, and when Ted Seeber
gloated that they were killed and I reproved the man, the Lord showed
you Ted McMillan the man with a problem with love??
How could the Lord have shown you me needing love when those people
who were murdered were His children? Could it be that you belong to
the people who murdered them?
Andrew
"Love is patient and kind. Love is not jealous or
boastful or proud or rude. Love does not demand
its own way. Love is not irritable, and it keeps no
record of when it has been wronged."
1 Corinthians 13:4-5 NLT
"Love is kind and patient, never jealous, boastful,
proud, or rude. Love isn't selfish or quick tempered.
It doesn't keep a record of wrongs that others do."
1 Corinthians 13:4-5 CEV
"Beloved, let us love one another, for love is of God;
and everyone who loves is born of God and knows God.
He who does not love does not know God,
for God is love.
1 John 4:7-8
Ted McMillan
intention of obeying. It starts like this:
"Andrew" <and...@321.net> wrote in message news:<a716oa$frd$1...@slb0.atl.mindspring.net>...
> "Love is patient and kind. Love is not jealous or
> boastful or proud or rude. Love does not demand
> its own way. Love is not irritable, and it keeps no
> record of when it has been wronged."
>
> 1 Corinthians 13:4-5 NLT
Now about the issue of keeping record of wrongs, check out the
following article:
http://www.seventh-dayadventism.com/Contention.htm
Why do the Jews keep record of the wrongs done in the Holocaust? Why
does Jack Chick remind people of the number of times Rome approached
the Protestants telling them "We have Changed!" "Peace! Healing!"
before massacres?
Go check the issues out!
Caillean McMahon
Theodore;
You yet again dust off the bones of the long dead to impugn the
living with their guilt. It is as if you read the preface of The House
of Seven Gables by Hawthorne where he says that the theme of the book is
the guilt of the fathers being visited upon the sons for generations.
The Adventists are not without stain, dear man. They contributed to the
anger and hatred of people toward Catholics for decades. The Catholics
carry their own guilt, some recent. Still, the use of crimes of
centuries ago, lain at the feet of the living is based on old myths,
stories, propaganda and a history of an era that cannot be wholly
trusted since all sides wrote their own version based upon anger and
self-interest.
Let go the past, embrace a future where all can be sisters and brothers.
There is still time for our humanity to previal.
Brightest Blessings;
Caillean `aSiobhan, Lady Carrigaholt
Cindy
"Cindy" <synt...@localline.com> wrote in message
news:3c93a...@news.nntpserver.com...
>
> "Ted McMillan" <tmac...@seventh-dayadventism.com> wrote in message
> news:c9dac66d.02031...@posting.google.com...
> > "Cindy" <synt...@localline.com> wrote in message
> news:<3c914fd0$1...@news.nntpserver.com>...
>
> Ted,
> It will be interesting to see how you respond to this..if you do.. and
what
> methods you will use. It is my belief you will not respond to most of it
and
> instead will make more statements with no scripture or facts, only your
> opinion which you will expect everyone to agree with. ( wait a minute...
> Isn't that your definition of a Despot?) Why not surprise everyone for
once?
> As you say that you have not accused me of being a Papal infiltrator just
> because I disagreed with you, and questioned you; is there any other
> evidence you have besides our disagreement? As you say I only attacked you
> (by asking questions, which is my way of getting answers and trying to get
> someone to think..) can you show how I have never done that same thing
with
> others? Can you show how my questions to you were attacks, and my
questions
> to others were not?
>
> Here's a something to start you out:
>
> Please notice that although you claim I never even asked Ted Seeber about
> anything but only attacked you. That is not true. Please notice the date.
It
> is right after our discussion. Also please consider that your later
> discussion where Ted S. claimed that all protestants were killed for not
> following the bible happened after this, during the time I was ignoring
you.
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> From: Theodore M. Seeber (see...@spam.seeberfamily.org)
> Subject: Re: God Gave The US What It Deserves?
> Newsgroups: alt.religion.christian.adventist
> View this article only
> Date: 2001-09-24 18:36:32 PST
>
>
> Address munged to prevent spam, remove "spam." to reply, In message
> <c20cba56.01092...@posting.google.com>, synt...@iei.net
(Cindy)
> wrote:
> > "Theodore M. Seeber" see...@spam.seeberfamily.org
> wrote in message
news:<SjUq7.369$qR2.1...@e420r-atl2.usenetserver.com>...
> > > This, if we want to wage the ultimate war on terrorism, is a freedom
we
> must consider letting go of.
> > > Ted
> >
> > Ted, what about the fact that God gives us freedom. He created within
> > us the ability to choose. He warns us, it is up to us, whether we heed
> > those warnings, and what conclusions we draw from them. How can we
> > presume to take away any freedom, when he doesn't?
> > :) Cindy
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>
> > > Ted wrote:
> > > >So again I have to ask what is the secret of her being
> > > > friendly with a super-terrorist from the Dark Ages who has condemned
> > > > everything she is. I was not asking just whether or not she lives
> > > > according to Seeber's religious standards and she knows this.
> > >
> > > The answer to how I could post so friendly to Ted Seeber is LOVE. It
is
> the
> > > same reason I can post to you while others warn me and advise me not
to.
> > > LOVE...
> >
> > You mean you called Ted Seeber an ASS like you called me in email?
>
>
> No, I proved him a liar.
>
> ...and I don't continue to call you ass either, even though sorely tempted
> to,
> because Jesus said "Go and sin no more."
>
>
>
> > You mean you took his private information and told anyone you would
> > give it to them upon asking?
>
>
> Well someone had routinely hacked into my email, my computer, and messed
> with my posts on this News group. At the time You were suspect *number
one*,
> and someone very *helpfully* emailed me your info.. In any case it was an
> empty threat made in anger, and regretted soon after. I gave your
> information to no one. So keep bearing a grudge.. that's how Christ would
> handle it right? I tried to warn you, when I posted to Glen. You just
> attacked me, so then I posted to EW to give you a clue that I was telling
> the truth, you were the only one besides me who knew I wasn't just
speaking
> off the top of my head. You did not ask how I knew what I said, like I
> thought you would, instead you told everyone it was the truth, and used it
> as evidence against me. Go figure... Later you drug up the post I was
trying
> to draw your attention to without posting it for everyone to see, and were
> outraged about it, and showed it to everyone yourself. Go figure again...
>
> Incidentally Ted Seeber diagnosed and fixed(?) my computer via email,
> (without me telling him a thing or asking him to) when Lamarr posted on
the
> newsgroup that he could not email me, and as I later found out, neither
> could anyone else. (except Ted Seeber his emails to me about it ended up
in
> my inbox, how is that possible?.. hmm.. )
>
> BTW that kind of thing is no longer possible which explains the use of a
> google account, (not mine) that started this discussion. There was a
problem
> with MSN passport not to long ago, and that probably(?) explains how not
> only I, but Dolf seems to have had the same problem of someone using our
> hotmail accounts to cause problems.
>
>
> Have you forgotten that you accused me of hacking into your email?
>
> Have you forgotten that you have written about me on your website and you
> kicked me off rather than allow me to defend myself? Despite the fact that
> you constantly asked me to defend myself, when I wouldn't? Why was I so
> outraged by that? Because here on the NG it is my choice to defend myself
or
> not, You took away my choice, and did it behind my back. Have you
forgotten
> that although you call my words dirty laundry, you consider yourself
> zestfully clean, as you drag the dirty laundry out in public?
>
> Have you forgotten that you repeatedly said that you wanted to hear
nothing
> else about Love or forgiveness from me, and how it is all lies, and then
> turned around and constantly posted about how I won't answer
> your questions. How can I answer without talking about that? Just because
> you don't want to hear it doesn't mean that's not the answer.
>
> Have you forgotten that the statement that was made by Ted Seeber that the
> Christians who were killed were not (according to him) living the bible,
was
> made after our discussion and not during or before it? And yet you
> constantly write as if it was that statement that I said I believed you
were
> taking out of context. Believe me ( I'm not talking to Ted here ~ he'll
> never believe me anyway) I do not take that statement lightly. Especially
in
> light of other statements.
>
> Have you forgotten that the first answer I ever posted to you about
> killing(not understanding that your issue was protestants only)
> was that I was horrified by all the killing that had been committed
> throughout history whether done by Moslems, Catholics or Christians,and
what
> I thought was the greatest
> injustice, was that it was done in the name of the Lord, and that I am
> horrified that the judgementalism and injustice that is done today is
still
> being done in the name of the Lord?
> Have you forgotten that You automatically decided from that answer that I
> must be Catholic. And proceeded to post despotic statements about me,
> although I asked you to ask me what I though and felt instead, and from
then
> on you claimed that my request was a despotic statement and that I was
> therefore a despot.
>
>
> > You mean you appeared on the newsgroups
> > to tell the world you noticed he had a problem with love? You mean
> > you then told him that Ted McMillan is none of your business, but he
> > was the one with a problem?
>
> No I appeared on the Newsgroups and told him that Peter was not the first
> pope, and that I have faith that the truth is written in God's inspired
word
> because; he wrote that; he could not know with absolute certainty what
God's
> word was without the catholic Church who he said, gave us those
scriptures.
>
> The actual words that I said to you were "why do you have a problem with
the
> word love?" Then you asked me why I thought that, and I answered telling
you
> to never ask a question unless you were prepared to hear the answer, and
> then You proceeded to tell everyone that I attacked you. So get your facts
> straight please. I told Meehan repeatedly that you
> were not my focus when he kept trying to turn the conversation to you,
> instead of responding to my question. How
> is that any different, from me refusing to talk about Ted Seeber with you?
>
> How did I prevent you from discussing anything with Ted Seeber? Did I ever
> suggest you not discuss anything? After our initial conversation, when you
> explained how you had not taken his words about security and privacy out
of
> context, didn't I later tell you the problem was not what you said, but
how
> you said it? Something I still believe. You have much truth, but instead
of
> simply teaching it, you have to endlessly wrangle with others, like me.
Why
> not let the word of God prove what is false? Notice I encourage you to do
> so, I am not frightened that you will be able to prove anything about me.
If
> you point out where I am wrong, I am happy to hear it, so that I can
correct
> the matter. I do not want to be wrong.
>
> >
> > If you showed him love, and didn't do all this to him as you have done
> > to me, what have you shown me?
>
> Many things :-) which you can't see right now.
>
> I did you wrong by not listening to you, as you are doing me now. Notice I
> say "did" like in the past? I am doing it no more, I AM LISTENING. You on
> the other hand, are not. He did not yell or insult me (that I was aware of
> at the time)
> so I responded in the same manner. I will however have some questions for
> him if he ever posts again, because he has made some incredible
statements.
>
> >
> > THAT'S ALL RIGHT!! I'M TIRED OF THE VATICAN LIES!
>
>
> LOL. Why don't you just yell, and accuse me when you can't say anything
> else?
> Do you believe that proves how loving you are? ;-)
>
> >
> > > Love doesn't mean I accept things that are wrong, or have to agree
with
> > > those I care about. Love is unconditional, as is forgiveness. We
forgive
> and
> > > we are forgiven, that is the way it works.
> >
> > If you treated him so well to not even reprove him for condemning all
> > non-Catholics to persecution and death, and call that love.
>
> I did not know that then, I didn't notice until he lied, and I went back
and
> read his past posts. (he claimed on another NG that he had hacker
> information installed in his computer) I NOTICE NOW. I actually posted
> asking about it, and said I was sorry but I had to ask him about his
> statements and what he had actually said, because I had never asked
before..
> He did not answer and shortly after that he stopped posting. I predict you
> will not acknowledge this or other statements, and that you will
> delete out what you don't want to deal with. I however (unlike in the
past)
> will add the statements not addressed, right back in to my next post.
>
> What
> > attribute did you show me since you have treated me so much different.
> > I can see why you are not offended that all non-Catholics have been
> > condemned by Seeber!
>
> How you have the nerve to post this is beyond me, you know full well that
> the conversation I busted in on between the two of you had to do with
> privacy, not protestants being condemned. Even the statement about you
> taking
> things out of context was a question to you about the meaning of his
> statement about that, and not murders. Yes, you kept bringing up killing,
> but
> at the time I thought you were freaking out and rambling about something
off
> the subject (SORRY!) so I didn't pay attention. The attribute I showed you
> was Patience. Your constant insults and shouting headers demanded alot of
> patience on my part, and still does.
>
> How I can continue to post to anybody around here and not be offended is a
> much
> better question. I am offended by any Killing, and anyone who tries to
> justify killing! Obviously the biggest tool of Satan is the Catholic
church,
> and those who are taken in by her lies. Those who preach about not judging
> Catholics,and then try to understand Catholic teachings, and then judge
> their fellow Adventists are Catholics although they don't realize it.
> Catholics are not Christians and in the past no protestant ever called
them
> that. Why are they doing so now?
>
> Ted Seeber's statements are outrageous, so are MM Sic.'s ( I never
> approached her BTW, she just started posting behind me, so your earlier
> supposition about why I was posting to her is false) and
> others I could name. They aren't like Catholics you meet elsewhere. I
> believe you tried to explain this to me before, back in the day when I
> thought the Catholics here on the internet were the same as my relatives
and
> co~workers etc. So what is the feeling now that I agree with you?
>
>
> >
> > I don't care for your lies, by the way!
>
> What lies? I don't care for your abusive manner, also BTW!
>
> >
> > Now here comes some more of the blasphemous Jesuit preaching:
>
> Are you saying what I wrote is a lie? PROVE IT! This is just why the SDA
> church is
> such a sorry mess today. You have people who teach love and a Christ and
> that's it! They are totally lazy! You have others who teach the Law, and
> have no
> love, without the love they are legalists! Both accuse each other of being
> the tares! Not realizing that they are both teaching only half of the
> Gospel.
>
> My beliefs embrace both love, and obedience. As do some others. I thank
God
> he showed me a church
> that teaches the absolute truth! The complete truth!!! I am not ashamed to
> say I have love for others, even for your sorry self! I am not ashamed to
> say
> I know prophecy and it is apparent to me we are being shaken quite
severely
> here. This bites! Look for the Jesuits elsewhere.They are trained to
blend,
> they are probably present in your own church unbeknownst to you!
> I do not appear to be blending. Get a clue!! Of course I realize you will
> probably assume I am doing it on purpose... But that is your problem not
> mine. If you are close-minded and look only to see proof of your opinion,
> that is all that you will ever see. That is sad. This whole sorry business
> is sad!
>
> >
> > > We love God because he first
> > > loved us, and we love others as ourselves. Not just those who love us
> back
> > > or have our well being at heart. We are also called to love our
enemies
> and
> > > those who despitefully use us. You know this.. I do as well .
> > > I am sorry if you can't accept my answer but that is just me, if it
> makes me
> > > more guilty in your eyes so be it.
> >
> > I'm sorry if you never could accept Ted McMillan and attacked him from
> > day one claiming that you love him, and did something totally
> > different with Ted Seeber claiming that it was also love
>
> I'm sorry that Ted Seeber was a liar and I was fooled at first. I'm sorry
> that you
> attacked me and the result was that I didn't listen to or believe you,
even
> though I learned to love, and accept you anyway. I am sorry that you do
not
> understand that people respond to you the way that they do, because of the
> methods you use. You preach that the ends don't justify the means, then
you
> throw that out the window when it comes to your own methods. Think about
> that! How many times have you said "What I did wasn't as bad as what so
and
> so did." What kind of defense is that? Either you are right, or you are
> wrong. You can not justify your behavior by comparing yourself to a
> murderer, as if that is the standard for the saved. What did Jesus say?
"You
> have heard it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and
> whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment, BUT I SAY UNTO
YOU,
> that whosoever is angry with his brother without cause shall be in danger
of
> the judgment; and whosoever shall say Ra-ca shall be in danger of the
> council; but whoever shall say thou fool shall be in danger of hellfire."
> This was the only begotten Son of God magnifying the law and making it
> perfect. Do you know what Ra-ca means? Will you answer this? After I
> apologized what have I done to make you angry? I am not talking about
right
> now, I'm sure you are angry right now, that is fine, I am angry myself.
