What does....

Sorry for messing up the quotes!QS's quotes are in quotation marks, since this is the best and only way I know how to does this.

 

Can't help the reputation, but at least you could tell people you're from Kentucky, which is of no real concern. I just detected that "fighting" spirit you "little" teddy bear!

So "lighten" up! Go on a diet! I've lost 20 lbs. on the Atkinson plan.

Oh, and stay on topic.

 

"Race" is an invention of man. The Bible doesn't ever say that God created seprate "races", let alone that we are supposed to remain separate. But the assertion that mix marriages are "bad" was not made by me, and that person has shown no biblical proof. It is he who should "put up or shut up". If you believe that races should remain separate, where's your biblical support.

This bart of the Bible has many gaps in it. Many assume that the Cushite wife and the Midianite wife (Zipporah) are the same person. But they may not be. Firstly we know that Moses was married to Zipporah, and that he is married to this Cushite. If you check the first verses of Exodus 16, 18 and 19 you will see that Zipporah returned to Moses sometime in the second or third month after the exodus from Egypt. If you check Numbers 10 vv 11 and 29 you will find that one year later her Father is still Moses Father-in-law (i.e. Zipporah is still with us) and if you follow the action into Numbers 12 you will see that hardly any time passes before Aaron and Miriam get all hot and bothered about the Cushite wife. There is very little time available for Zipporah to die. One likelihood is that Moses married a second wife (the Cushite) and that his brother and sister did not approve of his polygamy. The other is that Moses married the Cushite after Ziporah's death, and that his brother and sister disapproved of him marrying out of the faith. Another possibility is that Miriam and Aaron simply had racist views themselves, and didn't like Moses marrying a non-Hebrew.

No matter how you slice it, Aaron and Miriam didn't like the Cushite - possibly because she was black, or possibly because it made Moses polygamous, or possibly because of both reasons - and God punished them for it. Ironically, Miriam's punishment turns her white as snow, which may be another clue to the nature of the dispute.

Perhaps those who today preach racism would do well to remember this story.

I must apologize, then, for I was unaware that referring to Bro Kidd as a moron might be an insult to morons everywhere. Let me rephrase my statement to say his biblical views are moronic.

Then you agree he's a moron. Make up your mind. Better yet, why address the topic at hand? There's no biblical support to ban mixing of races, and for Bro Kidd to assert such leaves his teaching suspect.

 

Uhhh, it's "Atkins".

 

QS- you are too kind! I need to loose about 40lbs and I love Kentucky, but I've lived here in NY City since 1985. Yikes, this is off topic!

 

Can I make myself clear?

Society is offended at the mixed marriage issue. I am not trying to win society

I am NOT a racist!

I only KNOW one other poster in BB and that only through fellowship at certain meetings, so NONE of you are able to JUDGE me.

The fact remains there are mixed unions that produce children, that neither justifies or denies that fact other than it is simple fact that they all have a soul and they will have to live their lives in or out of society.

I won't give details, but I have a nephew who is "mixed", but both parents are white, so much has been presumed about them it has only been to their hurt. By the grace of God the family has overcome the hell bent crowd who so obviously IS racist, BUT! to declare Bro. Kidd as a racist is only more proof that YOU DO NOT KNOW the man.

I find it absurd that you judge his, and my, character without any knowledge of either of us.

"By what judgement ye judge, ye shall also be judged", be sure you will reap the corruption that you insist on sowing even though many times all of you have been forewarned.

Y'know? That's sad, to give people who claim to be Christians, Biblical admonition and they reject. Man, are yall miserable comforters or what? Were yall there in the Book of Job by chance?

Just so you might be informed about the things Bro. Kidd says regarding race, he does that for the soul purpose of digging out of your spirit the mean, hateful, denigrating, disgusting attitudes that have been portrayed. The problem is you don't understand preaching is to upset the contents of the vessel so the person can see for themselves what is in them and puke it out!

Think about it the next time you observe communion, are you just drinking to your selves further damnation? Are you really justified in your comments concerning your brother in Christ?

There are MANY preachers I DON'T agree with, especially a liberal comprimiser that won't preach, but to misinform and spout opinion is
W R O N G !

 

Uhhh, it's "Atkins". </font>[/QUOTE]Atkins', Atkinson's, either way, you knew who I was talking about.
BTW, you made a grammatical error when you left off the apostrophe'.

 

QuickeningSpirit said:

You are a talebearer!

"Talebearer" is an extreme fundamentalist code-word for "someone who told an inconvenient truth." I accept the compliment

 

There is so much that has been said that I am not sure what to say. I do however agree with Quickening Spirit. I do love Preacher Kidd and I am glad that my children have had the chance to hear him preach. This man has given his life to preaching and winning people to God. I was one of those that he won to The Lord. I know he didn't save me but he preached so plain the night that I was saved I saw my lost condition. I am so thankful for Bro. Kidd and as I look at the thread I can see there are so many people out there that hate him for standing for the truth and preaching things that others will not preach. I have said before go to his website www.drphilkidd.com and get his tape on his life story and then you will see why this man hates sin so much. If more men stood like he did I think we would see more revivals sweeping across our land instead of all the other junk.
I also will say that it doesn't offend me when preachers are hard and straight because sence I was saved I have always been under that kind and I love it.

