Brother Stafford

*Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Brother Stafford last won the day on February 12

Brother Stafford had the most liked content!


About Brother Stafford

  • Rank
    Antiquary with Luddite-like tendencies
  • Birthday 07/25/1973

Contact Methods

  • Website URL

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location:
  • Interests
    Antique restoration, woodworking, word working, collecting antiquarian christian books, hiking, gardening
  • Are you IFB?

Recent Profile Visitors

819 profile views
  1. If someone,of average intelligence, who had never heard of the Bible or of the God within it, nor had they ever heard of the concept of evolution, were to pick up the KJV and begin to read it in Genesis, there would be no reason for them to interpret the creation account in any other way than literally. People only read Genesis allegorically in order to attempt to harmonize it with worldly theories. I really don't think there's any other way of understanding people who do so. They are blinded by their learned preconceived notions of their worldview and are willfully ignorant of the truth. When you hold up an apple and they insist you are holding a shoe, no amount of human reasoning will be able to reach them.
  2. So, you deliberately ignore the entire rest of my points and imply that the sole reason we suspected her was because she had colored hair. What I was attempting to show is that there were several reasons that justified asking further questions. We were neither unkind, nor disrespectful. If you are asserting that we treated her unkind, disrespectfully or less than human, please provide quotes that show examples of this. I previously sent her the following message to which I received no reply: "Hello, Ms. Charity. If your request for someone to interview is genuine, please accept my apology for how we responded to your request. We get a great deal of spam and new members with malicious intent, so we can be a bit suspicious at times. If you are still interested in interviewing someone for your paper, I would be willing to do so, but I would prefer to do it via private messages here on OnlineBaptist. let me know if I can help." This is yet another reason that I suspected her further. If someone comes into a forum and asks to be contacted for further contact through personal emails, then ignores people when they contact them, if they are legitimate, that makes no sense. It is like waking into a restaurant, asking to be shown to a seat, asking for a menu, and then ignoring the wait staff when they attempt to take your order and then just sitting there silently. We did not treat her unkindly or disrespectfully. We were cautious and asked for more information before we gave out our personal information to a stranger.
  3. Welcome, brother Stanley. The forum can get little glitches, from time to time, and not all areas are open for everyone. As brother Alan suggested, contact BroMatt. He can help sort things out for you. Whatever the reason, I can assure you it has not been intentional. We love getting to know members here.
  4. Jim Alaska made a fair suggestion. Why not move it to another thread A bit melodramatic, don't you think? We neither asked for a life story nor did we treat her as something less than human. You might have the opinion that we questioned her unfairly, but painting us like you just did is pretty unfair to us. Personally, I don't believe we were unfair. A young girl asks for people to participate in something that would entail giving her our email personal addresses (suspicious sign #1). She has pink hair and is dressed like an elephant in one photo and in the other photo, she is posing affectionately with another girl with blue hair (suspicious sign #2). She claims she is writing a college paper that involves Baptists and that there are none to ask anywhere near her (suspicious sign #3). When politely asked for more information, she does not reply (suspicious sign #4). There are a few scenarios that I can think of. One is that she was genuine, felt intimidated by our questioning and has decided not to return. Another is that she wanted to interview Baptists in order to twist their words in a mocking way to get a good grade in a college English class. Yet another is that she was attempting to acquire personal email addresses for the purpose of spam or something similar. Seeing that the third scenario happens constantly on the internet; especially in forums like this, I don't think anything was handled inappropriately. Just my opinion.
  5. In my experience, when confronted with the fact that they worship Mary and consider her as an addition to the trinity, most Catholics deny it. They honor, worship and deify her in their hearts, but they seem to know, intuitively, that it is foolish to openly admit it to non Catholics. If the "co-redemptrix" thing actually officially goes through, it will be interesting to hear how Catholics will be able to justify it. I'm guessing that they will be doing a lot of "If we go back to the Greek..." and will be attempting to re-define the words, savior, salvation, mediator etc. Perhaps they will say that another little girl came back from playing in the woods and said that she saw Mary and that Mary herself told her to tell the world about her co-redemptrix status. "It's been 2000 years, my child, and the heavenly patriarchy has finally wised up. It's time the earthly patriarchy finally recognize my authority in the open. No longer do the women of the world need to pretend to bow themselves down to male authority. The glass ceiling of Heaven has finally been broken. P.S. Hillary 2020."
  6. I think enough harumph has been voiced and adequate umbrage has been taken and all appropriate feathers have been ruffled and displayed. Can we agree to disagree on the subject, as brothers and move on before things heat up?