>
> I do not bother explaining this to everyone, because most people can't
even
> grasp the basics of God's eternal law of love, they try to justify killing
> thinking that if they believe that they are in the right, it is ok with
God.
> WRONG! You at least grasp that, do you understand the rest?
>
> continued in next post~
Cindy
"Cindy" <synt...@localline.com> wrote in message
news:3c93a79a$2...@news.nntpserver.com...
> Continued...
>
> "Ted McMillan" <tmac...@seventh-dayadventism.com> wrote in message
> news:c9dac66d.02031...@posting.google.com...
> > "Cindy" <synt...@localline.com> wrote in message
> news:<3c914fd0$1...@news.nntpserver.com>...
>
> Ted wrote:
>
> I'm sorry
> > when you came to attack me telling the world that you can't stand
> > uncivil postings, but when the worst examples came from MSiciliana,
> > Seeber and Lamarr Edwards you couldn't find a problem. I'm sorry that
> > you work for the Antichrist.
>
> I am sorry you are blind! And I'm sorry you constantly despot a statement
> that you claim I made, knowing full well I didn't! Bloody Mary incarnate
> probably doesn't agree with you, nor I am sure does Lamarr. I'm sorry that
> in your desire to point out the antichrist you are displaying the fruits
of
> his spirit. Check yourself Ted McMillan! He is very devious and if
possible
> he will deceive the very elect. False witness is as bad as murder, if you
> think differently, you are deceived. Those who revile others are not in
> God's Kingdom, no matter how they may try to justify the reason for doing
> so.
>
>
> >
> > > I understand why it appeared I was attacking you in the beginning, but
> Ted I
> > > have apologized.
> >
> > I'm sorry you apologized for attacking me. It didn't "appear" that
> > you were attacking me.
>
> Well I Now think it appeared that way, and the point is that it wasn't
> intentional. So
> again I'm sorry. I also think it appears you were, and are, attacking me
non
> stop, now what?
>
>
>
> >I'm sorry you are a despot of the Papacy.
>
> I'm sorry that you can not see that your statement is despotic, and a
false
> accusation.
>
> I'm sorry that with evidence of infiltration everywhere, you spend so much
> time focussing on my faults.
>
> Why not talk about how Ellen White warned that the church was going in a
> direction that God did not intend and that the leaders in the church
ignored
> her warnings and continued in that
> direction any way, so that today we find that only the SDA church has an
> organization modelled after the Catholic Church, and that conference
leaders
> can even make jokes in General conference sessions about being the
> Pope and his cardinals, and that most think that is funny!!! How ironic,
and
> heartbreaking is that?
>
> WHY NOT SHOUT FROM THE ROOFTOPS THAT THE CHARACTER OF GOD IS BEING
> ATTACKED!! Instead of worrying about your own butt being attacked!
>
> I do not belong to the Papacy, and I don't belong to the SDA church, they
> now belong to the Papacy. Sorry, but it's true. They had the truth, and
now
> they are falling into iniquity. They have become universal. :-o So you
just
> keep defending Seventh Day Adventists, and I will defend the truths they
are
> throwing away, along with their salvation.
>
> I do not want to be a member of a church that writes for the first time
that
> their fundamental beliefs may be changed from time to time as inspired by
> the holy spirit, even as they change them into Catholic doctrines. I do
not
> trust a church that claims to have a true prophet as one of their founders
> and then
> changes her writings. The last time I attended a SDA church in the
> Washington conference, there were baptised members in Sabbath school who
> didn't even know the definition of Soul, or believe in Soul sleep, and
there
> were people trying to speak in tongues during the Worship service, as I
sat
> there and prayed that God would cast Satan out of his house.What kind of
> people would change the inspired word of God? And cast doubt on his
> word?There's your Despots! GO GET THEM!!
>
> The clue would be the precidents that are constantly set and then the
error
> that creeps in. I was not suprized to see the Catholic *virgin mary* is
now
> named in the fundamental beliefs, last time the fundamental beliefs were
> changed they added the word *trinity*,then 50 years later they expanded on
> that word to almost duplicate the Catholic teaching, and now we see that
> alot of Adventists are believing the same as the Catholic's. Recently
> someone near and dear to me, told me that Jesus was God the Father, I was
> shocked to put it mildly.
>
> Why is the
> doctrine of the investigative judgement being attacked? Why is the
Sabbath?
> As far as I can tell
> it is because that is a further attack of My God and who he is. Every
> fundamental belief that is being attacked is just a sympton of the real
> attack, the real attack is on God, the true God. *They* say that Christ
has
> done it all. And that we either can't or aren't required to keep the
> commandments. In order to make that claim and prove we don't have to lift
a
> finger other than to be *nice* they had to change some things, for example
> the chapter entitled "A sinless life" in bible readings for the home. ...
> The implication now is that Jesus was only sinless because he was God, and
> so it is impossible for us to be that way. Of course this totally
> contradicts the fact that the 144,000 are standing before God blameless,
and
> yet this is after probation closes, and they are left between that time
and
> Christ's return without a mediator. ???
> There is so much more... So stop worrying about what you see as an attack
of
> yourself and spend more time defending your God! Get a clue!
>
> MM. Sic's attacks of you and Ellen White is just dust in the winds of
> strife, anyone with an ounce of sense would know her for a liar and an
enemy
> of the truth. Just ignore her... Ignore Joseph Meehan as well, it is
obvious
> he never answers questions, or addresses facts. Only Paul Tooley believes
> otherwise, and if he'd just ask Joseph to explain or answer anything, he
> might get a clue. However he is too busy protecting former PK's with foul
> mouths, and all non adventists and trying to understand their beliefs, and
> warning others about you, and judging me, and calling people who prove
> others liars *hateful* to see this. The ultimate hatred is to deny God's
> truth.
>
> >
> > > I honestly don't even want to look at those posts that I
> > > wrote then because it is embarassing, although I thought I was being
> loving,
> > > I realize now how ignorant I was, and I realize that although I
accused
> you
> > > of being judgemental, the truth is I was judging you as well although
I
> > > didn't realize it then. I am deeply sorry, I do know what I am
> apologising
> > > for, and I do know now, why you were angry.
> >
> > You mean I know you work for the Papacy. You are sorry?
>
> You've claimed that since the beginning. So what? It's not like this is
> suddenly a new issue. I'm not worried about me. It is you who is in
trouble
> here for bearing false witness. God has forgiven me for the past, that is
> forgotten by him. Not by you though, you boldly post your accusation
> forgetting that Christ said " I do not accuse you, there is one who
accuses
> you, even Moses in whom you trust." Even the Lord when contending with
> satan over Moses did not bring a railing accusation against Satan but said
> "the lord rebuke you"
> Forgive and you will be forgiven. Don't be like the servant in the parable
> who was forgiven but refused the same to another. His master was not
happy!!
> You have critisized me before, by saying I quote scripture to you. Well;
All
> scripture is inspired by God and is profitable for ... What? and Why?
>
> Jesus when accused opened not his mouth in defense of himself. When he did
> it was with scripture to point the way to truth. Think about that for a
> minute.
> I refused to answer you for a long time, and the result has been your
> accusations have grown and although I was wrong, your accusations now
barely
> resemble my original mistakes. So now I am left trying to figure out if I
> should let you continue or if in the name of truth I should answer so that
I
> am not blocked from reaching others. Or whether I should just leave this
NG.
>
>
>
> Now you see
> > empty posts with the most vicious attacks by Antichrist Lamarr
> > Edwards, and it doesn't bother you?
>
> Yes it does. but I have learned that if I respond to every single post
that
> bothers me I will just be being critical instead of accomplishing anything
> else. It bothered me more when he thought that the Israeli judge's ruling
> that the sabbath begins and ends at midnight instead of sundown was to be
> commended. It also bothered me when despite so many bible verses stating
> that we are to know God, and that it is those who know God who will be
> strong and do exploits he asks what is so important about knowing the
truth
> of God as far as the Godhead is concerned. It is not a mystery. It is the
> Catholic church that teaches that! To discourage people from knowing God,
so
> that the God of this earth can take his place.
>
> I remind you about it and you
> > tell the world that you will not help me from their attacks as if I
> > was asking that of you?
>
> I know you weren't. What about my previous statement about this did you
not
> understand? BTW there is much I would like to post about, but it is not
> about the attacks on you, or your attacks on others. I am referring to the
> informative posts you post when not involved in battles of "He said, She
> said". You should do more of the first, and less of the last. (IMHO)
>
>
> If posting civil posts was that important for
> > you and Antichrist Angelo Braz to attack only me on the forums, how
> > come the most uncivil posts submitted by other workers of the
> > Antichrist don't bother you???
>
> Uncivil posts do bother me, but they are not my main issue. In the climate
> of Sept 11th you bothered me, I actually explained this to my Mother on
this
> Newsgroup, right before I apologised to you. I acted out of character
then,
> and I regret it but I can not change my past, only my future. Why can't
you
> understand that?
>
> Lies about the truth of God and his inspired
> word and his law bother me!! Check out Tony's take on salvation and you
will
> see what bothers me. People who post truth and are called hateful does
> bother me, especially when those who make these accusations are the ones
> acting hateful towards the truth of God.
> I am referring to those who post facts and biblical references
> and are attacked by a pack of dogs. A couple of months ago I tried to
write
> about matt 24 and was told I was scaring others..That does bother me. Are
> Jesus' words and prophesies to be ignored because it upsets people? I
think
> not!
>
>
> >
> > > I have been told just today that I just give you more reason to post
> spam,
> > > and that I am ruining my reputation by answering you, and that I have
> > > changed, I don't know how to answer that..
> >
> > You evade and deceive. I will show how you do that and demonstrate
> > how you believe that Protestants are not only heretics, but are
> > flamingly stupid.
>
> What a loving statement. This is not like your forum, you are not the boss
> of me, nor the expert on my faith, nor do you know my heart. nor are you
my
> judge, I have never even thought of anyone as a heretic in my life,
although
> I have been called so, even Lamarr once called me that, and MM Sic. did
just
> recently. It should be
> interesting watching you try to prove this... and see how you justify your
> actions..
>
> I am evasive sometimes I admit it, that alone does not prove anything
other
> than that I don't wish to discuss something for what ever reason, I do
> explain why, when asked though.
>
>
> >
> > > One thing you are confused about:
> > >
> > > It is not true that the lord showed me you had a problem with love, I
> never
> > > actually said that. The words about Love were my own words.
> > >
> > > The Lord showed me you, and showed me how to love you, I don't really
> know
> > > why, I have a couple of ideas but they are my own.. I let him and you
> both
> > > down by following my own ideas. I do know he was trying to talk to you
> > > and... you weren't listening at the time. Someday I will know why,
that
> is
> > > good enough for me.
> > >
> > > In Love,
> > > Cindy
> >
> > You mean that the Lord showed you His children throughout the ages who
> > were brutally murdered, men, women and children, and when Ted Seeber
> > gloated that they were killed and I reproved the man, the Lord showed
> > you Ted McMillan the man with a problem with love??
>
>
> Here you are mistaken again:
>
> The Lord sent me to you! and Guess what? You showed me all of the above.
> Thank You.
>
>
> >
> > How could the Lord have shown you me needing love when those people
> > who were murdered were His children?
>
> Well I don't know.. Maybe because you need my love? Why
> don't you ask him? It is possible I needed you for something as well.
Again,
> ask him. Anything you ask in his name... If I am lying, as you believe he
> will show you that, now won't he? If I am telling the truth, he will show
> you that as well. You have nothing to lose by asking. Neither do I.
>
> Also I have noticed when you pray over someone and about someone it is
> impossible not to love them.
>
> We are all his children, not just those who are the heirs according to the
> promise, not just the ones who were slaughtered. Even the murderers are
his
> children. For proof of this statement read Paul's words to unbelievers
> about the unknown God.
> God doesn't reject his children, they reject him.
>
> Could it be that you belong to
> > the people who murdered them?
>
> Absolutely not!! I belong to God, My Father doesn't murder.
>
> Normally you use unscrupulous tactics here and edit my words when I make a
> statement like this, and then add an accusation. When did Christ teach
that
> method again?
>
> >
> > For the Work Finished!
> >
> >
> >
> > Ted McMillan
> > tmac...@seventh-dayadventism.com
> > THE LAST WORD ON ADVENTIST TRUTH!
> > http://www.seventh-dayadventism.com
>
>
>
Andrew
"Ted McMillan" wrote:
>
> Why do the Jews keep record of the wrongs done in the Holocaust? Why
> does Jack Chick remind people of the number of times Rome approached
> the Protestants telling them "We have Changed!" "Peace! Healing!"
> before massacres?
>
> Go check the issues out!
My post was addressing human interpersonal relations and
interactions in the light of the inspired teachings of Paul.
Not the issues of history, which I agree with the value of.
"Ted McMillan" <tmac...@seventh-dayadventism.com> wrote news:c9dac66d.02031...@posting.google.com...
It was a response to this post (above) where Cindy's 'faults'
were cataloged, embellished and emblazoned to the world.
But it says that *love* does not keep record of these things.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Love is patient and kind. Love is not jealous or
boastful or proud or rude. Love does not demand
its own way. Love is not irritable, and it keeps no
record of when it has been wronged."
1 Corinthians 13:4-5 NLT
"Love is kind and patient, never jealous, boastful,
proud, or rude. Love isn't selfish or quick tempered.
It doesn't keep a record of wrongs that others do."
1 Corinthians 13:4-5 CEV
"He who does not love does not know God,
for God is love."
1 John 4:8
Andrew
Lamarr Edwards
points.
A) A court in Israel doesn't determine for believers when the sabbath
is, the Bible does.
Would you have felt better if the person involved was compelled to keep
a day, contrary to his own conscience?
B) My question re the trinity is sincere, and goes unanswered.
If a person believes that Christ is the Father, and Son and Spirit,
three equal beings, and another believes that Christ was the first
creation of God, and the subservient son, and each of these people
believes in salvation by faith in Christ alone, and they practice
Christianity in their daily lives, what difference does their view on
the trinity make?
This is not a rhetorical question, I would like someone who believes it
makes a difference to tell me why, I would like to know.LE
Paul Tooley, Jr.
I thought all sane people had fled this NG. Sorry to butt in, but I'd like
to take a crack at your question if I may.
I am not sure what God would do with the individual who believed in a
created Christ, but from a theological view point If Christ were merely a
created being then his derived life would not meet the requirements to atone
for ETERNAL death. How could something finite pay an infinite cost. The
life sacrificed not only had to equal the debt, but surpass it.
Having said all of this I am still not sure what God would do if someone
didn't understand this. What if an individual felt the Holy Ghost was
female and that Jesus was conceived by the divine couple of God the father
and The Holy Spirit? Would that still be enough for salvation?
Paul
"Lamarr Edwards" <shmo...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:4001-3C9...@storefull-292.iap.bryant.webtv.net...
______________________________________________________________________________
Posted Via Binaries.net = SPEED+RETENTION+COMPLETION = http://www.binaries.net
Ted McMillan
If the living is just as unscrupulous and murderous as the ancestors,
then they are in fact at least as guilty as the ancestors. First we
see despotism here from someone who is so sure of herself. Let's see
if it is just a statement of truth, or she is a despot also and just
as guilty as the ancestors.
> It is as if you read the preface of The House
> of Seven Gables by Hawthorne where he says that the theme of the book is
> the guilt of the fathers being visited upon the sons for generations.
And therefore although I am screaming about a real life Dark Ages
Catholic by the name of Ted Seeber who gloated about millions of
non-Catholics being killed because they were not Catholic, what are we
supposed to think when no one else can notice a clear lack of natural
affection but the one this person is trying to make out as unjust and
mean?
Are the children still as deceitful as their fathers?
> The Adventists are not without stain, dear man.
The Adventists have no blood stains dear woman. Antichrist MSiciliana
would say different because of an incident involving tribal rivalry
where Adventists were involved. Who cares! She is just like her
ancestors and worse!
David Koresh is not without stain Dear woman. No other cult is
either! Rome has shed the most blood and rivaled all of them combined
to an exponential degree.
