tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8384632623933772727.post2658449702329025077..comments2024-03-07T00:24:23.674-05:00Comments on FBC Jax Watchdogs: INSP Network - "Televangelist Gunslingers"FBC Jax Watchdoghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10740366031265491559noreply@blogger.comBlogger89125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8384632623933772727.post-75902576108581782142009-04-10T01:54:00.000-04:002009-04-10T01:54:00.000-04:00This is the reason I no longer attend a church God...This is the reason I no longer attend a church God is not the main point of view anymore. Everyone is talking about everyone, it's more like a fashion show, speak the word of God. Chruches are not the same anymore. Banned from a chruch? I thought Gods house always had it's doors open. Mr. Rich you are a great person and I look up to you. God will look after you and your family. I will pray for you all. As for the man that says hes a pastor I feel sorry for you, I hope one day you find God.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8384632623933772727.post-58801607418326388842009-04-09T23:30:00.000-04:002009-04-09T23:30:00.000-04:00WWJD? I rarely leave comments on a blog, but this...WWJD? I rarely leave comments on a blog, but this story just floored me. Today's churches are businesses after the almighty dollar. Members of one church trying to get members of other churches to leave and come with them. Why, they want your money.. Why is the pastor of FBC Jax worried about some blog? Shouldn't he be worried about people in need? "$$$$" Why is JSO using resources to find a blogger for a church, when he did nothing wrong? I thought they were short staff? ummm? Why is everyone being anonymous? All of this in the name of "God" WOW!!!<BR/>Sign me up....Jacknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8384632623933772727.post-8192790273380042452009-04-09T16:54:00.000-04:002009-04-09T16:54:00.000-04:00Watchdog - you've done a good service to the commu...Watchdog - you've done a good service to the community - <BR/>The rapture already occurred and this is the garbage God left behind.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8384632623933772727.post-10729967295655998522009-04-09T16:37:00.000-04:002009-04-09T16:37:00.000-04:00Hey, if someone is called a sociopath in a newspap...Hey, if someone is called a sociopath in a newspaper article in an obvious attempt to cast doubt on that person's mental state, isn't that grounds for some kind of lawsuit? What possible qualifications could a baptist preacher have that would give him the ability to diagnose someone as a sociopath?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8384632623933772727.post-6572290008243808932009-04-09T15:46:00.000-04:002009-04-09T15:46:00.000-04:00I haven't read all the comments so perhaps someone...I haven't read all the comments so perhaps someone has already mentioned this, but my very first thought when I saw the paper today was that this Brunson guy needs to repay the state and the city <B>every single penny</B> that was spent on this witch hunt. I see nothing slanderous in the list of abuses on this blog -- though I can see very clearly why Brunson would be upset.<BR/><BR/>To be honest, just based on what I have seen so far and not having first person knowledge of any of it, I would have a very, very serious problem ever attending or visiting this church. Fortunately for me, it ain't the only church around! But I am very sorry that the people at FBC have to go through this, because this kind of behavior in leadership ALWAYS creates dissent. <BR/><BR/>For what it's worth, Brunson's actions to shut this blog down and silence the blogger speak more to me about the veracity of the charges than anything this blogger might have said on his own. <BR/><BR/>I can't say it enough: Brunson needs to pay the city and state back for every single dime of public money that was spent carrying out this personal witch hunt, for using the law and public servants to squelch the very valid questions any conscientious Christian would have about his/her church.<BR/><BR/>Seriously. This is just wrong. And scary, too.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8384632623933772727.post-79379653043217301672009-04-08T20:37:00.000-04:002009-04-08T20:37:00.000-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.New BBC Open Forumhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18300115421477555376noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8384632623933772727.post-69046531972823592622009-03-28T13:08:00.000-04:002009-03-28T13:08:00.000-04:00Wade's blog > Abuse of Authority: It Must N...