[Rae-Est]

Originally Posted by Brother Temperance

Are you familiar with the basic principles of logic? In the Bible, God lays down commandments we are to follow if we wish to gain His favour. Landover follows all these commandments. No other Church we are aware of does this. I believe you can fill in the gaps yourself.
As for the killing of unbelievers, how about this?
2 Chronicles 15:12 And they entered into a covenant to seek the LORD God of their fathers with all their heart and with all their soul;
13 That whosoever would not seek the LORD God of Israel should be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman.

So does that mean you kill those who do not believe in God? Because, according to your logic, that should be a part of your reasons that you are His favorite church.

You obviously are not rendering a large enough search for churches that follow God's commands. Beyond that, no individual, no church can be perfect. If you have even one member who has sinned today, your church cannot be God's favorite. Besides, God doesn't pick favorites. Where on earth would you get the idea that God picks favorite churches?

[Brother Temperance]

Originally Posted by Rae-Est

So does that mean you kill those who do not believe in God? Because, according to your logic, that should be a part of your reasons that you are His favorite church.

You obviously are not rendering a large enough search for churches that follow God's commands. Beyond that, no individual, no church can be perfect. If you have even one member who has sinned today, your church cannot be God's favorite. Besides, God doesn't pick favorites. Where on earth would you get the idea that God picks favorite churches?

Sadly, we are also commanded to obey secular laws, so until that time, we are not permitted to kill unbelievers, except in very particular circumstances (for instance, if they're Arabs.) So, for the meantime, we work to reform secular laws to bring them more in line with God's will. Can you name any Churches that follow God's laws as well or better than we do? If not, then I'm sorry, but you appear to be relying on the existence of a wholly hypothetical entity despite the lack of any evidence that it exists. And wherever would you get the idea that God doesn't play favourites? Do you know what He used to call the Jews before they killed His Son?

[Rae-Est]

Originally Posted by Brother Temperance

Sadly, we are also commanded to obey secular laws, so until that time, we are not permitted to kill unbelievers, except in very particular circumstances (for instance, if they're Arabs.) So, for the meantime, we work to reform secular laws to bring them more in line with God's will. Can you name any Churches that follow God's laws as well or better than we do? If not, then I'm sorry, but you appear to be relying on the existence of a wholly hypothetical entity despite the lack of any evidence that it exists. And wherever would you get the idea that God doesn't play favourites? Do you know what He used to call the Jews before they killed His Son?

Yes, I do know what God called the Jews. He called them His chosen, His children. Sure, I understand that, but it was the promise He gave Abraham.

But why would God play favorites with churches? That doesn't really make sense. And does that mean that God also plays favorites with people?

I don't know that I agree that you're following God's laws so closely. You're relying on lots of talk yourself, and I don't see any proof on your side either. I have no evidence from you that you all follow God's laws so closely.

[Brother Temperance]

Originally Posted by Rae-Est

Yes, I do know what God called the Jews. He called them His chosen, His children. Sure, I understand that, but it was the promise He gave Abraham.

But why would God play favorites with churches? That doesn't really make sense. And does that mean that God also plays favorites with people?

I don't know that I agree that you're following God's laws so closely. You're relying on lots of talk yourself, and I don't see any proof on your side either. I have no evidence from you that you all follow God's laws so closely.

If there were any other Churches out there with a serious claim to be following God's commands, then His "playing favourites" might be slightly questionable, but as it is, we are His most faithful servants, so why shouldn't He reward us?
And do you really doubt that God plays favourites with people? Have you ever read the Bible?

[Deaner]

Originally Posted by Rae-Est

nor can you, in fact, prove that "darkies" (a word that is quite rude and unintelligent) are lazy.

[OnYourKnees]

Originally Posted by Rae-Est

Why do you want to kill all the people who believe differently? What happened to wanting to prove to them the love of Christ and what God wants of them? I thought that as Christians, we were called to bring people to God and help them to get saved. I'm rather confused here.

God commands us to kill those who do not follow Him.

I thought that, as Christians, we were commanded to follow God's word!

Now, of course we can and should try to turn people to Him. Failing this, it is proper to kill them.

However, we are also commanded by God to follow secular laws. Therefore, outside of Freehold, we are unable to kill unbelievers.