> They contributed to the
> anger and hatred of people toward Catholics for decades.
Show us this by evidence how Adventists did this and I will show how
the entire Reformation unanimously declared Rome to be the antichrist.
It looks like you all are still despots, by the way. Still, your
lack of natural affection is evident in no mention about the fact that
a super-terrorist has spoken on this internet.
> The Catholics
> carry their own guilt, some recent. Still, the use of crimes of
> centuries ago, lain at the feet of the living is based on old myths,
> stories, propaganda and a history of an era that cannot be wholly
> trusted since all sides wrote their own version based upon anger and
> self-interest.
Just like your ancestors. Smothering out the truth with uncertainty
and diverse views. How can someone who is trained to do that know
without a doubt that the Adventist Church has a stain. Others differ!
> Let go the past, embrace a future where all can be sisters and brothers.
Send your address to the Jews so that they can give you the justice
the Nazis got! Don't tell us about Ellen White plagiarizing anything
and even being the Antichrist. Don't tell us the Adventist Church is
a cult.
> There is still time for our humanity to previal.
>
> Brightest Blessings;
> Caillean `aSiobhan, Lady Carrigaholt
Get your imps out of our church and society. Email Jodi Thiessen and
the Jesuits of the Atomorrow forum and tell them to go back to their
Pope.
Caillean McMahon
Theodore, dear Sir;
My ancestors were Druid, and kept that tradition alive. I am a
hereditary Witch raised like each Witch in the family amongst Catholics.
We did not smother the truth with uncertainty; we were warriors
historically and rulers of a quarter of Ireland.
Ted McMillan
> (Re-post)
>
> "Cindy" <synt...@localline.com> wrote in message
> news:3c93a...@news.nntpserver.com...
> >
> > "Ted McMillan" <tmac...@seventh-dayadventism.com> wrote in message
> > news:c9dac66d.02031...@posting.google.com...
> > > "Cindy" <synt...@localline.com> wrote in message
> > news:<3c914fd0$1...@news.nntpserver.com>...
> >
> > Ted,
> > It will be interesting to see how you respond to this..if you do.. and
> what
> > methods you will use. It is my belief you will not respond to most of it
> and
> > instead will make more statements with no scripture or facts, only your
> > opinion which you will expect everyone to agree with. ( wait a minute...
> > Isn't that your definition of a Despot?) Why not surprise everyone for
> once?
You are the enactment of it. Stop accusing me of doing things you
have been accomplishing all this time to cover over your Vatican
talent. You are the one majoring in not answering questions because I
make the right questions that reveal who you are.
> > As you say that you have not accused me of being a Papal infiltrator just
> > because I disagreed with you, and questioned you; is there any other
> > evidence you have besides our disagreement? As you say I only attacked you
> > (by asking questions, which is my way of getting answers and trying to get
> > someone to think..) can you show how I have never done that same thing
> with
> > others?
You are even avoiding pointed questions right now. You saw
controversy between myself and Vatican Seeber. Vatican Seeber gloated
that millions of non-Catholics were put to death because they did not
believe Catholic doctrine. I reproved the monster. You then saw a
problem and moved with consistent attacks against me only. Your every
posting was trying to convince the world that I was mean for reproving
an eternal criminal terrorist trained at the same place you were. You
had to ask questions of me because you told us all God showed you I
had a problem with love because I reproved a murderer of the Saints.
I don't see how God would impress you to do that over the bodies and
blood of His people.
> Can you show how my questions to you were attacks, and my
> questions
> > to others were not?
I am not going to show the despot again. Let her answer the questions
instead, including where she apologized for attacking me, and then
later came to ask why I had it in my head alone that she was attacking
me when she was only expressing her love TO ME ONLY. She treated the
super-terrorist alot differently and called that love. I made this
point already, but Vatican training mandates that all convicting
points be leveled over and ignored.
> > Here's a something to start you out:
> >
> > Please notice that although you claim I never even asked Ted Seeber about
> > anything but only attacked you. That is not true. Please notice the date.
> It
> > is right after our discussion.
I am not interested in the Vatican manure. Yes, Cindy said something
to Ted Seeber. Ted Seeber is a murderer and I am a reprover of a
murderer. Check the postings and you will see the awesome efforts
Vatican Cindy waged against me compared to the mild postings she gave
Seeber over the dead bodies of the saints (heretics to her).
> > > > Ted wrote:
> > > > >So again I have to ask what is the secret of her being
> > > > > friendly with a super-terrorist from the Dark Ages who has condemned
> > > > > everything she is. I was not asking just whether or not she lives
> > > > > according to Seeber's religious standards and she knows this.
> > > >
> > > > The answer to how I could post so friendly to Ted Seeber is LOVE. It
> is
> the
> > > > same reason I can post to you while others warn me and advise me not
> to.
> > > > LOVE...
> > >
> > > You mean you called Ted Seeber an ASS like you called me in email?
> >
> > No, I proved him a liar.
I did the same with you. So what's the problem? You and Vatican
Angelo got together and with emotionalism did everything against me.
Remember the subject heading, "Ted McMillan: An Incomprehensible Man
With A Twisted Mind?"
> > ...and I don't continue to call you ass either, even though sorely tempted
> > to,
> > because Jesus said "Go and sin no more."
And you don't continue to call Ted Seeber "Ass" either because you
never did. And while training me to be loving since I reproved a
murderer of the Saints, Vatican Cindy called me an ass and then told
us how Christians can willingly slip. Why can't she accept my
slippings now?
> > > You mean you took his private information and told anyone you would
> > > give it to them upon asking?
> >
> > Well someone had routinely hacked into my email, my computer, and messed
> > with my posts on this News group. At the time You were suspect *number
> one*,
> > and someone very *helpfully* emailed me your info.. In any case it was an
> > empty threat made in anger, and regretted soon after.
In any case I had not heard you even post this new alibi when you
offered my private info. It is just useful now.
> I gave your
> > information to no one. So keep bearing a grudge.. that's how Christ would
> > handle it right?
I don't care if Vatican Cindy never gave my info to anyone. My
quarrel was not that she gave it. She offered it in her strange
Vatican "love" to me only that she didn't give a murderer of he
Saints. Having no conscience, these points are evaded, ignored and
leveled over.
<snip more of the Vatican arts. I in no way hacked into anything to
do with Vatican Cindy.>
> > Have you forgotten that you have written about me on your website and you
> > kicked me off rather than allow me to defend myself?
Vatican Cindy was allowed to defend herself. There was no difference
then than now. All that manhours and emotion and effort attacking me
for making uncivil posts, and from day one the most uncivil ones
passed her Vatican eyes to this day and she just babbles all the time
without really answering the questions!
> Despite the fact that
> > you constantly asked me to defend myself, when I wouldn't? Why was I so
> > outraged by that? Because here on the NG it is my choice to defend myself
> or
> > not, You took away my choice, and did it behind my back. Have you
> forgotten
> > that although you call my words dirty laundry, you consider yourself
> > zestfully clean, as you drag the dirty laundry out in public?
Vatican Cindy is demonstrating how she defends herself. If her
problem with me only is that I was uncivil since I reproved a fellow
super-terrorist trained back at the Vatican and she cannot see that
someone condemned even all non-Catholics to persecution and death, how
is she going to make the worst uncivil posts go by without a word?? I
am asking for an answer to this question with no more Vatican crap.
> > Have you forgotten that you repeatedly said that you wanted to hear
> nothing
> > else about Love or forgiveness from me, and how it is all lies, and then
> > turned around and constantly posted about how I won't answer
> > your questions.
The truth has to come out sometime. Prove it wrong by answering the
questions even more pertinent to the hour. You saw many uncivil posts
go by. You said nothing. You will not touch on your strange Vatican
disease. You work for the Pope!
> > Have you forgotten that the statement that was made by Ted Seeber that the
> > Christians who were killed were not (according to him) living the bible,
> was
> > made after our discussion and not during or before it? And yet you
> > constantly write as if it was that statement that I said I believed you
> were
> > taking out of context. Believe me ( I'm not talking to Ted here ~ he'll
> > never believe me anyway) I do not take that statement lightly. Especially
> in
> > light of other statements.
I will not believe the Vatican lie that the statement referred to is
any other than what I was always storming about: Vatican terrorist
Seeber gloating that non-Catholics were viciously persecuted and
murdered. His statement showed that he believes all non-Catholics
should be persecuted and killed. Vatican Cindy is trying constantly
to pull the fast one trying to tell us she wasn't referring to that
statement, when that was the only statement I was constantly raving
about. She is fulfilling the training from her Pope.
> > Have you forgotten that the first answer I ever posted to you about
> > killing(not understanding that your issue was protestants only)
> > was that I was horrified by all the killing that had been committed
> > throughout history whether done by Moslems, Catholics or Christians,and
> what
> > I thought was the greatest
> > injustice, was that it was done in the name of the Lord, and that I am
> > horrified that the judgementalism and injustice that is done today is
> still
> > being done in the name of the Lord?
Yes I heard all those lies. But I reproved a super-terrorist for
condemning all non-Catholics. I was accused of being mean by other
super-terrorists. I brought up the reason why I reproved the monster,
and another sweet-talking monster even told me I was not to bring up
anything about the other monster. After that came post after post
against me only, telling even the other terrorists how sick and mean I
am and how I cannot accept Vatican love. Now uncivil posts come all
the time and the other monster cannot notice it. She posts all kinds
of irrelevant and fabricated issues to justify her cultic training.
> > Have you forgotten that You automatically decided from that answer that I
> > must be Catholic. And proceeded to post despotic statements about me,
> > although I asked you to ask me what I though and felt instead, and from
> then
> > on you claimed that my request was a despotic statement and that I was
> > therefore a despot.
Vatican Cindy told me that I was not to tell anyone how she feels.
Immediately before, during and after, Vatican Cindy kept telling the
world how I thought and felt.
> > > You mean you appeared on the newsgroups
> > > to tell the world you noticed he had a problem with love? You mean
> > > you then told him that Ted McMillan is none of your business, but he
> > > was the one with a problem?
Now let's hear more to excuse the fact that Ted Seeber condemned all
non-catholics to persecution and death. I reproved the monster.
Another monster appeared to attack me only for making uncivil posts.
Now all kinds of uncivil posts come by and the other monster cannot
notice. The same is true of Vatican Angelo Braz:
> > No I appeared on the Newsgroups and told him that Peter was not the first
> > pope, and that I have faith that the truth is written in God's inspired
> word
> > because; he wrote that; he could not know with absolute certainty what
> God's
> > word was without the catholic Church who he said, gave us those
> scriptures.
Of course all of this is irrelevant to our issue. Vatican Cindy told
me I was the problem and all of these Vatican people told me I must
not bring up the fellow terrorist monster.
> > The actual words that I said to you were "why do you have a problem with
> the
> > word love?"
That was her post-hypnotic suggestions to the stupid heretics to
convince them that I was mean. She had already conclude that I had a
problem with the world "love," even though she claims she is not a
despot. No question was asked to the man who condemned all
non-Catholics to persecution and death.
> Then you asked me why I thought that, and I answered telling
> you
> > to never ask a question unless you were prepared to hear the answer, and
> > then You proceeded to tell everyone that I attacked you. So get your facts
> > straight please.
My facts are written all above. Fact does not mean Vatican Cindy's
lies.
> I told Meehan repeatedly that you
> > were not my focus when he kept trying to turn the conversation to you,
> > instead of responding to my question. How
> > is that any different, from me refusing to talk about Ted Seeber with you?
That was a skillful alibi that came later. Strange that Ted Seeber
didn't suffer from those same principles.
> > How did I prevent you from discussing anything with Ted Seeber?
Of course I never said that she did this. She told me not to discuss
anything about Ted Seeber to her. I was not to give any excuse for
why I reproved a fellow Vatican super-terrorist.
Let me end here and get to more of these Vatican lies later.
Ted McMillan
Ted McMillan
Cindy:
>God and Satan are oposites. God, loves, he unites, he is truth, he is
>our creator, and our savior. He is Life. Satan, hates, divides,
>deceives, and tries to take Gods place, while he works to accuse us,
>and destroy us. He is Death.
Matthew 10:34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came
not to send peace, but a sword.
35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the
daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her
mother in law.
36 And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.
-------------------------------------------------------
Lamarr Edwards posts one of his supremely insultive posts that passes
by the eyes of Cindy... BY ACCIDENT?? You are about to see the fruits
of the spirit Cindy is talking about that by her lack of response she
subscribes to:
From: Lamarr Edwards (shmo...@webtv.net)
Search Result 1
Subject: Re: THE AFTERMATH OF TERROR!
Newsgroups: alt.religion.christian.adventist
View: Complete Thread (33 articles) | Original Format
Date: 2001-09-16 21:45:48 PST
Ted M.- You are one wacko dullard aren't you? Of course the
government let this plot go forward and kill all these
people,so they could bug your bedroom! Look out the window right
now,did you see'um? They want ya Ted,they want to know everything
about you. The CIA,the Cosa Nostra Adventista,and the Popes personal
hit squad
watch you all the time Ted, they follow you everywhere,they have
machines to read your thoughts,the whole world is against you,your
mother was one of them,aaaarrghh!!!
Get a life or some medicine,dummy.
LE
--------------------------------------------------------
Cindy posts to Lamarr Edwards:
From: Cindy (synt...@iei.net)
Search Result 20
Subject: Re: LAMARR EDWARDS REQUIRES SPECIFIC PROOF FROM HIS ENEMIES!
Newsgroups: alt.religion.christian.adventist
View: Complete Thread (7 articles) | Original Format
Date: 2001-09-18 17:14:38 PST
Lamarr,
You get to be called all kinds of names, I only get called the same
one, repeatedly.
I thought I was unique, but now you're a despot too. So much for that
theory.
Welcome to my world, :)
Cindy
What if,... there are despots everywhere? :)
--------------------------------------------------------
Lamarr Posts more insults against Cindy's false preaching about Christ
and the fruits of the Spirit. Will Cindy notice?
From: Lamarr Edwards (shmo...@webtv.net)
Search Result 1
Subject: Re: SEEBER'S HATRED OF LIBERTY!
Newsgroups: alt.religion.christian.adventist
View: Complete Thread (18 articles) | Original Format
Date: 2001-09-22 21:45:45 PST
Ted Seeber- Your pal sure shoots his mouth off about liberty. If he
is old enough to have been around in the viet nam era,I guarantee
you he was a "contientious objector",they love liberty,as long as you
have to pay the price for it. He couldn't find his own butt with both
hands,let alone have any
understanding of the law. He is an ass.LE
--------------------------------------------------------
Another supremely insultive post by Lamarr that Cindy will always
refuse to see:
From: Lamarr Edwards (shmo...@webtv.net)
Search Result 42
Subject: Re: SECURITY VS. PRIVACY??
Newsgroups: alt.religion.christian.adventist
View: Complete Thread (35 articles) | Original Format
Date: 2001-09-23 16:45:30 PST
Teddy boy- If you are "the last word on Adventist truth",then
Adventism
has gone the way of Jim Jones,and David Koresh,it has been consumed by
insanity and evil,to become a theological dead end to be laughed at by
all
Christendom. Of course,you are not "the last word on Adventist
truth",you are just a
mentally ill fool who spreads your message of corrupted Christianity
to
other lost souls of insecurity,inferiority and stupidity,like an AIDS
carrier blithely liasing with anyone who will respond. Your father
satan must be so proud of you.LE
--------------------------------------------------------
Cindy adds to the insultive postings of Lamarr with her arrogance:
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&selm=c20cba56.0109230715.5b6cd55b%40posting.google.com
From: Cindy (synt...@iei.net)
Subject: Re: ###SEEBER AGAIN MAKES EARTH-SHATTERING ADMISSIONS!
Newsgroups: alt.religion.christian.adventist,
alt.religion.christian.baptist, alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic
View: Complete Thread (11 articles) | Original Format
Date: 2001-09-23 08:15:12 PST
Ted
Have you ever seen the cartoon Pinky and the brain? LOL, I'm sorry,
sometimes little things amuse me.