<A HREF="http://kerussocharis.blogspot.com/2009/03/abuse-of-authority-it-must-not-be.html" REL="nofollow">Wade's blog > Abuse of Authority: It Must Not Be Ignored</A><BR/><BR/><I>Having been clear about my preferences that Southern Baptists write what needs to be said and sign one's name to what is written, it is still quite disturbing to me to read the unfolding saga at FBC Jacksonville, Florida. Local Jacksonville law enforcement officers, former Florida circuit court judges, and other members of FBC, all friends of the pastor, seemed to have used secular Florida authorities to unethically and possibly illegally obtain subpoenas to reveal the identity and other private information of the owners of the FBC Jacksonville Watchdog and New BBC Open Forum and Tiffany Croft's blogs.<BR/><BR/>A local Jacksonville reporter is doing some background for a story that the newspaper will be running about this in the near future. It seems that someone in the Jacksonville Police department suggested to the reporter that the subpoenas were issued because there may be some kind of ongoing federal investigation into these blogs. I was asked yesterday what I thought of such a statement from the local Jacksonville police officer. I responded with two words.<BR/><BR/>"That's bull."<BR/><BR/>I've seen this kind of thing happen time and time again. Stupid decisions are made by certain leaders to try to "shut down" the person who is asking questions. Then, those same leaders go behind closed doors and allege the person asking questions is of corrupt character and if people really knew the whole story, then they would never doubt why "leadership" did what they did. In short, when leaders get "caught" using hard ball tactics to shut down dissent, they act as if things are really worse than they are - in order to cover themselves. I can assure you federal officials are more interested in terrorists seeking to destroy the United States than they are church members, annymous or not, who are asking questions that pertain to their pastor.<BR/><BR/>The sad part about the saga at FBC Jacksonville is that secular authorities have now been sucked into church politics. It seems to me that someone in the Jacksonville police department or court system could, at best, lose their jobs. At worst, there is the making of an enormous lawsuit for public officials abusing their authority to help friends. If you think public officials, particularly court judges and law enforcement officials, are beyond corruption, then you obviously haven't been following the the horrid story of the Pennsylvania judge who used his position for personal gain.</I>Rameshhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09728392311602332613noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8384632623933772727.post-26629389081203776062009-03-28T12:32:00.000-04:002009-03-28T12:32:00.000-04:00"Friend" of Adrian Rogers,Well, you must not know ..."Friend" of Adrian Rogers,<BR/><BR/>Well, you must not know as much as you think. You were the one who stated "the people at Bellevue" are responsible for marketing Dr. Rogers' books and tapes and broadcasting his sermons. They are not. Most of the people who work at LWF are not members of Bellevue. As I explained, LWF and the ARPTI are not connected to Bellevue. I gave you the number for LWF. If what they're doing is so objectionable to you, feel free to give them a call and voice your displeasure.<BR/><BR/>I did agree with you that <I>some</I> people have (and did) put him on a pedestal, and I agree he <I>would</I> be embarrassed about the way <I>some</I> people have "canonized" him (your word).<BR/><BR/>So am I to understand that you think when any preacher dies his books and tapes should be destroyed and any videotapes of his sermons should never be broadcast again? Hmmm... do I detect a hint of jealousy?New BBC Open Forumhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18300115421477555376noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8384632623933772727.post-92005240869435136112009-03-28T09:55:00.000-04:002009-03-28T09:55:00.000-04:00I know plenty about it but as usual you are the un...I know plenty about it but as usual you are the unimpeachable source for all things at Bellevue. The fact still exists that his tapes, sermons, books and whatever else are being canonized as if he were still alive. I'm sure he's not wasting any time in Heaven watching this fiasco down here.