Dear RS; ... For one I do have several e-mail accounts and I get quite a bit of stuff in them. Much of the stuff is real junk of the basest sort you couldMessage 1 of 31 , Jul 3, 2003View SourceDear RS;
On Thu, 3 Jul 2003 10:48:46 -0400 (EDT) randssmith@... writes:
> Jozinky,For one I do have several e-mail accounts and I get quite a bit of
> A few days ago i sent you a specific swrb.com link dealing with the
> issues on your mind.
> Your reply was a request that i not send you "any more of this
> Are you inquiring to learn?
> Did i send the right link?
"stuff" in them. Much of the "stuff" is real junk of the basest sort you
could imagine. I usually delete without even giving them a second look.
I am not interested in clicking on some unknown link only to have a pound
and a half of some woman's putrid flesh staring me in the moxie. The one
you sent contained no salutation; no signature; no nuttin.. except a web
link. Additionally you sent it off list so I had no idea it was from
someone on one of the many lists I am subbed to. Ergo I delete and
request not to receive any more. Maybe if you would have at least said
who you were or what the link was about I might have considered it. But
now my question to you is... why did you send it off list but now call my
attention to it on the list? That certainly makes no sense. And yes I am
asking questions because I do want to learn what others believe about the
Bible and Christianity. I often get a "go to this link if you want to
find out" response and I simply do not have the time to follow every link
that folks want me to read. I see nothing inadequate with a simple
question and answer format. If a person cannot explain his position
without sending the enquirer all over the internet for answers then why
have 'discussion' lists at all. Don't get me wrong; web pages do have
their place but I do not believe they should take the place of a
question answer format.
So... lest I wax long-winded, if you send me anything else could you at
least tell me what it is and who you are? Otherwise I will probably just
delete it and ask not to receive any more "stuff". Thanks.
The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!
Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today!
By the way, I am a US citizen, and do not believe I am bound to the US Constitution. Shawn, Only the federal government was originally bound by theMessage 31 of 31 , Jul 11, 2003View Source"By the way, I am a US citizen, and do not believe I am bound to the
Only the federal government was originally bound by the
Constitution. Today it is treated as if it also binds all state,
county, and munincipal governments as well. It still does not bind
individuals. Otherwise you'd be required to tolerate free speech and
the free excercise of religion in your own house! The Constitution
is not a covenant that binds individuals, but a foundational law that
binds the government.
--- In email@example.com,
christ_saves_sinners <no_reply@y...> wrote:
> --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, Thomas Rocheare
> <tertullianus_2000@y...> wrote:
> > Various honest covenanter questions:
> > 1) Can the SL&C contain error? If it can, who has the
> > authority to recognize that error, and revise the
> > covenant, releasing those bound by that covenant from
> > continued adherence to those aspects now recognized as
> > false?
> > 2) Can the President of the USA, and/or the Congress
> > of the USA, bind Americans today and their posterity
> > with a new covenant? If not, why not?
> I agreed with all "gwm" said, and would like to add, has not the US
> already bound its citizens and their posterity to a Covenant? We
> bound, according to the US magistrate, to uphold the USConstitution
> and Bill of Rights. In other words, they seem to think so. If youthe
> are a US citizen, do you believe you are bound to the US
> Constitution? If not, why not?
> By the way, I am a US citizen, and do not believe I am bound to the
> US Constitution. It is an unlawful Constitution, not recognizing
> Christ as King, nor the promotion and protection of His religion,
> and it underminds a better covenant, namely the SL&C. If the US
> decided to start all over, and so the "new" Constitution was
> contained a lesser degree of quality and quantity, people would
> think that to be absurd. So do I believe it absurd for the US to
> ignore their covenant obligations by writing something to a lesser
> degree of quality and quantity. This does not make me unbound to
> lawful perpetual promises my fathers recognized were required of
> them in the Scriptures.
> Thanks for the sincere questions,
> -Shawn Anderson
> Albany CRPC