Cindy
-------------------------------------------------------
<><>
Cindy here in defending the awesomely insensitive and bloodthirsty
words of Ted Seeber tells me that I have taken Seeber's words out of
context, but she didn't take mine out of context. She does everything
to oppose me:
Seeber told us we must give up our liberties. If there is any reason
to see why Cindy can attack me and not Seeber, take a look at this:
From: Cindy (synt...@iei.net)
Search Result 10
Subject: Re: SECURITY VS. PRIVACY??
Newsgroups: alt.religion.christian.adventist
View: Complete Thread (35 articles) | Original Format
Date: 2001-09-23 09:28:48 PST
.. You may read it above :) I would just like to add, my own thought.
I wonder how many people on
the planes involved in our recent tragedy, if they had been asked to
give up a little of their privacy, to save lives, would have refused.
Cindy
---------------------------------------------------
Here is Cindy's false and very revealing apology to me where she
confesses that she had malice in her heart and that she attacked me.
It states that she should not have used the words that she did even
though she later told us there was no problem with her words:
From: Cindy (synt...@iei.net)
Search Result 1
Subject: I was wrong Ted McMillan.
Newsgroups: alt.religion.christian.adventist,
alt.religion.christian.baptist, alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic
View: Complete Thread (11 articles) | Original Format
Date: 2001-09-27 17:26:16 PST
Ted, When I wrote the previous post, I was angry. That does not excuse
my behavior. I knew when I wrote the things I did, that I shouldn't be
writing them, I ignored those feelings, and wrote what I did anyway.
Once I posted it, and it was too late to take back those words, it hit
me, how wrong I've been. I prayed before going to sleep, but it was
hard, to not continue trying to justify my behavior to God. You are
right, I talked about the fruits of the spirit, and then didn't show
them myself.
I woke up this morning, not feeling right, I was running late to
work, unusual for me,I usually wake up before my alarm goes off. Part
of a bible verse was in my head, I couldn't look it up, because I
didn't have time, I didn't take time to pray, because I thought I
didn't have time.
All day long, the same line kept running through my head, "
whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest...think on
these things." I couldn't remember the rest of the verse, or where it
came from, also unusual for me. When I finally did pray, while I was
working, suddenly another partial verse popped into my head, " avoid
strivings.." I kept trying to put both of these out of my head,
because it was like listening to a broken record. A thought came to me
in the midst of this struggle. Another reason for not judging others,
is because in your judgement of them, you are committing a wrong,and
by doing that, it becomes easier to do other wrongs. In judging you, I
started being guilty, of the same things I was accusing you of. I
don't feel very good about that. I felt better after I acknowledged
this.
It is better to focus on God's love. When you begin to focus on
hatred, even if it's someone elses, and you do it with the best of
intentions, you lose sight of what is important, and it happens so
gradually, you don't even realize it's happening till it's almost too
late.
I pray you understand what I am saying. Your sister in christ,
Cindy
---------------------------------------------------
Cindy refuses to reprove Lamarr Edwards for his supremely insultive
and hateful posts AFTER HER FALSE APOLOGY. She tells us she can't
attack anymore because of her repentance:
From: Cindy (synt...@iei.net)
Search Result 2
Subject: Re: I was wrong Ted McMillan.
Newsgroups: alt.religion.christian.adventist,
alt.religion.christian.baptist, alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic
View: Complete Thread (11 articles) | Original Format
Date: 2001-09-28 17:53:15 PST
...
>
> Cindy:
>
> For the last time to get through your Christ-centered thick despot
> skull:
>
> The problem was not that you attacked, BUT THAT YOU ATTACKED ONE
> PERSON AND WAS ONE-SIDED. Ted:
I have said I was wrong for attacking you, attacking others will not
make that better. Perhaps you don't understand, that all the people
you group together, have had disagreements, we've all had words in the
past, and probably will continue to do so, however we do it in a
christian spirit, and respect each other. You have never claimed to
feel bad about attacking me, or anyone else. I won't repeat this
again, if you do not understand, then that is your choice. I forgive
you Ted, I have always forgiven you. If you can't treat me with love,
Please, leave me alone.
Cindy
-------------------------------------------------------
After refusing to reprove Lamarr for his hate-filled posts, Cindy
winds up complimenting and supporting Lamarr Edwards:
From: Cindy Ford (synt...@iei.net)
Search Result 28
Subject: Re: My "attack" on Ted M.
Newsgroups: alt.religion.christian.adventist
View: Complete Thread (7 articles) | Original Format
Date: 2001-09-28 16:35:53 PST
Referring to his supremely insultive post against me, Lamarr writes:
"Lamarr Edwards" <shmo...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:12941-3BB...@storefull-291.iap.bryant.webtv.net...
> IF any of you feel like commenting on my post to Ted,feel free to do
> so,I allowed him to bait me into a response in kind....
>
> Say to me whatever you choose,I assure you,it will be no problem.
>
> ....
Go with God Lamarr :) Your words show there is no problem.
Cindy
--------------------------------------------------------
CINDY AGAIN CONFIRMS THAT SHE HAS ATTACKED ME AND THAT SHE CAN NO
LONGER ATTACK ANYONE WHEN SHE WAS ASKED TO COMMENT ON LAMARR'S MOST
INSULTING POSTS AGAINST ME:
From: Cindy (synt...@iei.net)
Search Result 27
Subject: Re: I was wrong Ted McMillan.
Newsgroups: alt.religion.christian.adventist,
alt.religion.christian.baptist, alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic
View: Complete Thread (11 articles) | Original Format
Date: 2001-09-28 17:53:15 PST
...
>>
>> Cindy:
>>
>> For the last time to get through your Christ-centered thick despot
>> skull:
>>
>> The problem was not that you attacked, BUT THAT YOU ATTACKED ONE
>>PERSON AND WAS ONE-SIDED.
>Ted:
>I have said I was wrong for attacking you,
Remember when Cindy told us that she was never attacking me? She
asked me why I view her expressions of love as attacks and told
everybody that I was just imagining things. In this post she is
telling us that she was attacking me, and her posts are now just the
same as before her false apology?
The result of all this is that she has qualified herself to teach us
about love, the fruits of the Spirit, Christ, and all that Christ does
for a person. But she continues:
>attacking others will not
>make that better. Perhaps you don't understand, that all the people
>you group together, have had disagreements, we've all had words in
the
>past, and probably will continue to do so, however we do it in a
>christian spirit, and respect each other. You have never claimed to
>feel bad about attacking me, or anyone else.
>*I WON'T REPEAT THIS AGAIN AGAIN*,
>if you do not understand, then that is your choice. I forgive
>you Ted, I have always forgiven you. If you can't treat me with
love,
>Please, leave me alone.
>Cindy
----------------------------------------
ANOTHER ATTACK BY CINDY AFTER HER FALSE APOLOGY HERE!
She will hear accusative and insultive things from another poster
against me after her false apology telling us that she cannot even
reprove Lamarr for his supremely insultive posts because she has
repented, but she adds insults instead of corrects this other poster
using her false "love."
Look closely at her insults and compare it with her continuing false
words today:
From: Cindy Ford (synt...@iei.net)
Search Result 4
Subject: Re: to Ted McMillan
Newsgroups: alt.religion.christian.adventist
View: Complete Thread (30 articles) | Original Format
Date: 2001-09-28 16:20:40 PST
"EW..." <ewy...@excite.com> wrote in message
news:9p2qb8$g1hhq$5...@ID-36342.news.dfncis.de...
>
> "Lamarr Edwards" <shmo...@webtv.net> wrote in message
> news:12941-3BB...@storefull-291.iap.bryant.webtv.net...
> > Donna,Cindy,Larry,Ted S.,et al-
> >
> > All good tries at trying to be
> > logical,kind,Christian,reasonable,forgiving with Ted M., unforunately
> > nothing will work. There are others of us who over the years have tried
> > these approaches,nothing works to get through to him.
> >
>
> LE,
>
> Like Larry said (I think it was Larry), TM may just be yanking our chains
> for certain responses which he/she enjoys. Think about it. "He" could be a
> homely little 19 year old college sweetheart who can't get a date, but is
> otherwise a cuddly little fur-ball at heart. He/she just enjoys raising
> emotions because it's the only way it works for him/her. Not possible??
> Sure it is! :-))
>
> EW
>
>
LOL EW.
Anything is possible. It is possible, he is alive and well, and living
in
FL, over double that age, and has a group of followers, who all have
tunnel
vision. Regardless, he consistently shows up here, although his
webpage
denounces this NG as a hotbed of papal infiltration. Follows people
around,
and then claims the opposite. Most likely he shows up when interest in
his
webpages die down, to try to recruit new followers.
CU, Cindy
Ted McMillan
Cindy:
-------------------------------------------------------
LE
--------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&selm=c20cba56.0109230715.5b6cd55b%40posting.google.com
Cindy
-------------------------------------------------------
<><>
Cindy
---------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------
Cindy
-------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------
Andrew
"Love .. doesn't keep a record of wrongs that others do."
1 Corinthians 13:5
Ted McMillan
> "Ted McMillan" wrote:
> >
> > Why do the Jews keep record of the wrongs done in the Holocaust? Why
> > does Jack Chick remind people of the number of times Rome approached
> > the Protestants telling them "We have Changed!" "Peace! Healing!"
> > before massacres?
> >
> > Go check the issues out!
>
>
> My post was addressing human interpersonal relations and
> interactions in the light of the inspired teachings of Paul.
> Not the issues of history, which I agree with the value of.
Another Vatican lie!
> "Ted McMillan" <tmac...@seventh-dayadventism.com> wrote news:c9dac66d.02031...@posting.google.com...
>
> It was a response to this post (above) where Cindy's 'faults'
> were cataloged, embellished and emblazoned to the world.
And which posts did Jesuit Andrew not write where Ted McMillan's
"faults" were catalogued, embellished and emblazoned to the world? He
is also a worker for the Papacy. He has no conscience and he is
always condemning things that he does without a problem.
Does he have a record of wrongs I have done?
I don't care what these terrorist papists say. I will keep remind
them of their fellow terrorist's words of persecution and death to all
Protestants. They won't and can't notice it because they believe the
same thing and are just as murderous and heinous.
If Americans see confirmed Nazis today, they will not allow other
Nazis among them infiltrated to tell them to forgive and forget the
unchanging children of hell.
> But it says that *love* does not keep record of these things.
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unlike this post and the other where the Jesuit was telling everyone
that Ted McMillan has a terrible mental disorder. He doesn't even get
any of his questions answered and his points addressed. He is
criticized by people who use Dark Ages tactics to advance their
darkness above the examination which shows them what they are.
> "Love is patient and kind.
Jesuit are unscrupulous and love and make lies continuously by nature.
> Love is not jealous or
> boastful or proud or rude.
But Jesuits are frequently and can violate everything they post as
this terrorist here.
> Love does not demand
> its own way.
Obviously Jesuits are not love. They all call me sick just because I
disagree with them and refuse to approve terrorism or become a fellow
terrorist.
> Love is not irritable, and it keeps no
> record of when it has been wronged."
>
> 1 Corinthians 13:4-5 NLT
Jesuit Andrew is clearly not love. He is a Jesuit. He will not
notice that anyone even called Ellen White a plagiarist. That is
keeping record of wrongs, but the Jesuits are unscrupuluos and
scoundrelous.
> "Love is kind and patient,
Jesuit Andrew and his clan are not love.
> never jealous, boastful,
> proud, or rude.
All these Jesuits clearly do not fit the description, and that
certainly includes the one posting the description.
> Love isn't selfish or quick tempered.
They all tell us to have our beliefs and then move on to change our
thinking to theirs. They complain against what they call "censorship"
defined as organizations that refuse their papal claims. They move
out to make forums, and when we present questions and points they
cannot answer, the more tell us we have to change to their thinking.
> It doesn't keep a record of wrongs that others do."
>
> 1 Corinthians 13:4-5 CEV
The Jesuits posting here are not love. This is for a general sense
and not for the workers of the Antichrist who never change and who
always work to spill blood. Love will not keep this information from
the general public so that we can love the children of hell.
Isn't there a scripture that tells us that the Lord will destroy the
memory of the Amalekites from the face of the earth because of
something they had done prior?
> "He who does not love does not know God,
> for God is love."
> 1 John 4:8
>
>
> Jesuit Andrew
Jesuit Andrew and his terrorist clan do not know God. For God is
love.
Love will understand and notice that Protestants both male and female,
old and young and little children were inhumanly slaughtered by
terrorists who know how to post about love. If I bring that up and
strange people ignore it and then accuse me of being mean for
reproving the monsters who did it, those are also monsters who know
nothing about love.
Cindy
> Cindy - I followed your exchange with ted/susan with some interest.
:-) Yes well. Not responding to his issues just made him bring them up all
the more, everywhere, not just on this NG.
I hope you don't mind, but I am moving this discussion to another thread.
> Two points.
>
> A) A court in Israel doesn't determine for believers when the sabbath
> is, the Bible does.
True, but the reason that this issue is important to adventists is because
of the prophecies about the mark of the beast, and the enforcement of the
Sunday laws. I am all for freedom, but Israel is not like here where we have
a division of Church and State. The Jewish people have never had that, and
they don't today. Their constitution contains no such guarantee. Since the
nation of Israel was founded they have had these labor laws. They were made
because that is what the people freely chose. The Sabbath has always been
their identifying mark, so it makes sense to me that they would choose to do
this.
> Would you have felt better if the person involved was compelled to keep
> a day, contrary to his own conscience?
He is not being compelled to keep any day now. He can not open his business
on Sabbath according to current labor laws. The only thing that changed is
the definition of the Sabbath, and when it begins and ends. The old law
stated that no businesses were to be open, except for those necessary to
life and wellbeing such as hospitals etc., between sundown Friday, and
sundown on Sabbath. The new law states that the sabbath begins at midnight
on Friday and ends at midnight on Saturday, and no businesses may opperate
during those times except necessary ones. If he goes out and opens his
business on Sabbath morning he will be in violation of the law.
We need to keep the laws of the land we live in, unless they contradict
God's law's or words. I do not see that his rights were violated at all. He
was not keeping the law where he lived. Here in the U.S. certain businesses
are closed on Sunday, as well as government offices. What would happen to me
if I decided to open one of these businesses on Sunday anyway? Wouldn't I be
breaking the law? Is that law a violation of my rights? Am I compelled to
keep that day contrary to my conscience? I see no difference NOW. What will
be the problem is that the Sunday blue laws that are not being enforced..
can be.. as they are still on the books. Many modern Adventists say that the
U.S. would never make laws to enforce Sunday worship etc. I say bologny!
They already have. Read the history of our nation.
The Issue is not that the man is free to work whenever he wants, because he
still can't. The issue is that a government official made a ruling defining
the Sabbath in a new way, and that new way will be enforced. A precident was
set. That the way the law was changed is in accordance with Rome's
definition, is signifigant. Especially at a time in our history where the
Catholic Church and the Jewish people are trying to come together, for the
first time ever.
I see this as further evidence of "changing
times and laws" and the "the world wondering after the beast." Also
addressed in the Popes 2000 address, the beast's objectives have never
changed. I hope you do not see this as hatred of Catholics. It is not. The
system they are in is wrong according to the bible and the prophesies of
Jesus. To be quiet and not talk about it, is to abandon them to their fate
and is in direct conflict with the gospel which is to be taught, the same
gospel addressed by the three angels message. Loving Catholic's is one
thing, loving a lie is another.
I believe what happens in Israel is very significant as far as endtime
events go. The reason being that the False Christ will appear where most
people expect him to, as most of the world will follow him according to
prophesy. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that most
Christians believe the prophesies about Israel mean literal Israel, and not
a symbolic Israel as the bible shows. They fully expect these events to take
place in the middle east. We on the other hand know that Jesus said "DON"T
GO THERE"
The U.S. defined in prophesy as starting out lamblike and then being
dragonlike is the one who causes the beast to be worshipped. One of the
reasons I believe we have always backed Israel, sometimes to our detriment.