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8384632623933772727.post-20310003516099634302009-03-28T09:46:00.000-04:002009-03-28T09:46:00.000-04:00Anon: RE: Sanctimonious Folks: 9:52 PM: A "word" o...Anon: RE: Sanctimonious Folks: 9:52 PM: A "word" of explanation is due here, if you please. I notice you refer to this blog., as a preacher bashing site, and then continue on the BASH and ROAST the Lindsays, even though they are dead. Were you a member at FBCJ when the Lindsays were here? The fact that people admired the HUMILITY, the verse by verse PREACHING of the REAL BIBLE, the kindness shown EACH member (rich or poor), the actual commitment to JESUS, and the burning desire to lead as many as possible to the SAVING GRACE of JESUS is what people admired about the Lindsays. People that recognized that about them did and still do posess SPIRITUAL DISCERNMENT, otherwise, these same people would accept false doctrine or accept just any "personality" that wants to call himself a preacher, behind the pulpit. There is no substitute for a God called preacher. When God has His hand on a ministry, people know it. IT IS CALLED SPIRITUAL DISCERNMENT. I don't think people believed then or now that the Lindsays were God Incarnate, that is an insult to the Lindsays and to the people that admired their preaching. The Lindsays were HUMBLE people always pointing to JESUS, never to themselves. Dr. Lindsay Jr., was very shy, one on one, and did not like attention drawn to himself, personally. As to whether or not people actually were in attendance.... obviously they were, or so many would not be as outspoken about their ministry now. Plus, check the attendance with those that were around then. If you wanted "a good seat" you better get to the service early. This was true on Sunday, and much of the time on Wed. I learned much about the Word, and about the character of true christians that have helped me for many, many years. I thank God that we had the Lindsays to show forth JESUS. <BR/><BR/>And us who pontificate (your word) do posess Spiritual Discernment otherwise we would not recognize a "real preacher" and God working through him, when we see and hear one. Thank you!!!!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8384632623933772727.post-62606046201512327172009-03-28T08:58:00.000-04:002009-03-28T08:58:00.000-04:00Question: Has Mac Brunson done ANYTHING that would...Question: Has Mac Brunson done ANYTHING that would show he is willing to be more open and transparent? If yes, what? If not, why not?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8384632623933772727.post-3818806287464263102009-03-28T08:57:00.000-04:002009-03-28T08:57:00.000-04:00'anon 3:29 it is hard to go to someone who hides f...'anon 3:29 it is hard to go to someone who hides for over 18 months anonymously, now isn't it?!!'<BR/><BR/>ANSWER: They found out his identity approximately October 9, 2008. Served trespass warnings after finding no criminal activity on the blog (November 24 or so), then had a private closed meeting about him months later. Are you really stating you don't think they knew who he was and that is why they have never, to this day, called him or visited him to discuss the blog or the issues raised on it? <BR/><BR/>Another weak "defense" of the indefensible.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8384632623933772727.post-33296881600051571122009-03-28T08:29:00.000-04:002009-03-28T08:29:00.000-04:00anon 3:29 what you are missing are the Facts, all ...anon 3:29 what you are missing are the Facts, all the facts for the 18 months prior to Wds reveal!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8384632623933772727.post-81749633218152715202009-03-28T00:15:00.000-04:002009-03-28T00:15:00.000-04:00"Seems like the people at Bellevue in Memphis are ...<I>"Seems like the people at Bellevue in Memphis are doing the same thing as they won't let Adrian Rogers go on to glory. They actually still play his taped sermons as if he was still here and up until recently were conducting a Bible conference where you paid to sit and listen to his taped messages. I knew Adrian as a personal friend and I'm sure he would be embarassed by the way they are canonizing him--and usually to the detriment of whoever their current pastor might be."</I><BR/><BR/>Whoa, whoa, whoa! If you were a "personal friend" of Adrian Rogers surely you must realize that neither Bellevue nor its current members or staff have anything to do with the broadcasting of his sermons on TV. <A HREF="http://www.lwf.org/site/PageServer" REL="nofollow">Love Worth Finding</A> is a 501(c)(3) organization (look it up on Guidestar) that is totally independent from Bellevue Baptist Church.<BR/><BR/>Adrian Rogers went on to glory over three years ago. Too soon IMO, but we all eventually die. Nobody's hindering him. I do think you make a valid point that <I>some</I> people have "canonized" him. I've no doubt he would be embarrassed by this, too. There was a discussion on our blog today about this very thing after someone posted a quote from one of his sermons as if it were set in stone. I said there, and I'll repeat it here...