  7. To be fair, it would roll "most" of us in to one barrel. I think that if an unsaved and searching person has found this site and has found their way to this post, that kind of person probably has enough sense to not abandon all inquiry based upon a lively discussion contained within one thread. The word of God, prayer, other sites, friends, family, books... I do not believe that this site is the last hope for anyone searching for truth and that if we happen to mis speak or debate about doctrine or opinion, that all is lost for the unsaved visitor. If they are dissuaded or discouraged by one, or even a few, threads on a discussion board, I would think that they are not very serious about their inquiry.
  8. Please tell me there is video footage of that somewhere. :)
  9. If I drive an automobile built by a German, it does not follow that I align myself with the National Socialist movement. However, if I start listening to songs that include nazi doctrines, start adopting clothing that look more and more like SS uniforms and start heiling friends instead of waving hello, even if I still rebuke the Nazi movement, that should be a red flag that I am being influenced. I may not even be aware of the influence it is having on me. Using a calendar and utilizing the names of months and days of the week, which have pagan origins, is different from adopting aspects of pagan beliefs or even celebrating the origins of the pagan days. (by the way, I do not celebrate Christmas, Christ's mass, December 25th or anything else connected to that worldly day). I don't think anyone is making the argument that something becomes tainted simply because an heretic uses or creates it. If a Catholic writes hymns that are doctrinally sound, then they have written a godly hymn. If a Catholic priest suddenly decides to start using the KJV, Baptists needn't forsake the KJV. However, if a Catholic writes doctrinally sound hymns, but also writes heretical hymns and endorses sodomites (just for example), then we should, indeed, separate ourselves from such an author. The reason for that is not that they can't write some good things, but that if people find value in the doctrinally sound writings, they may seek out more writings from that same author and discover the heretical writings and teachings can creep in. (1 Thessalonians 5:21-22) "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. {22} Abstain from all appearance of evil." I keep saying what I was taught when I was young, "When in doubt, do without."
  10. I also hope that there is not an IB denomination in the future. If there is some sort of "movement," I would hope that it is merely more Christians adopting adherence to Biblical standards and ways of managing independent individual churches. If I ever hear of an IB convention (akin to the SB convention), I will be torn between running the other way and wanting to slap them all with a dead fish. Perhaps the latter and then the former.
  11. Unfortunately, Mr. Boys' article seems to make claims but does not seem to provide sources for those claims. That is just lazy writing, since just a few moments of searching provided me with sources that seem to verify some of the claims made in his article. Breitbart article here Refugee Resettlement Watch post here However, I have yet to find any direct reference of Christians specifically agreeing not to share the Gospel and signing a contract not to do so under threat of arrest. That may be an embellishment of Mr. Boys. The sources say that, since the Christian organizations are engaging in financial agreements with the government, that it causes those organizations to cease being Christian charities and that they are now akin to government contractors of sorts; making the legendary "separation of church and state" go into effect. I skimmed most of the linked sources, so I may have missed some things, but, as far as Christians knowingly and specifically signing away their right to share the Gospel with refugees in exchange for hush money, I call horse hockey. However, don't confuse my disbelief in that aspect of the story as disbelief in the evidence that they are being paid for assisting refugees. That claim seems legit and deplorable.
  12. However, it could be argued that, if this is the case, does it not render the word, "most" completely meaningless in cases where one has not examined more than half of every instance of that which is in question? One can never say, "most people want to live," or "most people enjoy the taste of food." One would need to know how many people are living and have asked more than half of them if they want to live or if they enjoy the taste of food. It would be a safe wager, from our personal experiences and our knowledge of the nature of human beings, to assume that most people enjoy the taste of at least some foods and that most people have a desire to live, even though we have not personally interviewed tens of millions of people. With this in mind, and knowing the nature of fallen, sinful human beings, I would agree that most IFB churches (and every other type of church as well) probably do, indeed, engage in soft separatism, because all IFB churches (and all others) are filled with stubborn, willful sinners.
  13. To be fair, we cannot say anything either way about "most" IFB churches. If we take umbrage with someone claiming that most IFB churches are doing something, we must take the same umbrage when someone claims that most IFB churches do not. If we are going to hold fast to semantics, we have no way of knowing, one way or the other, what "most" IFB churches do or no not do, unless we visit or at least speak with all of those churches. So we can no more defend "most" IFB churches than can we accuse "most" of them either.
  14. That is quite precisely the point; they are specifically forbidden to preach the Gospel to the people they are being paid to help. So, to answer your questions, Yes, they need the Gospel like anyone else, but no, it would not be beneficial to the refugees since they would not be getting the Gospel. The "churches" that are being paid to house them and keep silent about the Gospel are whoring themselves to the U.S. government.