The Pope has a Jerusalem agenda that takes this into consideration as well.
I am actually not sure if the Papal embassy has been moved to Jerusalem yet,
I know that was the plan. There is also a move to get the capital changed
to Jerusalem. (If any one knows more about this, fill me in please.)
I recently posted a article from the New York times that was about a study
done by among others Jesuit Rev. Albert Vanhoye. This study was signed by
the Pope's theologion Cardinal Ratzinger, the prefect of the Congregation
for the Doctrine of the Faith. For those of you who don't know, The
congregation for the doctrine of the faith is the office of the Inquisition
which was renamed In 1965 by Pope Paul VI. Ratzinger as the pope's
theologian often has strange things to say, such as the following:
6-Sep-2000 -- ZENIT News Agency
ARE BELIEVERS OF OTHER RELIGIONS SAVED?
Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger Responds
VATICAN CITY, (ZENIT.org) - "How is it possible to explain the unique
character of Christ and of the Catholic Church to a Jew or a Lutheran, a
reporter asked Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, prefect of the Vatican
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, during a press conference to
present the "Dominus Jesus" declaration, which is concerned, precisely, with
the unique and universal salvation of Christ and the Church.
Referring to a believing Jew, Cardinal Ratzinger clarified that "we are in
agreement that a Jew, and this is true for believers of other religions,
does not need to know or acknowledge Christ as the Son of God in order to be
saved, if there are insurmountable impediments, of which he is not
blameworthy, to preclude it. However, the fact that the Son of God entered
history, made himself part of history, and is present as a reality in
history, affects everyone."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~ End
Of course the bible says that whoever does not acknowledge that Jesus Christ
came in the flesh is of the antichrist.
The article I posted has alot to say about how the "World" and not just the
"christian world" will wonder after the beast. The Sabbath issue is very
significant, but is also just one of many. Catholic doctrines now claim that
the Jewish Messiah, the Warrior king they expected to overthrow their
enemies, when they rejected Jesus, is the same as the Savior, the Catholic
Church awaits. I wonder what will happen if this false Christ calls for
worship on the sunday? hmmmm.... I can not post an url because others would
need a NY times subscription to access it, so I will post a copy of it after
this post.
Incidently this issue of the Sabbath is a subject of much debate in Israel
between the religious jews and the secular jews right now, and has only
become an issue in recent times. It seems to echo the same debate going on
between Seventh-day Adventists right now, as the fundamental SDA's still
believe in the biblical Sabbath and the more liberal modern SDA's either
don't feel that the Sabbath is required or they want to keep the Sabbath in
the way they choose, which many define as just going to church on Sabbath. I
find this strange as the bible defines the Sabbath and if you don't keep it
that way, Why would you call yourself a Seventh -day Adventist?
You may find the following article interesting.
http://www.library.cornell.edu/colldev/mideast/sabthss.htm
This is probably more than you wanted to hear, but I feel very strongly that
we need to keep informed on anything to do with biblical prophesy. Jesus
said " I have told you now, so that when it comes to pass, you will
believe."
I'll try to address the rest of your post after Paul, as I see he already
addressed your other point while I was writing this.
In Christian love,
Cindy
Lamarr Edwards
answer.
The idea of doctrinal purity is fine, but I sometimes wonder if by
majoring in minors we shift our focus from the most important thing, to
lrss important things.
Is it wrong to say, "I don't have all of the "truth", there are things I
don't clearly understand, but I will hang on to what I do understand,
that Christ is the only way to salvation" (?)
I don't know.
Did you ever see Monty Python's life of Brian?
When Brian is crucified, the Romans toss away his sandals, one of his
followers gets the right one, the other, the left, all of his followers
take sides as to which is the "true" faith, the lefties or righties.
Sometimes I wonder..........................LE
Lamarr Edwards
love you.
she has apologised to you for anything and everything she could have
possibly said or done.
Why attempt blame to her for posts I made ages ago, your beef, devil
boy/girl is with me, not her.
I know who your father is, I know from whence you come, I know your
purpose.
Cindy is prepared to believe you are human, I am not, therefore I will
not treat you as a human, but as the demon you are.
You disrupt, howl and abuse and accuse.
You are vehement and nasty in worrying about the speck of sawdust you
think you see in the eyes of others.
Your whole game is to discredit everyone, and especially Adventism,
because you represent it as a mad dog would represent doves.
You are evil, wicked, and sly, lost souls are a triumph for you, because
you want them to share hell with you, and you want to snatch from them
any hope of salvation, because you hate them for that hope.
Ya don't fool me devil boy/girl, I have closely read everything you have
posted in this group for well over a year, I have even allowed you to
create in me anger frustration, another of your goals, but no more
wormwood jr., you, or more appropriately, the spirit that controls you,
may drive fine people away, may make the most absurd assertions about
what others believe, may howl at the moon for all I care, and I will
stay right here, and I will NEVER tire of exposing your satanic ways,
your satanic words,your attempt to be a wolf in sheeps clothing.
All of your bombast and vitriol means nothing to me, for it is
impossible for you to tell anything but lies.
You are posessed of an evil spirit ted/susan, and your goals are
satanic, you are consigned to hell, and you want to take others with
you.
You have been weighed in the balance, and have been found to be deeply
wanting, and I will remind you and others of this wormwood,I will point
out to others your purpose and your origin, I will make you a joke, more
of a joke than you already are.LE
Doug
>
>When Brian is crucified, the Romans toss away his sandals, one of his
>followers gets the right one, the other, the left, all of his followers
>take sides as to which is the "true" faith, the lefties or righties.
>
>Sometimes I wonder..........................LE
>
I get your point, Lamarr, however, according to Brian's mother, he wasn't a
Messiah, but a very naughty boy! LOL. I loved that movie!
Doug
Doug
discredit Adventism by bad example, why is it that he targets the Pope and
Catholicism? Is it a demonic goal to target the Pope and Catholicism? Why
would that be?
Doug
Paul Tooley, Jr.
Paul
> Is it wrong to say, "I don't have all of the "truth", there are things I
> don't clearly understand, but I will hang on to what I do understand,
> that Christ is the only way to salvation" (?)
>
> I don't know.
>
______________________________________________________________________________
Ted McMillan
> ted/susan - Cindy is making a supreme effort to reason with you and
> love you.
But you are a despot too? Why couldn't she love me like Ted Seeber?
Why can't you???? She is a worker for the Antichrist. Therefore she
hates the air I breathe. I listen and respect her words like she
respects mine. Claiming to love me doesn't cut it. She reacted quite
differently to me than she did to her fellow super-terrorist worker
for the Antichrist.
Are you giving us again your Jesuit opinion? Why can't she love the
people whom terrorist Seeber condemned?
About trying to reason with people and love them according to despots
who tolerate no disagreement, I have to say that your Pope has done
that so often, it is no surprise.
> she has apologised to you for anything and everything she could have
> possibly said or done.
And has done it again and again and again after the apology and
continues in the same mode to prove me mean. She has attacked me
constantly and even viciously on the grounds that I send uncivil
posts. She told me I cannot bring up the issue of a man condemning
all non-Catholics to persecution and death. Vicious posts now come
from another terrorist papist by the name of Lamarr Edwards and
nothing stirs within her soul. The verdict is that she was lying from
the beginning. She has no problem with uncivil posts--she has given
quite a few herself.
I bring this up and she evades the facts as she always has that needed
an apology.
> Why attempt blame to her for posts I made ages ago, your beef, devil
> boy/girl is with me, not her.
Let me take you back to kindergarten so that you at least can no more
be a despot. Don't ask questions you already know the answer for. To
her, like you and the other workers of the Antichrist, it is worse to
be uncivil in posts than to condemn all non-Catholics. Another worker
for the Antichrist has given the worst uncivil posts and this has been
continuous not just from you, but from all quarters. Vatican Cindy
cannot notice. She needs to apologize for this, but cannot, for to
apologize is supposed to mean she will not continue lying to the
people.
She works for your Antichrist also.
> I know who your father is, I know from whence you come, I know your
> purpose.
>
> Cindy is prepared to believe you are human, I am not, therefore I will
> not treat you as a human, but as the demon you are.
Of course I am not human to the murderers of the Saints. This more
explains your horrible cruelty. Of course I'm not human. I had the
gall to recognize that someone condemned all non-Catholics and gloated
over the mass-massacres of millions of God's children. If only I was
normal as you people guilty of those things, I would get so much hell!
> You disrupt, howl and abuse and accuse.
Gonna kill me like you have so many others throughout history who went
to their graves on the same charges?
> You are vehement and nasty in worrying about the speck of sawdust you
> think you see in the eyes of others.
Oh so condemning all non-Catholics is a spec of sawdust compared to
reproving the monster? I will look like a monster in the eyes of
monsters, so I'm not surprised. Remaining calm and doing everything
to turn all eyes away from another fellow monster is no spec of
sawdust. Millions were killed. You are clearly the children of
Satan.
> Your whole game is to discredit everyone, and especially Adventism,
> because you represent it as a mad dog would represent doves.
You mean after Seeber, Cindy, you and others condemned all
non-Catholics? A super-terrorist did this and you all have done
everything to cover him up and ignore what was done.
> You are evil, wicked, and sly, lost souls are a triumph for you, because
> you want them to share hell with you, and you want to snatch from them
> any hope of salvation, because you hate them for that hope.
More uncivil postings. Will not God burn you people alive? Already
guilty of the crime of mass-murder, you add to it by committing the
Vatican concern and crime you claim is submitting uncivil posts. How
will you escape the damnation of hell?
> Ya don't fool me devil boy/girl, I have closely read everything you have
> posted in this group for well over a year, I have even allowed you to
> create in me anger frustration, another of your goals, but no more
> wormwood jr., you, or more appropriately, the spirit that controls you,
> may drive fine people away, may make the most absurd assertions about
> what others believe, may howl at the moon for all I care, and I will
> stay right here, and I will NEVER tire of exposing your satanic ways,
> your satanic words,your attempt to be a wolf in sheeps clothing.
>
> All of your bombast and vitriol means nothing to me, for it is
> impossible for you to tell anything but lies.
I'm glad I really upset Lamarr. Bring out the holy water.
I love you Antichrist Lamarr! I love you!
The Lord bless you and keep you.
The Lord let his face shine upon you, and be gracious to you.
The Lord look upon you kindly and give you peace.
Numbers 6: 24-26
Ted McMillan
> "Love .. doesn't keep a record of wrongs that others do."
>
> 1 Corinthians 13:5
But the Jesuits tell us that Ellen White plagiarized. They tell us
about Ted McMillan being mean and evil for reproving Ted Seeber for
gloating that millions of non-Catholics were killed.
So that is what the scripture says, but a worker for the Antichrist is
quoting it in the hopes that his enemies would accept it and they can
plot more murders.
> "He who does not love does not know God,
> for God is love."
>
> 1 John 4:8
Tell Jesuit Andrew to stop bringing the false record of my wrongs.
Let him to know that there is much hell to pay for blasphemous quoting
scripture.
That scripture is not talking about an unchanging enemy constantly
seeking blood and destruction. It would be a terrible lack of love to
fail to warn the world about the approaching holocaust and bloodshed.
Ted McMillan
Andrew
"Ted McMillan" wrote:
> It would be a terrible lack of love to fail to warn the
> world about the approaching holocaust and bloodshed.
>
> Ted McMillan
"Those who wait for the Bridegroom's coming are to say to the people,
"Behold your God." The last rays of merciful light, the last message of
mercy to be given to the world, is a revelation of His character of love."
--Christ Object Lessons 415
"The message of Christ's righteousness is to sound from one end of the
earth to the other to prepare the way of the Lord. This is the glory of
God, which closes the work of the third angel."--6T 19
"If you would stand through the time of trouble, you must know Christ"
--1SM 362
Andrew
Ted McMillan
Ted's posts do not give a bad example for Adventism. All the workers
for the Antichrist turned their ears away willingly from the fact that
millions were put to death in the grossest of ways, and a
super-terrorist reincarnated from the past gloated about this. One
Adventist reproved and exposed the demon to the point where he has not
even denied the charges or defended himself. Ted Seeber revealed his
super-terrorist nature right in the climate of September 11. To think
that the other workers for the Antichrist would realize the climate we
are in and how it relates to the murderous statement made by Seeber!
Now they have to babble to the world that I'm not human! Go to a
bunch of people out in public and bring these issues to them. A man
gloats that multitudes of non-Catholics were horribly put to death.
Another man reproves the super Bin Laden. All of a sudden that other
man is constantly attacked by other workers of the Antichrist like
Lamarr Edwards, telling the world that I'm not human and
incomprehensible.
I personally believe that the majority of human being think like I do
on this matter and not like the super-terrorist workers for the
Antichrist.
Caillean McMahon
Theodore;
So one person makes it fine for you to throw the excesses of the end
of medeival Europe at the feet of the Catholics.
I suppose this then makes it fine for Catholics to throw your secesses
at the feet of all Adventists.
Calm, dear Sir; speak in measured tones out of respect, not prejudice
and anger.
Brightest Blessings;
Caillean `aSiobhan, Lady Carrigaholt
Caillean McMahon
Theodore;
Please be gracious enough to demonstrate, from the records of the
Society of Jesus, that this gentleman is a member.
Brightest Blessings;
Caillean `aSiobhan, Lady Carrigaholt
"Unlike Christianity, Judaism or Islam, which would cease to
exist if all knowledge of them disappeared fom the world, paganism
would regenerate spontaneously because its roots lie in the depths
of each individual and their relationship to the earth and not in
any outward teaching." - Philip Heselton, "Wiccan Roots: Gerald
Gardner and the Modern Witchcraft Revival
(indulging myself a bit here; Christians forgive me the vainglorious
moment please)
Lamarr Edwards
creates the mandatory sunday law.
What happens in Israel is irrelevant to this prophecy.
Personally, I find it difficult to imagine this happening, but many
things have happened that I could not imagine.
The sabbath issue is the lynch pin of SDA theology, and I make the issue
from the Bible in defense of SDA's whenever I can.
However, I will freely admit, I am not so sure about this issue as I
once was.
In fact, I just don't know for sure.
As to "keeping" the sabbath, I am not sure about that either.
When I was an ultra conservative SDA, I would not spend money on the
sabbath, I would leave the Saturday newspaper on the lawn till sundown,
I would not collect the mail.
Of course we used utilities that required someone else to work on the
sabbath.
With all this, I was once on the podium with another Elder, and before
the service began, we waited for ten mnutes or so with our guest
speaker, a General Conference big shot, in our pastors office.
I had driven a classic car I owned to church that day, and the other
elder and I discussed it for a few minutes while waiting.
When the Gen. Con. guy started out with his sermon, he pointed out that
the other Elder and I did not have the right sabbath attitude, and were
more interested in talking about a car than God.
Sooo, how much is enough? and when does the sabbath start becoming a
burden?
After all "the sabbath was made for man, not man for the sabbath"
When does it stop being a day of rest and worship, and become a set of
hoops we must jump through to earn "brownie points" with God? LE
Paul Tooley, Jr.
It stops the minuet we realize it has nothing to do with our salvation and
everything to do with our relationship to the one who gave us salvation. If
the Sabbath had been that big of an issue would not it have been mentioned
in the conversion of Cornelius and his family. Would it not have had a much
more prominent mention in Paul's letters. The Sabbath was made for man.
That was Jesus theme. Jesus is much more interested in our abandoning
ourselves to Him than in us devoting ourselves to what we imagine He wants
us to do.
I believe many people will go to hell devoted to their own cherished ideas
of what God wants rather than devoted to God. I believe that God does not
want us to be devoted to Sabbath keeping, Church building, witnessing, good
works, and the like. Instead He wants us devoted to Him.
Paul
"Lamarr Edwards" <shmo...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:13747-3C...@storefull-295.iap.bryant.webtv.net...
Paul Tooley, Jr.
the righteous to bear silently the scorn of the fools.
Paul
> Theodore;
> So one person makes it fine for you to throw the excesses of the end
> of medeival Europe at the feet of the Catholics.