<BR/><BR/><I>Last I looked there were 66 books in the Bible, and there is no book of Adrian. I mean no disrepect to Dr. Rogers or his memory, but as much as some people would like to think so, just because Dr. Rogers (or any other preacher) said something doesn't make it the gospel truth. I think he would have been the first one to tell you that. Didn't he used to say, "Don't take my word for it... "?</I><BR/><BR/>LWF is reaching the globe with the gospel of Christ through the timeless preaching of Dr. Adrian Rogers. If you have a problem with that, maybe you should take it up with them. You can reach them M-F at 901-382-7900. I bet if you tell them you were a "personal friend" of Dr. Rogers they'll put you right through to the president!<BR/><BR/>As far as the paid conferences go, all I can think of is the <A HREF="http://www.pastortraining.com/" REL="nofollow">Adrian Rogers Pastor Training Institute</A>. Formerly a part of LWF, it too is now a separate 501(c)(3) based in Florida and headed by his son, Steve Rogers.<BR/><BR/>Please get your facts straight before spouting off about something you obviously know <I>nothing</I> about.New BBC Open Forumhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18300115421477555376noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8384632623933772727.post-42639523693272579062009-03-28T00:00:00.000-04:002009-03-28T00:00:00.000-04:00It will be a great day when you sanctimonious folk...It will be a great day when you sanctimonious folks run out of preachers to roast--and then you will have to turn on yourselves and it won't be a pretty sight.<BR/><BR/>March 27, 2009 9:52 PM<BR/><BR/>You don't think these questions are pertinent:<BR/><BR/>"Was Brunson claiming that you were stalking his wife while she was jogging in a gated community with security guards? <BR/><BR/>If someone was able to get in there to do that, did she run for the guard person immediately and report this? Did she call the police immediately? Did she give a date this happened?<BR/><BR/>There should be some documetation of her reporting this to her community security and the police."<BR/><BR/>That is not bashing. That is just asking serious questions since a criminal subpeona was filed to find WD by a church. <BR/><BR/>How is asking quesitons bashing? Unless, of course, you think it is a sin to question the actions of church leadership. If so, they we can go back to Geneva in the 1600's.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8384632623933772727.post-32780878712843589532009-03-27T21:52:00.000-04:002009-03-27T21:52:00.000-04:00This whole blog has degenerated into a bash preach...This whole blog has degenerated into a bash preachers site where people who probably aren't even faithful in their church attendance can pontificate about being so spiritual and being able to detect spirituality (or the lack of it) in everyone they observe. Its all just a bunch of posturing and trying to act so spiritual and discerning. <BR/><BR/>The saddest part is reading stuff by people who think the Lindsays were God incarnate and without fault--I just wonder how faithful these people were when the Lindsays were here. Seems like the people at Bellevue in Memphis are doing the same thing as they won't let Adrian Rogers go on to glory. They actually still play his taped sermons as if he was still here and up until recently were conducting a Bible conference where you paid to sit and listen to his taped messages. I knew Adrian as a personal friend and I'm sure he would be embarassed by the way they are canonizing him--and usually to the detriment of whoever their current pastor might be. <BR/><BR/>It will be a great day when you sanctimonious folks run out of preachers to roast--and then you will have to turn on yourselves and it won't be a pretty sight.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8384632623933772727.post-28075613793656837382009-03-27T20:02:00.000-04:002009-03-27T20:02:00.000-04:00"On February 27, the Maryland Court of Appeals – t..."On February 27, the Maryland Court of Appeals – the state's highest court -- set down some clear rules for when, in that state, a plaintiff challenging an anonymous online posting as defamatory can find out the poster's identity from an Internet Service Provider (ISP). In so doing, the court considered both the poster's right to free speech – including the First Amendment right, recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court, to speak anonymously – and the plaintiff's right to seek a legal remedy for defamation. <BR/><BR/>"In this column, I'll explain the rules the Maryland court chose, and some of the alternatives that other courts have endorsed. I will contend that the Maryland court chose a wise solution in a still-developing area of law. <BR/><BR/>"I will also argue, however, that a federal solution in this area would be a better way for America to address the major differences between online and offline anonymous speech, the way these differences affect defamation law, and the national (and international) nature of the Internet itself.