 

Do you always look at scripture in the obverse? You obviously don't know what you're talking about.At best, you are exemplified by Peter warming himself by the devil's fire, talebearer.

 

Your ignorance doth paint you into a corner. The fact that you thought it was "Atkinson's" shows your igornance and sarcasm. Your attempt to correct a grammatical error where there is none, well, that simply shows your ignorance.

It's Atkins. No apostophe: www.atkins.com

 

Sir, I will be plain and candid in my word choice but I do not want to be like you in your invectives. You have obviously missed something in my posts. My posts were not as much defending Phil Kidd’s supposed behavior as indicting those who rant and rave against him. BTW, no one has yet substantiated the accusations against Kidd; they have only repeated the allegations in a self-justifying circle. On the other hand, I have repeatedly quoted Scripture explicitly condemning this behavior.

It is highly ironic that Phil Kidd’s critics demonstrate in themselves the very traits for which they castigate him—opinionated, rude, crude, angry, biased, outspoken, critical, judgmental, highhanded, arrogant, offensive, distasteful, vicious, hateful, vindictive, ferocious, brutal, fierce, unpleasant, uncouth, ill-tempered, bad-mannered, discourteous, boorish, etc.

Read and heed:
Matthew 7:1-5 Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.

Luke 6:37 Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven:

John 7:24 Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment.

1Corinthians 4:3 But with me it is a very small thing that I should be judged of you, or of man's judgment: yea, I judge not mine own self.

Proverbs 26:4 Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him. Therefore, I will not respond further to your angry inanities. To use the words of Shakespeare, your posts are “full of sound and fury, signifying nothing (William Shakespeare, MacBeth, act 5, scene 5)”

 

Your ignorance doth paint you into a corner. The fact that you thought it was "Atkinson's" shows your igornance and sarcasm. Your attempt to correct a grammatical error where there is none, well, that simply shows your ignorance.

It's Atkins. No apostophe: www.atkins.com </font>[/QUOTE]My dear John V, didst not thy mother teach thee that to publicly embarrass another by pointing out a slight, insignificant mistake is bad-manners? For, it doth not speak well of thee and thy manners. A good, genteel Southern upbringing would have saved thee from such a gross blunder of comportment and breeding. Take ye heed to this mild rebuke that ye may not so err again and bring embarrassment and reproach upon thyself.

 

Methinks thou hast suckled wisdom from they mothers teat, and hence shall I from they good graces take heed.

 

Your ignorance doth paint you into a corner. The fact that you thought it was "Atkinson's" shows your igornance and sarcasm. Your attempt to correct a grammatical error where there is none, well, that simply shows your ignorance.

It's Atkins. No apostophe: www.atkins.com </font>[/QUOTE]Oh! You're so right! It is the Atkins Diet, but isn't that the title? The apostrophe' indicates ownership/authorship, many leave off the apostrophe' in more modern times, but I wasn't stating the title, but the person's work.

I may show my ignorance, and that quite well, but at least you don't mind to boast yours.

Touche'

(Emphasis on the apostrphe')

 

Your ignorance doth paint you into a corner. The fact that you thought it was "Atkinson's" shows your igornance and sarcasm. Your attempt to correct a grammatical error where there is none, well, that simply shows your ignorance.

It's Atkins. No apostophe: www.atkins.com </font>[/QUOTE]Oh! You're so right! It is the Atkins Diet, but isn't that the title? The apostrophe' indicates ownership/authorship, many leave off the apostrophe' in more modern times, but I wasn't stating the title, but the person's work.

I may show my ignorance, and that quite well, but at least you don't mind to boast yours.

Touche'

(Emphasis on the apostrophe')

 

Thou entreatest thyself with such valour; thou makest thy boast amiss. Thy regard of thyself faileth the truth for any such an observing eye.

Too bad there's a stye in thine!

 

As I quietly contemplate on the advice of paidagogos

 

QuickeningSpirit asked:

Do you always look at scripture in the obverse?

No, but I take many of its interpreters with a grain of salt.

 

paidagogos said:

You have obviously missed something in my posts.

No, I was not answering your "posts," but one question you asked me.

BTW, no one has yet substantiated the accusations against Kidd; they have only repeated the allegations in a self-justifying circle.

It is a "self-justifying circle" only if I repeat hearsay, as opposed to what I have personally observed - as I said - on Kidd's Web site and in the sermons available off the Net. The conclusions I draw, I draw from Kidd himself - not from his detractors.

Perhaps it is you who has missed something in my posts.