> I suppose this then makes it fine for Catholics to throw your secesses
> at the feet of all Adventists.
> Calm, dear Sir; speak in measured tones out of respect, not prejudice
> and anger.
> Brightest Blessings;
> Caillean `aSiobhan, Lady Carrigaholt
> > tmac...@seventh-dayadventism.com
> > THE LAST WORD ON ADVENTIST TRUTH!
> > http://www.seventh-dayadventism.com
Doug
>II--treat the Catholics on this NG, even invading the Catholics own NG's,
>yes it is demonic. There are things that separate Catholics from
>Protestants, but those things should be discussed in love and mutual
>respect. There are things we can learn from each other and I do mean it is
>not a one-way street. Any human or human organization that thinks that it
>has an exclusive on the truth is self-deceived and dangerous.
>
>Sincerely,
>Paul
>
>"Doug" <happy...@cs.comnojunk> wrote in message
>news:20020319141655...@mb-cm.news.cs.com...
>> Lamarr, if Ted's goals are demonic, regardless of whether it's intended to
>> discredit Adventism by bad example, why is it that he targets the Pope and
>> Catholicism? Is it a demonic goal to target the Pope and Catholicism?
>Why
>> would that be?
>>
>> Doug
>
>
I personally don't think that he's demonic. I think he's deluded. I don't
think his viewpoint is uncommon in Adventism either, from my own experience,
although I would not say that it is representative of Adventism. I have had
many Adventists try to tell me what I as a Catholic believe, then get angry
when I try to dispel misconceptions and explain what we actually do believe.
Mind you, this is on a personal level, not discussing things on the internet.
Satan is the father of lies. Some people believe those lies. Sometimes it's
not their fault. If you grow up believing something, and it's not so, it can
really be hard to accept intellectually and emotionally. Satan knows this, and
he takes advantage of it. I think that Satan wants to discredit both
Adventists and Catholics, and he's using Ted and Nicholas to do it. Anything
Satan can do to keep people away from Jesus, he will use. Normally he uses
consumerist materialism, envy, lust, pride, etc. but sometimes it's not
enough. So, when people are turning away from their sins, Satan tries to
provide an additional stumbling block on their way to accepting our Lord. He
does this two ways with Ted and Nicholas. He does it by providing a bad
example to discredit Adventism, and he does it by spreading lies about
Catholicism through their words. Anything he can do to keep people away from
Jesus, he will do. Ted is just a man. He truly believes what he says. He
honestly thinks he's doing the right thing. That means he's not demonic. Were
he demonic, he would be deliberately trying to do the wrong thing. He's just
deluded. He has bought the lies of the prince of lies. We can only pray in
this instance.
I'm going to tell you something that's hard to believe, and you'll probably
think I'm a wacko. That's fine, I can accept that. I don't blame you. What
you think of me is not important, because I don't really matter. On the
morning of September 11th, as I was at work doing my morning bookwork, closing
out the previous days sales, and then later in the day pulling up various
reports from the computer and waiting on customers, I kept running into the
number 666. Somebody's change would be $6.66. Somebody's total would be that
amount. It would come up in a percentage. It happened several times. In
fact, it happened too many times to be explained as coincidence. The
mathematical odds against it happening that many times were so extreme as to
make it virtually impossible. I took that as a sign of where to place the
blame for what happened on that day. That it was Satan deceiving people with
his lies that made people do that. As soon as I had that realization, it
stopped. But the really odd thing is that the only other time that ever
happened to me was when Ted first started responding to my posts here.
Doug
Cindy
news:<A87BAD7D0CC3EB91.E9997643...@lp.airnews.net
It will be interesting to see how you respond to this..if you do.. and
what
> methods you will use. It is my belief you will not respond to most of it
and
> instead will make more statements with no scripture or facts, only your
> opinion which you will expect everyone to agree with. ( wait a minute...
> Isn't that your definition of a Despot?) Why not surprise everyone for
once?
NO SURPRISE HERE ~ CAN I CALL IT OR WHAT?
Ted posted this in response..... AGAIN...
"Ted McMillan" <tmac...@seventh-dayadventism.com> wrote in message
news:c9dac66d.02031...@posting.google.com...
Cindy
news:<A87BAD7D0CC3EB91.E9997643...@lp.airnews.net
It will be interesting to see how you respond to this..if you do.. and
what
> methods you will use. It is my belief you will not respond to most of it
and
> instead will make more statements with no scripture or facts, only your
> opinion which you will expect everyone to agree with. ( wait a minute...
> Isn't that your definition of a Despot?) Why not surprise everyone for
once?
NO SURPRISE HERE ~ CAN I CALL IT OR WHAT?
Ted posted this in response..... AGAIN...
"Ted McMillan" <tmac...@seventh-dayadventism.com> wrote in message
news:c9dac66d.02031...@posting.google.com...
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=group:alt.religion.christian.adventist+aut
hor:Cindy&hl=en&scoring=r&as_drrb=b&as_mind=11&as_minm=9&as_miny=2001&as_max
d=28&as_maxm=9&as_maxy=2001&rnum=11&selm=c20cba56.0109230637.72223f1b%40post
ing.google.com
>
Cindy
"Ted McMillan" <tmac...@seventh-dayadventism.com> wrote in message
news:c9dac66d.02031...@posting.google.com...
> "Cindy" <synt...@localline.com> wrote in message
> > > Ted,
> > > It will be interesting to see how you respond to this..if you do.. and
> > what
> > > methods you will use. It is my belief you will not respond to most of
it
> > and
> > > instead will make more statements with no scripture or facts, only
your
> > > opinion which you will expect everyone to agree with. ( wait a
minute...
> > > Isn't that your definition of a Despot?) Why not surprise everyone for
> > once?
>
> You are the enactment of it. Stop accusing me of doing things you
> have been accomplishing all this time to cover over your Vatican
> talent. You are the one majoring in not answering questions because I
> make the right questions that reveal who you are.
Well you did right what I said you would do, I have learned to know you over
the last 6 months, you still don't get me.
<snip>
>
> You are even avoiding pointed questions right now. You saw
> controversy between myself and Vatican Seeber. Vatican Seeber gloated
> that millions of non-Catholics were put to death because they did not
> believe Catholic doctrine.
And since I have told you I now see this, why do you not aknowledge this?
>I reproved the monster. You then saw a
> problem and moved with consistent attacks against me only.
Wrong the subject was not this one, and I have not acted the same in the
last 5 months. So whats the beef now?
Your every
> posting was trying to convince the world that I was mean for reproving
> an eternal criminal terrorist trained at the same place you were.
No, my every posting was in answer to yours, and in an effort to get you to
spread the message in a manner that would cause more people to listen and
respond to the message rather than your tone, and attitude.
You
> had to ask questions of me because you told us all God showed you I
> had a problem with love because I reproved a murderer of the Saints.
> I don't see how God would impress you to do that over the bodies and
> blood of His people.
If you would have responded to the whole post you would see this point
addressed, and you would not be saying " I don't see how..."
>
> > Can you show how my questions to you were attacks, and my
> > questions
> > > to others were not?
>
> I am not going to show the despot again. Let her answer the questions
> instead, including where she apologized for attacking me,
My Mom reminded me of what is important, and I felt bad about taking my
frustration about Sept 11th out on you, then you posted against me again, I
was hurt and angry and I answered feeling that way, I regretted my post, and
apologised. A month later I again posted to you and you responded in anger,
and as I was not attacking you I asked you why you thought I was.
Any clearer?
and then
> later came to ask why I had it in my head alone that she was attacking
> me when she was only expressing her love TO ME ONLY. She treated the
> super-terrorist alot differently and called that love. I made this
> point already, but Vatican training mandates that all convicting
> points be leveled over and ignored.
I treated you each differently because you each treated me differently. I
responded to the words addresed to me.
>
> > > Here's a something to start you out:
> > >
> > > Please notice that although you claim I never even asked Ted Seeber >
> > about anything but only attacked you. That is not true. Please notice
the
> > >date. It is right after our discussion:
>
> I am not interested in the Vatican manure. Yes, Cindy said something
> to Ted Seeber. Ted Seeber is a murderer and I am a reprover of a
> murderer. Check the postings and you will see the awesome efforts
> Vatican Cindy waged against me compared to the mild postings she gave
> Seeber over the dead bodies of the saints (heretics to her).
This is how Ted goes about proving *his theory* that I think Protestants are
heretics?
By the time I realized this he was gone, what would you have me do now?
>
> > > > > Ted wrote:
> > > > > >So again I have to ask what is the secret of her being
> > > > > > friendly with a super-terrorist from the Dark Ages who has
condemned
> > > > > > everything she is. I was not asking just whether or not she
lives
> > > > > > according to Seeber's religious standards and she knows this.
> > > > >
> > > > > The answer to how I could post so friendly to Ted Seeber is LOVE.
It
> > is
> > the
> > > > > same reason I can post to you while others warn me and advise me
not
> > to.
> > > > > LOVE...
> > > >
> > > > You mean you called Ted Seeber an ASS like you called me in email?
> > >
> > > No, I proved him a liar.
>
> I did the same with you.
Wrong. You expected me to lie so that is what you saw.
> So what's the problem?
How is it that you have been called a liar on Atommorow? Because people have
taken part of your words and left out others to make you appear that way? OK
then, there's the problem.
You and Vatican
> Angelo got together and with emotionalism did everything against me.
> Remember the subject heading, "Ted McMillan: An Incomprehensible Man
> With A Twisted Mind?"
Yes I do, it had nothing to do with me. I have not done everything against
you. Angelo acted on his own, he is a friend but I had nothing to do with
him posting to you. Nor am I responsible for him. He wasn't just talking to
you, he also had words to say to me, I just didn't freak out about it. If
you would just ask, "What do you mean by this?" instead of jumping to
conclusions and freaking out all the time. Then most of this problem and
most of the misunderstanding would be gone.
>
> > > ...and I don't continue to call you ass either, even though sorely
tempted
> > > to,
> > > because Jesus said "Go and sin no more."
>
> And you don't continue to call Ted Seeber "Ass" either because you
> never did.
Well good for me, I must have learned from my mistake!!!
And while training me to be loving Vatican Cindy called me an ass and then
told
> us how Christians can willingly slip. Why can't she accept my
> slippings now?
You are putting words in my mouth again.
I do not believe that christians can willingly slip, nor will I say you can.
Mistakes are one thing, and I give you that, willful sin is another. DON'T
make my statements into something they are not.
And let us consider one another to provoke unto love and to good works:
Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some
is; but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see the day
approaching. For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the
knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, But a
certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall
devour the adversaries. Hbr 10:24-27
>
> > > > You mean you took his private information and told anyone you would
> > > > give it to them upon asking?
> > >
> > > Well someone had routinely hacked into my email, my computer, and
messed
> > > with my posts on this News group. At the time You were suspect *number
> > one*,
> > > and someone very *helpfully* emailed me your info.. In any case it
was an
> > > empty threat made in anger, and regretted soon after.
>
> In any case I had not heard you even post this new alibi when you
> offered my private info. It is just useful now.
Apparently you didn't read the post then, even though in your reply you said
I was paranoid. Larry actually came to your defense.
>
> > I gave your
> > > information to no one. So keep bearing a grudge.. that's how Christ
would
> > > handle it right?
>
> I don't care if Vatican Cindy never gave my info to anyone. My
> quarrel was not that she gave it. She offered it in her strange
> Vatican "love" to me only that she didn't give a murderer of he
> Saints. Having no conscience, these points are evaded, ignored and
> leveled over.
I don't know how you expect me to answer other than how I have. Yes I notice
posts against you, no I shouldn't have been trying to correct your behavior
in the way I did, while I said nothing to anbody else. It was one sided. But
by doing so, I learned I was wrong. I can not go backward, only forward.
>
> <snip more of the Vatican arts. I in no way hacked into anything to
> do with Vatican Cindy.>
I said I thought that at the time. Not now. And you didn't snip "the vatican
arts" you snipped why I posted to EW. So that you could go post the same old
post you always do accusing me. I am not stupid, here it is back again. You
also snipped what I said about Ted Seeber's fixing my email problem, why?
I tried to warn you, when I posted to Glen. You just
> attacked me, so then I posted to EW to give you a clue that I was telling
> the truth, you were the only one besides me who knew I wasn't just
speaking
> off the top of my head. You did not ask how I knew what I said, like I
> thought you would, instead you told everyone it was the truth, and used it
> as evidence against me. Go figure... Later you drug up the post I was
trying
> to draw your attention to without posting it for everyone to see, and were
> outraged about it, and showed it to everyone yourself. Go figure again...
>
> Incidentally Ted Seeber diagnosed and fixed(?) my computer via email,
> (without me telling him a thing or asking him to) when Lamarr posted on
the
> newsgroup that he could not email me, and as I later found out, neither
> could anyone else. (except Ted Seeber his emails to me about it ended up
in
> my inbox, how is that possible?.. hmm.. )
>
>
> > > Have you forgotten that you have written about me on your website and
you
> > > kicked me off rather than allow me to defend myself?
>
> Vatican Cindy was allowed to defend herself.
No I wasn't. " I do not know what she is trying to prove." ... " I can not
have dialogue with Vatican Cindy, She is too amazingly unscrupulous!" Sound
familiar? Never once did you address me, because you would have had to have
abided by your own rules, you just kicked me off, and came here to the NG,
and *suddenly* you could talk to me. Hmmm... and here you can violate all
the rules you have there... Isn't that special?
There was no difference
> then than now. All that manhours and emotion and effort attacking me
> for making uncivil posts, and from day one the most uncivil ones
> passed her Vatican eyes to this day and she just babbles all the time
> without really answering the questions!
So when you told everyone I was a murderer, and I copied posts I had made
about how I was against killing, you call that not proving what I believe
in, and not answering the question? You immediatly kicked me out. and
removed the post. Remember? Then you came here and called me a murderer and
a terrorist.
It's Ok.. I still love you, it has become easier to forgive you now that I
understand you, and see how I led you to believe badly of me. What I don't
understand is your stubborness.
>
> > Despite the fact that
> > > you constantly asked me to defend myself, when I wouldn't? Why was I
so
> > > outraged by that? Because here on the NG it is my choice to defend
myself
> > or
> > > not, You took away my choice, and did it behind my back. Have you
> > forgotten
> > > that although you call my words dirty laundry, you consider yourself
> > > zestfully clean, as you drag the dirty laundry out in public?
>
> Vatican Cindy is demonstrating how she defends herself.
Ted is demonstrating how he is evasive. :-)
If her
> problem with me only is that I was uncivil since I reproved a fellow
> super-terrorist trained back at the Vatican and she cannot see that
> someone condemned even all non-Catholics to persecution and death, how
> is she going to make the worst uncivil posts go by without a word?? I
> am asking for an answer to this question with no more Vatican crap.
I see it now, and I still have no problem being civil. I know others who
post all kinds of facts and truth, and don't use your tactics. They manage
to expose others without exposing themselves! so don't act like the fact
that someone is wrong allows you to also be wrong.
I let uncivil posts go by, INCLUDING YOURS, because that is not my main
focus! You are the one who says it is!
Allow me some room for growth as a person please. Ted Seeber was wrong, I
never said that then because I didn't see it. I AM SAYING IT NOW...but he is
not the only person in the world who thinks like that. He is a symptom of
the disease. The Vatican is the tool of Satan. The world is his tool. He is
not called the God of this world for nothing. Subject matter not civility
is my main issue.
This is an answer, and not #%$& just because you say so. You consistantly
say that civility is my main issue, when it's not, and then blame me because
I don't act like it's my main issue. I do not act according to your false
version of me, and you judge me and call me strange? I'm not the strange one
here. I act according to my conscience, not your opinion. When my conscience
bothers me I apologise.
>
> > > Have you forgotten that you repeatedly said that you wanted to hear
> > nothing
> > > else about Love or forgiveness from me, and how it is all lies, and
then
> > > turned around and constantly posted about how I won't answer
> > > your questions.
>
> The truth has to come out sometime.
Well praise the Lord.
>Prove it wrong by answering the
> questions even more pertinent to the hour. You saw many uncivil posts
> go by. You said nothing.