Also, might I also question the reason that you think Landover is God's favorite church? I'm new around here and therefore do not know as much about this kind of thing, so I'd appreciate it if you could give me some Bible verses specific to Landover that show me where God said Landover was His favorite. I'm just curious, you see, and I'd like to understand.

I assume you're making a joke in asking why a church founded in 1612 is not mentioned in the KJV1611 which, as you may note in the abbreviation, was dictated in 1611.

To our knowledge, no other church follows every part of the Bible without question. That makes us not only God's Favorite Church, but also God's only TRUE Christian Church.

We do not declare ourselves the only True Christian Church, as there may be others out there who do follow all of the Bible, and we may simply not yet have met them.

Before you ask about Southern Baptists, please do recall that the Southern Baptist Convention has taken a heretical stance against any consumption of alcohol, declaring it sinful. By taking this stance, they declare Jesus, who not only drank wine, but turned water into wine, a sinner!

Clearly, Southern Baptists, who pervert the Word of God to suit their own ends, cannot be viewed as True, Bible-Believing Christians.

[Rae-Est]

Originally Posted by Brother Temperance

If there were any other Churches out there with a serious claim to be following God's commands, then His "playing favourites" might be slightly questionable, but as it is, we are His most faithful servants, so why shouldn't He reward us?
And do you really doubt that God plays favourites with people? Have you ever read the Bible?

Well, I would agree that God should reward you if the Bible guaranteed earthly rewards for following God's commands... and if you really were following His commands. I haven't had any evidence of that though. By the way, why are you judging your performance against others? I don't think God judges that way.

I have read the Bible. Who were you going to point out that followed God and became His favorite? I can think of a few that you might name, but I'd like to know.

[Rae-Est]

Originally Posted by Deaner

Ok, first of all, tell me if you took this picture. If you didn't, then tell me who did, and even if you can tell me who took it, prove to me that you didn't alter this picture in any way, shape or form. The man in the picture could just as easily have been white before the picture was altered if it were.

My point is simple; if you base your assertions on a picture or some stupid generalization, then you are as ignorant as I first believed. Who's to say this man did not have a rough life that precluded him from doing everything in his power to not be "lazy"? Beyond that, the settings of the picture are dark, so why do you assume he's lazy when he might be sleeping at night to regain his energy to work another day?

Pictures are worth a thousand words, but I can probably pull up a dozen likewise photos of white men slacking off; does that mean white men are lazy? I can say that white men are lazy as well, having been around them my entire life, but that doesn't make it true. Your claim is, as I've already pointed out, impossible to prove, especially if you base it on a picture.

[Rae-Est]

Originally Posted by OnYourKnees

God commands us to kill those who do not follow Him.

I thought that, as Christians, we were commanded to follow God's word!

Now, of course we can and should try to turn people to Him. Failing this, it is proper to kill them.

However, we are also commanded by God to follow secular laws. Therefore, outside of Freehold, we are unable to kill unbelievers.

I assume you're making a joke in asking why a church founded in 1612 is not mentioned in the KJV1611 which, as you may note in the abbreviation, was dictated in 1611.

To our knowledge, no other church follows every part of the Bible without question. That makes us not only God's Favorite Church, but also God's only TRUE Christian Church.

We do not declare ourselves the only True Christian Church, as there may be others out there who do follow all of the Bible, and we may simply not yet have met them.

Before you ask about Southern Baptists, please do recall that the Southern Baptist Convention has taken a heretical stance against any consumption of alcohol, declaring it sinful. By taking this stance, they declare Jesus, who not only drank wine, but turned water into wine, a sinner!

Clearly, Southern Baptists, who pervert the Word of God to suit their own ends, cannot be viewed as True, Bible-Believing Christians.

Nope, I wasn't making a joke at all. I was being deadly serious. And, now that you mention it, I've got a few random questions. Perhaps you can point me to the correct forum if the answers aren't readily handy.

Where was the church formed? To my knowledge, America wasn't created until much later than 1612, which would, of course, imply that Landover was created in another place or at a later date. Speaking of which, why do the two sites that comprise this (Landoverbaptist.org and Landoverbaptist.net) contradict one another on when the church was formed. This one says 1612, and the other says 1620. Beyond that, the other site also says it's celebrating 214 years of "soulwinning"... which, if I can still do my math correctly, does not subtract from 2007 to make 1612. Something is wrong here.