<BR/><BR/>"The Maryland Court's Ruling on the Notice Requirement<BR/><BR/>"To begin, the Maryland court agreed with other states' courts that the plaintiff should be required to attempt to notify the anonymous defendant of the lawsuit against him or her, by posting the information on the same message board or other online forum where the allegedly defamatory communication had appeared. <BR/><BR/>"It's no surprise that this reasonable, common-sense requirement has gained courts' favor: It places a minimal burden on the plaintiff while protecting defendants and their First Amendment rights, which include the right to speak anonymously. <BR/><BR/>"Also, it's commonly agreed that it is a key component of due process that the plaintiff must make reasonable efforts to let the defendant know he is being sued. That's why the requirements for valid service of process are laid down by the law, and why sometimes courts require newspaper announcements to be made relating to cases before them. <BR/><BR/>"The Maryland Court's Ruling on the Test for Disclosure of the Defendant's Identity<BR/><BR/>"Much more controversial, among the states, than the notice question, is the question of what must be shown by a defamation plaintiff before he or she can force an ISP to unmask an anonymous poster. The Maryland Court isolated four different tests courts have used or considered: (1) the plaintiff must produce facts sufficient to defeat a motion for summary judgment; (2) the plaintiff's allegations must be sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss the complaint; (3) the plaintiff must have a good faith basis for the suit; (4) the plaintiff must establish facts sufficient to make out a prima facie case as to each of the elements of defamation, including damages and, if such a case is made, the court must balance the defendant's First Amendment right to anonymity against the plaintiff's right to seek a remedy for claimed defamation in deciding whether to unmask the defendant.<BR/><BR/>"Which of these four tests is the best? To begin, even a strong First Amendment advocate like myself must recognize that the first test – the ability to survive a summary judgment motion -- puts too high a burden on the plaintiff. <BR/><BR/>"To prove defamation, a plaintiff must establish a false, defamatory statement, made with the requisite level of intent, that caused damages. Thus, in order to defeat a summary judgment motion, the plaintiff will need to adduce proof of intent -- either "actual malice," defined as knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard as to truth or falsity (for public-figure defendants) or negligence (for private figures). That proof is typically collected in two ways – by deposing the defendant and by examining documents that evidence the plaintiff's state of mind. But, of course, it's impossible to depose or get documents from an anonymous defendant. Thus, this test essentially asks the plaintiff to do something that is impossible: figure out what a defendant knew or thought, without even knowing who he or she is. (The interesting solution of anonymous discovery might solve this issue – but would be very unusual and novel.) <BR/><BR/>"What about the second test – the ability to survive a motion to dismiss? This test is too easy to pass. <BR/><BR/>"Granted, sometimes motions to dismiss do get rid of meritless defamation cases – for instance, if the statement at issue isn't really defamatory, if the statement is of opinion rather than fact, or if the statement is true enough ("substantially true") for First Amendment purposes, even if it is not true in every detail. But generally, a false statement and the mere allegations that the defendant had the required state of mind and that the plaintiff suffered damages, will allow a defamation plaintiff to survive a motion to dismiss. Thus, this test will predictably unmask anonymous posters even when they did not have the required state of mind and/or when the plaintiff did not suffer damages. The third test – the "good faith basis" test -- is similarly too weak, as well as being disturbingly vague. <BR/><BR/>"That leaves us with the fourth test, which the Maryland Court of Appeals