It's true I did, I do now as well, and I will continue to do so.
>You will not touch on your strange Vatican
> disease. You work for the Pope!
Why not accuse me again? You are actually pretty good at making these
despotic statements, no wonder you are so conscious of that in others.
>
> > > Have you forgotten that the statement that was made by Ted Seeber that
the
> > > Christians who were killed were not (according to him) living the
bible,
> > was
> > > made after our discussion and not during or before it? And yet you
> > > constantly write as if it was that statement that I said I believed
you
> > were
> > > taking out of context. Believe me ( I'm not talking to Ted here ~
he'll
> > > never believe me anyway) I do not take that statement lightly.
Especially
> > in
> > > light of other statements.
>
> I will not believe the Vatican lie that the statement referred to is
> any other than what I was always storming about: Vatican terrorist
> Seeber gloating that non-Catholics were viciously persecuted and
> murdered. His statement showed that he believes all non-Catholics
> should be persecuted and killed. Vatican Cindy is trying constantly
> to pull the fast one trying to tell us she wasn't referring to that
> statement, when that was the only statement I was constantly raving
> about. She is fulfilling the training from her Pope.
I Made that statement in Sept. Ted Seeber made his in Oct. Like I've said
before you will believe what you want to believe.
>
> > > Have you forgotten that the first answer I ever posted to you about
> > > killing(not understanding that your issue was protestants only)
> > > was that I was horrified by all the killing that had been committed
> > > throughout history whether done by Moslems, Catholics or
Christians,and
> > what
> > > I thought was the greatest
> > > injustice, was that it was done in the name of the Lord, and that I am
> > > horrified that the judgementalism and injustice that is done today is
> > still
> > > being done in the name of the Lord?
>
> Yes I heard all those lies.
In September. Without knowing me, he believed me a liar.
But I reproved a super-terrorist for
> condemning all non-Catholics.
IN OCTOBER... while I was ignoring him.
SNipped repetitive accusations which always have to do with Ted, and not
scripture or doctrine. Would you like some cheese with that w(h)ine?
>
> > > Have you forgotten that You automatically decided from that answer
that I
> > > must be Catholic. And proceeded to post despotic statements about me,
> > > although I asked you to ask me what I though and felt instead, and
from
> > then
> > > on you claimed that my request was a despotic statement and that I was
> > > therefore a despot.
>
> Vatican Cindy told me that I was not to tell anyone how she feels.
> Immediately before, during and after, Vatican Cindy kept telling the
> world how I thought and felt.
I didn't tell the world anything, that was your role, I asked you.
>
> > > > You mean you appeared on the newsgroups
> > > > to tell the world you noticed he had a problem with love? You mean
> > > > you then told him that Ted McMillan is none of your business, but he
> > > > was the one with a problem?
>
> Now let's hear more to excuse the fact that Ted Seeber condemned all
> non-catholics to persecution and death.
Like what? I have never excused that. I see it as a sign of times. It is
inevitable that people will feel this way. It would be more strange if in
the end times there weren't people who thought like that.
<Snipped my comments about discussion with seeber>
>
> Of course all of this is irrelevant to our issue. Vatican Cindy told
> me I was the problem and all of these Vatican people told me I must
> not bring up the fellow terrorist monster.
Why is it not relevant when you are always posting how I entered the NG just
to attack you because you reproved a murderer? I was here long before that.
Of course I never said you were "the problem" I did imply you had "a
problem"
Do you see the difference? Can you see the difference without saying my
problem is not as bad as the murderer's?
>
> > > The actual words that I said to you were "why do you have a problem
with
> > the
> > > word love?"
>
> That was her post-hypnotic suggestions to the stupid heretics to
> convince them that I was mean.
Those short naps are so refreshing aren't they? When I snap my fingers, you
will wake up and immediatly stop giving me credit for things I don't have
the ability to do.
*snap*
>She had already conclude that I had a
> problem with the word "love," even though she claims she is not a
> despot.
No I didn't, you convinced me of that because of the way you treated ME.
No question was asked to the man who condemned all
> non-Catholics to persecution and death.
True
>
> > Then you asked me why I thought that, and I answered telling
> > you
> > > to never ask a question unless you were prepared to hear the answer,
and
> > > then You proceeded to tell everyone that I attacked you. So get your
facts
> > > straight please.
>
> My facts are written all above. Fact does not mean Vatican Cindy's
> lies.
But apparantly it does mean Ted's misconceptions, notice how his statements
are fact and mine aren't. What a despotic attitude Ted. I wouldn't point it
out, but that is your main agenda.
>
> > I told Meehan repeatedly that you
> > > were not my focus when he kept trying to turn the conversation to you,
> > > instead of responding to my question. How
> > > is that any different, from me refusing to talk about Ted Seeber with
you?
>
> That was a skillful alibi that came later.
Whatever... No one but you and he ever responded to me by acting so one
track minded.
> Strange that Ted Seeber
> didn't suffer from those same principles.
Yes isn't it?
>
> > > How did I prevent you from discussing anything with Ted Seeber?
>
> Of course I never said that she did this. She told me not to discuss
> anything about Ted Seeber to her. I was not to give any excuse for
> why I reproved a fellow Vatican super-terrorist.
Especially when your excuses had nothing to do with our original
conversation, and you supplied no proof of them at the time, when you later
did I WAS SICK OF THE WHOLE MESS, and I did not listen or pay attention.
>
> Let me end here and get to more of these Vatican lies later.
>
>
> Ted McMillan
Yeah right... I won't hold my breath.
Cindy
Lamarr Edwards
if you had no other knowledge of Adventism, would you be kindly disposed
to learning more about it?
I do not believe in ecuminism, but I do believe in civil and Christian
discourse between Catholics and Protestants, do his diatribes contribute
to this, or do they contribute to the them and us hatred between
Christians?LE
Lamarr Edwards
time will end your satanic work.
No wormwood, you didn't "upset" me, you can't!
There is an old Greek saying, " you can dig your own grave with your
mouth"
You are the cyber example of this. Just keep digging. devil boy/girl.LE
Doug
>discourse between Catholics and Protestants, do his diatribes contribute
>to this, or do they contribute to the them and us hatred between
>Christians?LE
>
I think we both know the answer to that one.
Doug
Ted McMillan
attempt to "love" me and to apologize to me. From the beginning,
Vatican Cindy attacked me under the guise of "loving me." It all
started when I reproved a super-terrorist by the name of Ted Seeber.
That man, on October 5, 2001, gloated that millions of Protestants
were inhumanly slain and with approval told us that they were killed
because they did not live the bible according to Catholic standards.
Because of such inhuman terrorism, I reproved the monster:
Because I did that and notified terrorist Ted Seeber that he may have
even spoken against his own life by making such statements in the
climate of September 11th after British Prime Minister Tony Blair made
a clear defining of a terrorist fulfilled by Seeber, the man ducked
out of conversation to this day. We were going hard at it as I have
against the incorrigible papal despot Cindy. Post after post Seeber
tagged me until I opened up the severity of his crime on the
newsgroups.
Soon fellow terrorist Cindy Ford and Angelo Braz injected themselves
into he affair. They saw the wrangling between us and then felt it
necessary for them to address the problem: ME ONLY! They began to
post and post about the worst crime that can be committed: insulting
or accusing a person. I have done everything to make them to know
what had happened and why I had to reprove the terrorist monster.
They told me, among other things, that I took the words of the
terrorist out of context, and that I must not even bring the man up.
They told me that I had a problem with love and began to tell the
world about how mean I am even worse than the continued effort today.
I constantly ask them if they are telling me that it is better to
mass-murder people than to reprove a mass-murderer. They have evaded
that question to this day. I constantly asked them what is their
practice when they see all the insults and condemnations taking place
against the milder terrorist Osama Bin Laden. They have again shown
incredible papal arts in evading the question. The eternal golden
ruile is:
IT IS BETTER TO BE A MASS-TERRORIST THAN TO INSULT OR REPROVE SUCH A
PERSON. Just as in all the even false posts by an imposter under the
login name "Teddy McMillan" and every such, they always have this
terrible agenda for Papal love, coming and telling me that I am mean,
but whenever mass-murder and the monsters who do it are brought up,
they view this as a personal attack--which IT IS!!
I am saying again around Vatican Cindy's lies that I cannot accept her
papal apologies and usual willingness to talk. Her Papacy was always
like that: always wanting to talk. That was because she had a
problem: groups of people were in disagreement with her and she
couldn't stand that. So for all the talking Rome has done in even
inviting her enemies, she has not changed a single bit century after
century.
How now then can I accept Vatican Cindy's apologies? What I am
viewing is the worst most uncivil posts being submitted by Antichrist
Lamarr Edwards. Even profanity is on them. Although Vatican Cindy
and the rest of the Antichristians attacked me on the point of making
uncivil posts as the worst crime that can be committed how come I
have to tell Vatican Cindy that the worst and most uncivil posts are
being posted all the time (and she had a part in it too) and still,
even with my alerts, it means nothing to her?
I therefore don't want to hear her Vatican lies and apologies. Let
her answer that question promptly instead of the many times she waits
to formulate skillful evasions around it. I am not fooled, Judge Judy
is not fooled. Are you fooled readers? Even now I cannot seem to
show her that the worst uncivil posts are all around her.
As you probably read, Antichrist Lamarr joined the rest of the despots
in telling me that Vatican Cindy is always trying to love me. I had
pointed out that although terrorist Ted Seeber condemned the very
religion, lives and posterity of Vatican Cindy, Angelo Braz and the
rest, she posts to him as if he is a friend and snuggles up to him
despite his urination upon the graves of the saints. When asked why
she did that, she said it was because of LOVE! You mean the same LOVE
she is trying to show me? Obviously not!
Terrorist Seeber is the kind of man who would know when he is being
insulted. He plainly would not take it. He has no problem with
Vatican Cindy whose religion and life he has condemned. He has a big
problem with me, for I would not stand quiet while he gloats over the
graves of God's people
If I therefore see uncivil posts, and Vatican Cindy doesn't mind, I
know that she has lied and that she is a child of the Antichrist.
Jesus did not give her that Vatican love to only notice what she
claims are "uncivil posts" when Ted McMillan posts and reproves
murderers, but they are not when any other person posts. As a matter
of fact, she admitted that they were uncivil posts. Apologizing to me
while thinking nothing about uncivil posts after her Vatican attacks
is unacceptable. Too many Protestants have died accepting Vatican
apologies!
Andrew
"Stinky Piggy" wrote:
>
> Your butt is going straight to the big grill!
>
"... with what judgment ye judge, YE shall be judged,
and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured
TO YOU again." - Mt 7:1-2
I wonder if "Stinky Piggy" is really Mr. _ _ _ _???
Ted McMillan
> Cindy wrote in another thread:
> news:<A87BAD7D0CC3EB91.E9997643...@lp.airnews.net
> It will be interesting to see how you respond to this..if you do.. and
> what
> > methods you will use. It is my belief you will not respond to most of it
> and
> > instead will make more statements with no scripture or facts, only your
> > opinion which you will expect everyone to agree with. ( wait a minute...
> > Isn't that your definition of a Despot?) Why not surprise everyone for
> once?
>
> NO SURPRISE HERE ~ CAN I CALL IT OR WHAT?
>
> Ted posted this in response..... AGAIN...
You evade, lie, and ignore uncivil posts as was your agenda that
commanded most of your postings, and I will continue to expose your
crimes. Is it worse to reprove a super-terrorist? or to be one.
Vatican Ted Seeber condemned all non-Catholics to death boldly on
these newsgroups. Vatican Cindy has since not been posting about this
issue of blood, but most of her labors have been against me reproving
him and then her for being an accomplice with him.
Now the tit-for-tat posts are back, NOT FOR ACTS OF TERRORISM IN THE
CONDEMNATION OF MANY INNOCENT LIVES. She posts again and again that
Ted McMillan is not civil with her and is exposing her. Why doesn't
Ted McMillan forgive her they are saying. Now uncivil posts are all
around her being posted by Antichrist Lamarr and so many others and
she has forgotten that uncivil posts get to her so much, she cannot
afford to put her attention to the bodies of the condemned and slain.
She falsely confesses that she didn't understand the issues back when
terrorist Seeber was posting as if she cannot make any correction now.
YES SHE CAN! But fact is, she is again expending much effort to take
attention away from the issues of blood just as before.
If I now see uncivil posts and have to tell Antichrist Cindy that they
are here and she still cannot notice it, I am compelled to announce to
everyone another Child of the Antichrist.
Ted McMillan
Colleen,
Please be gracious enough to demonstrate, from the records of truth in
the right to disagree that Ted McMillan is mean, unloving, needs
medicine, needs psychiatric help and last, but not least, needs to
make civil postings.
Show me that I am an incomprehensible man with a twisted mind, as
Antichrist Angelo Braz has informed us, from reliable records.
According to this, I am rude, and generally rude people are rarely
seen. They are incomprehensible, according to Antichrist Angelo Braz,
and rarely seen, while someone who condemned the lives of all
non-Catholics is a common thing. Antichrist Lamarr told us that I am
not human. According to them, they see people all the time condemning
the lives of non-Catholics, but a "rude" person like Ted McMillan is
Vaticanly judged?
I don't go by such records. I go by what they do that Christians
cannot do and by the things they present.
Ted McMillan
> "Ted McMillan" wrote:
>
> > It would be a terrible lack of love to fail to warn the
> > world about the approaching holocaust and bloodshed.
> >
> > Ted McMillan
>
>
>
> "Those who wait for the Bridegroom's coming are to say to the people,
> "Behold your God." The last rays of merciful light, the last message of
> mercy to be given to the world, is a revelation of His character of love."
> --Christ Object Lessons 415
Of course, Jesuit Andrew has left out many very important things by
the same author.
> "The message of Christ's righteousness is to sound from one end of the
> earth to the other to prepare the way of the Lord. This is the glory of
> God, which closes the work of the third angel."--6T 19
Here again, many things are left out. It is not as if Jesuit Andrew
doesn't understand that a man here has condemned the lives of all
non-Catholics. Isn't it strange that he has elected himself to be the
minister of Christ's righteousness so that everyone else can
degenerate to him?
> "If you would stand through the time of trouble, you must know Christ"
> --1SM 362
>
> Andrew
And how more likely is it that a man like Ted McMillan, who knows that
many innocent lives were taken and many more condemned boldly on these
newsgroups, can constantly be told by an unscrupulous infiltrator from
the Vatican who refuses to know this that McMillan doesn't know
Christ?
We are told that God sees His people and that anything that offends
them would be destroyed. Ted McMillan also remembers His people!
Ted McMillan
Oh, so you mean Doug that a person like Lamarr who also has the
terrible Antichrist concern for civil postings and has yet even posted
profanities on the newsgroups against me can be a Christian? If so,
then indeed, all you Children of the Antichrist know the answer to
that one!
You ALL know the answer? What, no diversity??
If I didn't hit it on the head of the nail, you all would not focus on
me all the time. I hit it BIG!!
Andrew
Doug
would have rejected the Gospel, and the Good News would not have spread to the
ends of the earth. I don't doubt that you think you're following Christ, but
you're spreading lies, not truth. You didn't hit the nail on the head. You
bent it to where it is unusable. That's why we focus on you.
Doug
Paul Tooley, Jr.
"Doug" <happy...@cs.comnojunk> wrote in message
And after that last statement of yours you still claim he is not demonic?
Paul
Lamarr Edwards
I think it all boils down to the true meaning of what Christ did for us,
as a gift.
THere is nothing we can do to make us more acceptable to God, more
valuable, more lovable, more savable.
There is an infinite gulf between the Holy God, and fallen man, no
matter what we do, we NEVER approach his holiness, and if by doing
something or anything we think we are becoming "better" in his eyes,
then we are just deluding ourselves.
Christ only can bridge that gulf, Christ only can make us acceptable to
God, and he does so by Grace, undeserved, unmerited, unearned , favor.
As has been said so many times, we do good things not to be saved, but
because we are.