As to the Southern-Baptist comments, you've lost me. I wasn't going to bring that up, and I don't know how on earth you got to that point. But then again, with the logic I've seen around here, it's understandable you'd run off on a tangent.

Finally, just a thought, but Landover is not God's favorite church. For a reference, go to Romans 2:11. Or rather, I'll just put it here.

"For there is no respect of persons with God." Romans 2:11.

In layman's terms, that means, God doesn't play favorites.

[OnYourKnees]

Originally Posted by Rae-Est

Nope, I wasn't making a joke at all. I was being deadly serious. And, now that you mention it, I've got a few random questions. Perhaps you can point me to the correct forum if the answers aren't readily handy.

Where was the church formed? To my knowledge, America wasn't created until much later than 1612, which would, of course, imply that Landover was created in another place or at a later date. Speaking of which, why do the two sites that comprise this (Landoverbaptist.org and Landoverbaptist.net) contradict one another on when the church was formed. This one says 1612, and the other says 1620. Beyond that, the other site also says it's celebrating 214 years of "soulwinning"... which, if I can still do my math correctly, does not subtract from 2007 to make 1612. Something is wrong here.

Landover Baptist Church was first founded (as an idea, more than an institution) in England in 1612, as soon as the first KJV1611's rolled off the presses and were available. However, it took its formal name and was founded in the Americas in 1620; the first Landoverians came over on the Mayflower.

You may recall that Europeans have been settling the North American continent since the late 15th century.

The 214 is clearly a typo. Where did you see it?

As to the Southern-Baptist comments, you've lost me. I wasn't going to bring that up, and I don't know how on earth you got to that point. But then again, with the logic I've seen around here, it's understandable you'd run off on a tangent.

Many people who think they know a thing or two see the word "Baptist" and confuse us with Southern Baptists. Additionally, the Southern Baptist Convention is a convenient example of False Christians who claim to be True Christians.

[Rae-Est]

Originally Posted by OnYourKnees

Landover Baptist Church was first founded (as an idea, more than an institution) in England in 1612, as soon as the first KJV1611's rolled off the presses and were available. However, it took its formal name and was founded in the Americas in 1620; the first Landoverians came over on the Mayflower.

You may recall that Europeans have been settling the North American continent since the late 15th century.

The 214 is clearly a typo. Where did you see it?

Many people who think they know a thing or two see the word "Baptist" and confuse us with Southern Baptists. Additionally, the Southern Baptist Convention is a convenient example of False Christians who claim to be True Christians.

I saw the 214 on the page about the church staff. It was at the top of the page.

I am an Independent Baptist. You can take that as you will. And, I did take note that you at Landover promote that you are an Independent Baptist church, which I understood clearly as being separate from Southern Baptist.

So Landoverians were puritans?

[OnYourKnees]

Originally Posted by Rae-Est

So Landoverians were puritans?

No.

They came over on the Mayflower. The Pilgrims, not Puritans, came on the Mayflower, which was primarily a cargo, not passenger, ship. Landoverians came as well, staying in Plymouth only through the first winter, then setting out on their own.

Puritans (not Pilgrims) did not start coming to the Colonies in earnest until 1629, but true Puritanism remained primarily an English movement.

[Brother Temperance]

Originally Posted by Rae-Est

Well, I would agree that God should reward you if the Bible guaranteed earthly rewards for following God's commands... and if you really were following His commands. I haven't had any evidence of that though. By the way, why are you judging your performance against others? I don't think God judges that way.

Are you questioning whether God promises earthly rewards? I can assure you that he does. For instance:
Deuteronomy 11:8 Therefore shall ye keep all the commandments which I command you this day, that ye may be strong, and go in and possess the land, whither ye go to possess it;
9A nd that ye may prolong your days in the land, which the LORD sware unto your fathers to give unto them and to their seed, a land that floweth with milk and honey.
10 For the land, whither thou goest in to possess it, is not as the land of Egypt, from whence ye came out, where thou sowedst thy seed, and wateredst it with thy foot, as a garden of herbs:
11 But the land, whither ye go to possess it, is a land of hills and valleys, and drinketh water of the rain of heaven:
12 A land which the LORD thy God careth for: the eyes of the LORD thy God are always upon it, from the beginning of the year even unto the end of the year.
13 And it shall come to pass, if ye shall hearken diligently unto my commandments which I command you this day, to love the LORD your God, and to serve him with all your heart and with all your soul,
14 That I will give you the rain of your land in his due season, the first rain and the latter rain, that thou mayest gather in thy corn, and thy wine, and thine oil.
15 And I will send grass in thy fields for thy cattle, that thou mayest eat and be full.