wisely embraced: a prima facie case, plus a balancing test. This is the best of the four alternative, yet it still has some disturbing features. To make out a prima facie case, the plaintiff will have to put forth at least some evidence on each element – thus, for instance, preventing cases from being brought when there are no concrete damages. For example, suppose a restaurant sues an anonymous poster for a poor review. If the restaurant's profits have remained steady despite the review, the court may hold that there is no prima facie case as to damages. <BR/><BR/>"But again, even under this fourth test, it will be hard for the plaintiff to put forth any state-of-mind evidence without knowing who the defendant is, and having the ability to pose discovery requests to him or her. <BR/><BR/>"Also, the addition of the balancing test – weighing the need to enforce defamation law against First Amendment concerns, based on the specifics of the given case -- seems somewhat redundant. The test seems likely to protect speech on subjects of intense public interest – for there, the First Amendment aspect is greatest. Yet, when speech concerns such subjects, it seems likely that the plaintiff may not be able to make a prima facie case as to state of mind anyway, for actual malice is likely to be required. And generally, it is a little odd for a court to take the First Amendment into account twice – first in devising the plaintiff's showing, and then second in the balancing test. <BR/><BR/>"No wonder, then, that three of the Maryland Court of Appeals judges agreed with the prima facie case test that the majority adopted, but saw no need to impose an additional balancing test as well. <BR/><BR/>"How the Role of Anonymous Speech Changed with the Advent of the Internet – and Why We Need a Federal Solution<BR/><BR/>"In sum, the Maryland Court of Appeals was wise in choosing the better options from the menu of solutions that courts have thus far imposed. But the gradual process that is occurring here – common-law development of the standards, along with state courts' watching and learning from other state courts' successes and mistakes – seems wrong in light of the transformative nature of the Internet, and the fact that its audience is national, not local.<BR/><BR/>"Prior to the Internet, of course, individuals' anonymous speech typically had a limited audience. Modern newspapers and other publications generally wouldn't publish anonymous writings (as they had back in the Framers' time, when pseudonyms were common) so such writings' impact was generally local -- confined to, say, unsigned leaflets in a local election. If anonymous speech was widely distributed – as with Deep Throat, Watergate, and the Washington Post – it was first filtered through reporters, who could themselves be sued and, in some cases, forced to reveal their sources or face jail. <BR/><BR/>"Depending on your point of view, those reporters either provided a worthy check to balance anonymity against veracity, or else created an unjustifiable screen through which certain individuals – often, individuals with fairly homogeneous backgrounds and viewpoints – could keep some stories and claims from reaching a wide audience, while letting others through. Reporters were gatekeepers, but was that function honorable, or pernicious? The answer varied based on the facts of the given story or claim and the viewpoint of the person commenting. <BR/><BR/>"Now, the gate is gone. Individuals can speak directly and anonymously on the Internet. At first glance, that reality might seem to obviously call for the strengthening of defamation law – on the theory that individuals can now speak to a mass audience and thus inflict massive damage to reputation. But upon closer examination, the answer is not as clear. Internet readers will naturally discount the weight of anonymous speech, because they know they have no ability to verify it. And the target of the speech can generally reply quickly and effectively on the Internet, too – and also reach a mass audience. Thus, the huge power disparity between the speaker and the target was a more likely situation in the pre-Internet world, than in this one. In addition, I expect to see more effective ways for targets (and their defenders) to reply to their critics as the Internet continues to evolve. <BR/><BR/>"As a matter of policy, it might be a good idea to simply get rid of defamation law on the Internet, and replace it with a means by which those who are attacked can effectively reply to the same audience their attacker reached. This solution would be a kind of Internet fairness doctrine, but because the space for speech on the Internet is near-limitless, it would