Our efforts have no value in saving us, they are the result of the gift
of Grace.LE
Ted McMillan
> ted/susan - No wormwood, I am not going to kill you, God, in his good
> time will end your satanic work.
That's what your ancestors said when they killed the Protestants,
Antichrist Edwards. You mean the time will come when God will end
people reproving murderers and terrorists? What kind of world would
that be that you would like?
Is Vatican Cindy here to apologize and still not recognize uncivil
posts? Is she still in Vatican repentant mode?
> No wormwood, you didn't "upset" me, you can't!
> There is an old Greek saying, " you can dig your own grave with your
> mouth"
What about the saying that liars can't tell the truth. Then that
would be a lie? If I didn't upset you, what made you defacate
publicly on all your lying principles to show your hate to me?
> You are the cyber example of this. Just keep digging. devil boy/girl.LE
You mean I am not unscrupulous, you are, and yet I am digging a grave
for myself? You must be talking about your Antichrist buddies
infiltrated over so many places. You certainly could not be talking
about God.
You are talking about graves and death? How come you couldn't notice
a super-terrorist condemning all Protestants to persecution and death?
Of course, you are the one who babbled to us how you are an
enlightened Protestant. So enlightened you cannot then figure out
that you were condemned by a fellow papist. I am going to hell? Did
you get that from Rev. 22 which told us that everything that worketh
abomination and all liars are going to hell?
Remember:
I love you Antichrist Lamarr! I love you! Don't you love me??
Vatican Cindy will be VERY disappointed!
The Lord bless you and keep you.
The Lord let his face shine upon you, and be gracious to you.
The Lord look upon you kindly and give you peace.
Numbers 6: 24-26
Ted McMillan
> "The last rays of merciful light, the last message of mercy to
> be given to the world, is a revelation of His character of love."
>
> --Christ Object Lessons 415
How is it that an unscrupulous son of the Antichrist would be given
the power of blasphemy to copy these words?
Caillean McMahon
Theodore;
If it will end this interminable line of discourse, let me publically
condemn Mr Seeber's proposal(I will, for the sake of peace, accept your
saying so) that Protestants be murdered. It was wrong.
Please be gracious enough to end this now.
Your targets are neither Vatical operatives(the current pope does not
entrust womyn with any important task) nor are they Jesuits
Given at Wales Settlement on this 20th day of March of the 2002nd year
of the Common Era; for the sake of religious peace between Adevntists
and Catholics;(neigher of which I am)
Caillean `aSiobhan, Lady Carrigaholt
Ted McMillan
> Theodore;
> If it will end this interminable line of discourse, let me publically
> condemn Mr Seeber's proposal(I will, for the sake of peace, accept your
> saying so) that Protestants be murdered. It was wrong.
>
> Please be gracious enough to end this now.
> Your targets are neither Vatical operatives(the current pope does not
> entrust womyn with any important task) nor are they Jesuits
>
> Given at Wales Settlement on this 20th day of March of the 2002nd year
> of the Common Era; for the sake of religious peace between Adevntists
> and Catholics;(neigher of which I am)
> Caillean `aSiobhan, Lady Carrigaholt
You need to blow it out your ears, Caillean!
People are not naturally born with such frighteningly lack of natural
affection for non-Catholics! Neither are they naturally born with a
plain lack of natural affection. How much more they claim to be
Christians!! I therefore don't listen to their lying claims. You are
coinciding with their claims that they don't work for Rome. Now here
is my claim:
I am not unloving or mean just because I reproved their fellow
super-terrorist who condemned all non-Catholics under their noses. If
they don't work for Rome, that would mean that they are condemned
also. I am not listening to any Vatican babble telling me that they
don't work for Rome while they keep calling me illogical and mentally
sick--even inhuman!
If a man condemns all non-Catholics to persecution and death, I have
enough God-given commonsense to know that I would be upset and that I
will not see a single person reproving the terrorist who said those
words. I will go against the terrorist first and consider anyone else
reproving him afterwards in the name of uncivil postings!
For the Work Finished!
Ted McMillan
Lamarr Edwards
profanity, I called you an ass, well, why don't you condemn the Bible
for profanity, all those people were riding around on asses, and Jesus
entered the holy city riding one.
Now I admit, I was wrong, you are not an ass, you are a demon, but you
could become an ass if you wanted, but calling you an ass is not
profane, just incorrect, devil boy/girl.
just one of your myriad of lies.
I see you no longer accuse me of calling you a fornicator with your evil
twin, who you were trying to pass off (lie) as another person.
You read what I actually said,huh?
I asked you "to be a real man" and post it, but I know you are not a
real man, and you showed it.LE
Ted McMillan
> ted/susan - another of your lies exposed devil boy/girl, you say I used
> profanity, I called you an ass, well, why don't you condemn the Bible
> for profanity, all those people were riding around on asses, and Jesus
> entered the holy city riding one.
Hi paranoid Antichrist Lamarr!
What, are you now guilty of the worse crime to the workers of the
Antichrist: making uncivil postings? My, what concern and effort used
against Ted McMillan! Antichrist Cindy has attacked no other person
also!
The Lord bless you and keep you.
The Lord let his face shine upon you, and be gracious to you.
The Lord look upon you kindly and give you peace.
Numbers 6: 24-26
I lvoe you Antichrist Lamarr! I love you! Don't you love me??
Doug
I think that we are responsible for our own actions. To blame the
demonic is to minimalize personal responsibility. Ted is responsible
for his own actions. He's believed a bunch of lies, and he spreads a
bunch of lies. He could always repent. If he were demonic, he could
not.
Doug
Paul Tooley, Jr.
I see where you are coming from. My use of the word demonic was meant to
convey that his actions were in harmony with the demonic world but not that
he was necessarily possessed by one.
Paul
Lamarr Edwards
I personally believe that there are demons roaming the earth, and I
personally believe they can, rarely, but can manifest themselves in
hhuman form
I am convinced that ted/susan/judy is one for a variety of reasons, not
the least being that everyone is ACCUSED of something by him/her, and
the evil one is called the "accuser of the brethern' in the Bible.
Anyone claiming to be of Christ is verbally shredded, the abuse IS NOT
reserved for Catholics, that is the convenient excuse to villify anyone.
We tend to humanize and personalize what really are just words on a
screen, our humanity and logic assuming we are dealing with another
human. Actually, we have no proof of this, just words, printed words
Try looking at THE WORDS without assumptions as to who and what they are
coming from
Simply look at the words, and try and "diagram" the sentences like we
did in junior high, I think you will find it interesting.LE.
Doug
I can see your point. I'll try it.
Doug
Ted McMillan
> Doug - I do not take the demonic charge lightly.
>
> I personally believe that there are demons roaming the earth, and I
> personally believe they can, rarely, but can manifest themselves in
> hhuman form
>
> I am convinced that ted/susan/judy is one for a variety of reasons, not
> the least being that everyone is ACCUSED of something by him/her, and
> the evil one is called the "accuser of the brethern' in the Bible.
And the evil one accused Ted McMillan. I can't help it if your
Vatican everyone works for the Papacy. IF EVERYONE IS INSENSITIVE
ONLY TO NON-CATHOLIC BLOOD THEN EVERYONE IS A DEMON AND WORKS FOR THE
PAPACY.
Antichrist Lamarr joined the other despots in showing us that he
thinks uncivil posts rival terrorism in severity of crimes. WHILE
TEACHING ME AGAINST THIS SUPPOSED VATICAN CRIME, ANTICHRIST LAMARR
PROVIDED THE WORST UNCIVIL POSTS!
Antichrist Cindy saw the uncivil posts, but, working for the
Antichrist, I can scream at her again and again and she will, like
before with what Seeber has done, completely and intentionally
disregard it to undoubtedly come back later fibbing to us that she
didn't know. Worse than that is the fact that the uncivil posts here
all around her COME FROM THOSE TEACHING US ABOUT LOVE AND UPSET ABOUT
UNCIVIL POSTS.
Next is the fact that Antichrist Lamarr is very paranoid about Ted
McMillan. Most of his posts are about and against him with accuser of
the Brethren condemnations. HE HAS SAID NOTHING ABOUT THE ISSUE OF
BLOOD OVER THE GRAVES OF GOD'S PEOPLE IN THE PAST, PRESENT OR FUTURE
IN LIGHT OF SEEBER'S STATEMENTS.
> Anyone claiming to be of Christ is verbally shredded, the abuse IS NOT
> reserved for Catholics, that is the convenient excuse to villify anyone.
Antichrist Lamarr again despots and provides no opportunity for anyone
to disagree with him. He calls me all kinds of names and accuses me
while lying about the crime of being an accuser.
I don't expose ANYONE. NOT ANYONE ARE SUPER-TERRORISTS! Ted Seeber
is a super-terrorist demonstrating an amazing disrespect for human
life. Antichrist Cindy, Angelo, Lamarr Andrew and others here are
also super-terrorist. They have not answered yet the very simple
question of what they would do to and with anyone who reproves and
exposes Osama Bin Laden. Will they concentrate on that person saying
how incomprehensible and unloving he is? Will they do that and refuse
to talk about Osama and his crimes? Why is such a simple question so
hard to deal with and answer? I can answer it easily because I am not
a demon.
I don't accuse EVERYONE. I expose every true scoundrelous
Antichristian. I cannot help it if Antichrist Lamarr chose to show
that his mind is from beneath. Try and calm down this worker for the
Antichrist and tell him to concentrate on Christ. That will likely at
least first give him some natural affection.
> We tend to humanize and personalize what really are just words on a
> screen, our humanity and logic assuming we are dealing with another
> human. Actually, we have no proof of this, just words, printed words.
Terrorist Seeber told us that all non-Catholics deserve to be
persecuted and killed. Since Antichrist Lamarr has not noticed and
cannot be made to notice, what does that make him? Is he not also a
super-terrorist? How not?
That is why Antichrist Lamarr focuses on me so. What I am saying is
not only very true, BUT IT IS BELIEVABLE!
As Antichrist Cindy told me during her attacks against me:
I love you Antichrist Lamarr! I love you! Don't you love me???
Love is of God! He who does not love, does not know God!
The Lord bless you and keep you.
The Lord let his face shine upon you, and be gracious to you.
The Lord look upon you kindly and give you peace.
Numbers 6: 24-26
Ted McMillan
tmac...@seventh-dayadventism.com
Lamarr Edwards
owe you no consideration of your malicious and stupid arguments.
Anyone who would call himself, as you did, "the new christ" is a demonic
blasphemer.
To humans, I owe much, to the minions of satan, I owe nothing.
Were you a human, before your posession, I don't know, why don't you try
and prove it?
If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it
must be a duck.
It is irrelevant as to how you look, or walk, your quacking identifies
you as an emmisary from hell however.
Show the world humility, repentence, and regret for your verbal filth,
beg the forgiveness of those you have slandered, and state you are a
vile sinner who desperately needs the forgiveness and mercy of Christ,
then I will reconsider who you are.
You cannot however do these things, neither can devils.
You are exposed, prove me wrong.LE
Doug
>blasphemer.
I missed that one! When did he say this?
Doug
Lamarr Edwards
blasphemy came out.
It hasn't been repeated, his/her boss must have reamed him/her out for
revealing TOO much.LE
Ted McMillan
I love you Antichrist Lamarr! I love you!! I'm glad I'm taking up
all your time posting against making accusations while you make
accusations! I'm glad I'm taking all your concentration off of Christ
to put it on me. I have that holy water effect I see! Antichrist
Cindy cannot notice until later she may again tell us she didn't know
what was going on.
Don't you love me?
Lamarr Edwards
do.
If you would have proved me wrong, and shown you were human, I certainly
would owe you an apology, and would give it.
However, elephants cannot fly, and demons cannot agree to their
sinfulness, nor ask others for forgiveness, nor agree that Christ is
their Lord, nor beg for his mercy and grace.
So blather on, my point is made, and I will give you some respite, till
I must, once again, remind the people here of who and what you really
are.LE
Dolf Boek
news:3343-3C9...@storefull-2374.public.lawson.webtv.net...
If you would have proved me wrong, and shown you were human, I certainly
would owe you an apology, and would give it.
[snipped for context]
DOLF BOEK RESPONDS:
Empty & meaningless words but I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for an
apology--especially when you do not seek the welfare of others.
--
- dolf
Does not all Religious naivety begin with 'I do'?
But fortunately the transcendence of time permeates (engenders) all nature.
http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/dolfboek/meta/time.html#BEGIN
"So-houto speak-laleo ye, and so-houto do-poieo, as they that shall be
judged-krino by the Law-nomos of Liberty-eleutheria' [James 2:12] as the
"first-arche principles-stoicheion of the oracles-logion of God-theos."
[Hebrews 5:12]
This message doesn't constitute authorisation or acceptance by its author,
of the use of their email address for the purposes of unsolicited email
known as 'SPAM'.
Willy Brochs
Willy Brochs
"Ted McMillan" <tmac...@seventh-dayadventism.com> skrev i melding
news:c9dac66d.02032...@posting.google.com...
Ted McMillan
> Ted, your language does not reflect the caracter og a child of God
>
> Willy Brochs
Antichrist Brochs: can you please tell us how you can know that when a
super-terrorist condemned the lives of all non-Catholics and only Ted
McMillan recognized that?
Kindly answer my question now Antichrist Brochs. None of your fellow
brothers and sisters of the Antichrist has answered that question.
They have substituted the answer for this question by judging,
attacking and condemning me. Let's see if you are a child of God and
will answer.
Willy Brochs
"Ted McMillan" <tmac...@seventh-dayadventism.com> skrev i melding
news:c9dac66d.02032...@posting.google.com...
news:<F7so8.17350$TU3.4...@news4.ulv.nextra.no>...
> > Ted, your language does not reflect the caracter og a child of God
> >
> > Willy Brochs
>
>
> Antichrist Brochs: can you please tell us how you can know that when a
> super-terrorist condemned the lives of all non-Catholics and only Ted
> McMillan recognized that?
Maby I could answer you if I just knew what you mean by saying "a
super-terrorist condemned the lives of all non-Catholics" Explain this to me
and I will answer your question, Ted.
Why do you call me "Antichrist?" Do you know what Antichrist is?
Willy Brochs
Ruth Rush
had made, so He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had
made. God blessed the seventh day and separated it as Holy........
This was written for all mankind.
Do you accept this as truth? Do you acknowledge it as truth? Do you
recognize the seventh day as Holy. How? God is all powerful. He
doesn't need to rest. Why did He here? The seventh day Sabbath is not
a distinguishing mark of the Jews. It's the distinguishing mark of all
who acknowledge the God who made Heaven and earth.
Ruth
Ted McMillan
> "Ted McMillan" <tmac...@seventh-dayadventism.com> skrev i melding
> news:c9dac66d.02032...@posting.google.com...
> > "Willy Brochs" <wbr...@online.no> wrote in message
> news:<F7so8.17350$TU3.4...@news4.ulv.nextra.no>...
> > > Ted, your language does not reflect the caracter og a child of God
> > >
> > > Willy Brochs
> >
> >
> > Antichrist Brochs: can you please tell us how you can know that when a
> > super-terrorist condemned the lives of all non-Catholics and only Ted
> > McMillan recognized that?
>
> Maby I could answer you if I just knew what you mean by saying "a
> super-terrorist condemned the lives of all non-Catholics" Explain this to me
> and I will answer your question, Ted.
I have explained it to so many other workers for the Antichrist! Why
should I waste my time? Soon other people claiming to be from varied
religions approach and see me attacked by everybody else. They come
to the conclusion that I'm the problem, so they join the attack. I
tell them to figure out what started it and even show them the quote
where Ted Seeber condemned all non-Catholics to persecution and death.
If they don't tell me not to bring up what caused the issue, they
ignore all I say.
Should I confirm to this worker for the Antichrist that I am also one
of the damned and stupid heretics?
> Why do you call me "Antichrist?" Do you know what Antichrist is?
>
> Willy Brochs
You know intimately what it is. If you know how to be unscrupulous,
don't ask me any question about your Antichrist. You were trained by
him!
Ted McMillan
tmac...@seventh-dayadventism.com