As for whether God judges our performance against others, He clearly states He will reward the performance of some with eternal life and condemn others to the Lake of Fire, based entirely on their "performance":
Revelation 20:13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.

Originally Posted by Rae-Est

Finally, just a thought, but Landover is not God's favorite church. For a reference, go to Romans 2:11. Or rather, I'll just put it here.

"For there is no respect of persons with God." Romans 2:11.

In layman's terms, that means, God doesn't play favorites.

Revelation 14:1 And I looked, and, lo, a Lamb stood on the mount Sion, and with him an hundred forty and four thousand, having his Father's name written in their foreheads.
2 And I heard a voice from heaven, as the voice of many waters, and as the voice of a great thunder: and I heard the voice of harpers harping with their harps:
3 And they sung as it were a new song before the throne, and before the four beasts, and the elders: and no man could learn that song but the hundred and forty and four thousand, which were redeemed from the earth.
4 These are they which were not defiled with women; for they are virgins. These are they which follow the Lamb whithersoever he goeth. These were redeemed from among men, being the firstfruits unto God and to the Lamb.
5 And in their mouth was found no guile: for they are without fault before the throne of God.

Strange, if I didn't know better I could almost swear that sounds like the firstfruits without guile are God's favourites to me.

[The Adversary]

I voted that the Mooselimbs are the worst. When women are LIGHTING THEMSELVES ON FIRE to escape their crappy religion then I think you have a winner.

Cathylicks deserve points just for being so very evil for so very long.

Jews deserve points for starting this whole "heathen desert religions taking the world by storm" trend that's been so pesky these last few thousand years.

[H.P. Crowley]

The Allah freaks are possibly the worst. Anybody who would consider blowing themself up for religion needs professional help.

[Brother Temperance]

Originally Posted by H.P. Crowley

The Allah freaks are possibly the worst. Anybody who would consider blowing themself up for religion needs professional help.

I know. Especially a false demon religion which doesn't even recognise the divinity of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

[Sailor Chaos (On Moderation)]

Wow. You guys actually hate Catholics more than Wiccans? Interesting.
Also, the Jews didn't crucify Jesus, the Romans did. Heck, I know that and I barely read the bible.

[Bobby-Joe]

Originally Posted by Sailor Chaos

Wow. You guys actually hate Catholics more than Wiccans? Interesting.
Also, the Jews didn't crucify Jesus, the Romans did. Heck, I know that and I barely read the bible.

Too bad you didn't read all of it. The Romans crucified Jesus because the Jews lied to the Romans telling them Jesus was trying to start a rebellion against the Romans.

[Sailor Chaos (On Moderation)]

Ok, yeah. I didn't read all of it. But even if some or one Jew/s did, that doesn't mean we should blame them all forever.

[Brother Temperance]

Originally Posted by Sailor Chaos

Ok, yeah. I didn't read all of it. But even if some or one Jew/s did, that doesn't mean we should blame them all forever.

Friend, this is what the Bible has to say about the yids:
1 Thessalonians 2:14 For ye, brethren, became followers of the churches of God which in Judaea are in Christ Jesus: for ye also have suffered like things of your own countrymen, even as they have of the Jews:
15 Who both killed the Lord Jesus, and their own prophets, and have persecuted us; and they please not God, and are contrary to all men:

Matthew 27:24 When Pilate saw that he could prevail nothing, but that rather a tumult was made, he took water, and washed his hands before the multitude, saying, I am innocent of the blood of this just person: see ye to it.
25 Then answered all the people, and said, His blood be on us, and on our children.

The people in that passage are the Joos, and when they say "our children", they clearly mean that their children are to be held responsible for it.