not be plagued by the problems that the broadcast fairness doctrine has suffered. Rather than choosing speakers to represent "the other side," sites would simply be required to leave message boards open, and to allow new posters to connect their messages with old threads, in order to reply to statements attacking them. <BR/><BR/>"A federal statute embodying this limited right-of-reply might be preferable to allowing courts to craft fifty different solutions to the problem of how to address anonymous speech on what is truly a national (and international) forum. But until Congress or a federal agency takes action, we will be left pretending that the Internet's national forum is no different than the town square."<BR/><BR/>FROM: <BR/>http://writ.news.findlaw.com/hilden/20090316.html?=featuresAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8384632623933772727.post-31650172360863365852009-03-27T19:42:00.000-04:002009-03-27T19:42:00.000-04:00WD, Was Brunson claiming that you were stalking hi...WD, Was Brunson claiming that you were stalking his wife while she was jogging in a gated community with security guards? <BR/><BR/>If someone was able to get in there to do that, did she run for the guard person immediately and report this? Did she call the police immediately? Did she give a date this happened?<BR/><BR/>There should be some documetation of her reporting this to her community security and the police.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8384632623933772727.post-35710905529109654542009-03-27T18:43:00.000-04:002009-03-27T18:43:00.000-04:00anon 3:29 it is hard to go to someone who hides fo...anon 3:29 it is hard to go to someone who hides for over 18 months anonymously, now isn't it?!!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8384632623933772727.post-28722407106644606722009-03-27T15:32:00.000-04:002009-03-27T15:32:00.000-04:00This has truly,truly become tragic!!!.Not only has...This has truly,truly become tragic!!!.Not only has FBC Jax inner working been exposed but the,but the inner working of many Churches also!!!.The place that people look too as the proclaimers of "TRUTH" have become nothing more than the perpetrators of lies!!!."Just" as the Bible predicted that near the return of the Lord Jesus Christ that deceptive,greedy people would arise teaching perverse things to draw disciples for themselves...Men looking for the opportunity to fleece the sheep and the tares for filthy lucre!!!.Unregenerate men who see the sheep and the ministry as a means too and end!!!..Men who see ministry as a job opportunity rather than a calling!!.Men who take their ill-gotten loot and then sport their deceivings right in front of the ignorant givers they have fleeced it from!!!."How do the flaunt their ill-gotten booty before baffled givers you ask"???."I'm glad you ask"!!.They buy milloin dollar houses..They drive expensive luxury auto's..They dress in custom made clothing..They purchase the finest jewelry..They travel the country and the globe at their leisure..They use 100,000 dollars to enlarge there office for the satisfaction of their ego's...They employ their family members so that they can enrich them at the flocks expense..They spare no expense for themselves..They believe themselves to deserving of gain..They twist the scriptures to keep the sheep docile and the tares entertained...They cohort with un-godly consultants who wouldn't know Jesus if He return from Heaven in their sights...They prositute the facilities under the guise of a "Day of Faith" with people from all type of religions or lack of to pray for their cities;And act that even the Prophet Elijah would find abhorent[1Kings 18:21]..They attempt to destroy anyone who would dare to confront them with legitimate question!!.They slander individuals under the cloak of anonymity!!.They remain silent as their mercinaries carry out his dastartly whims ..All of this unbelievably happening in the "Churches"!!!....I truly now understand Jesus poignant "Words" to the religious leaders of His time in Matt.23:38 "Behold,"YOUR HOUSE" is left unto you desolate"!!!....Tragic,truly tragic!!!..."WORSE AND WORSE" ; "WORSE AND WORSE"Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8384632623933772727.post-71516501105505236872009-03-27T15:29:00.000-04:002009-03-27T15:29:00.000-04:00Let's see if I can summarize the blog: New pastor...Let's see if I can summarize the blog: New pastor comes in and based on many actions over a two year time span, one member opines that the new pastor is a charlatan and a jerk.<BR/>One member out of about 25,000 decides to post facts and information about concerns he has about the charlatan jerk.<BR/>Church "disagrees" with the "unjust" criticism and begins to do whatever it has to do to shut down the one man's blog. (They never offer any rebuttal to the actions that first resulted in the one man seeing the pastor as a charlatan and jerk.)<BR/>Unable to intimidate the man, they don't even bother to go to him, or meet with him. Instead, they enlist the help of a detective/member, who uses his position to have the SA issue subpoenas under the color of law. Once the man's identity is obtained, trespass warnings are issued to thet man, and his wife, and a kangaroo court is convened. The man is not allowed to hear or address any charges against him. Then a meeting of deacons is held, not all deacons, just some, and they all must sign in first. Then the accused is slandered by name, partial information is given out, and he is accused of being a criminal. Deacons then begin to spread the word about the man and his family in the community, church and to his new church. In the meantime, criminal investigations continue and the man retains state and federal attorneys to file civil actions against all parties involved at the appropriate time.<BR/><BR/>Am I missing something?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8384632623933772727.post-18548653895859253842009-03-27T15:19:00.000-04:002009-03-27T15:19:00.000-04:00In His Service - still no response to the concerns...In His Service - still no response to the concerns I asked you about? Don't worry, no one else from the church has been able to come on here and deal with them either in the last two and a half years. We don't let you slide with not addressing the issues. <BR/><BR/>If you can't see the problem with the land gift, just ask Mac. He addresses large gifts in his Pastor's Guidebook.<BR/><BR/>You mention just a few of the issues you seem to be able to explain away. Please deal with the ones I raised above in the comments to you, sir.<BR/><BR/>After two plus years, we are all still waiting for a defense of the indefensible.<BR/><BR/>By the way, are you confirming for us all that Howard White had that house built for cost? Below market value? Yikes! Not really helping the pastor with that disclosure ya think?<BR/><BR/>VORAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8384632623933772727.post-47966535320273894212009-03-27T13:36:00.000-04:002009-03-27T13:36:00.000-04:00"If people are basing Church attendance on the rep..."If people are basing Church attendance on the reports that come from Church Leadership, rest assured the reports are not accurate. As someone who has worked at FBC, attendance was always going up - at least on paper."<BR/><BR/>Mega's use all sorts of tricks on the reporting numbers game. Another problem is that many attend but never join. And some folks join and then rarely attend. <BR/><BR/>The words 'member' and 'attendance' are interchangable in the mega world.<BR/><BR/>Some folks attend and never join. And some join and rarely attend.<BR/><BR/>One mega, which had numbers dropping off, reported in their numbers people attending the 12 step programs as 'members' because they 'joined' a group that met at the church. Since they had about 30 of these groups meeting during the week, it helped keep the numbers looking good.<BR/><BR/>MattAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8384632623933772727.post-20504304537031795622009-03-27T13:13:00.000-04:002009-03-27T13:13:00.000-04:00"Money is the root to all evil."No, the love of mo...<I>"Money is the root to all evil."</I><BR/><BR/>No, the <A HREF="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=61&chapter=6&verse=10&version=9&context=verse" REL="nofollow"><I>love</I></A> of money is the root of all evil. This is probably one of the most misquoted verses in the Bible.New BBC Open Forumhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18300115421477555376noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8384632623933772727.post-49573614836676709232009-03-27T12:01:00.000-04:002009-03-27T12:01:00.000-04:00If people are basing Church attendance on the repo...If people are basing Church attendance on the reports that come from Church Leadership, rest assured the reports are not accurate. As someone who has worked at FBC, attendance was always going up - at least on paper.<BR/><BR/>There would be times when there would be drop offs in attendance, but rest assured, those declines always turned upward.<BR/><BR/>Additional "people" are added each and every week as "floaters" - people who were not in Sunday School but were in still somewhere on campus.<BR/><BR/>If attendance didn't "look" right, extra people always seemed to show up somewhere.<BR/><BR/>It's all a numbers game.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com