|
| |
From Sept 9, 2001:
Thanks, Rick. I have been curious about how the
Meggie-Wieland debate went, as Meggie (typically) only
posted on the Holy_Wars listserver her own
self-serving side.
I'm sending this info on to Knight and Hengist.
I have a question. Do you know Meggie's real name,
like from her application to ID-L?
--Martin Lindstedt
=================================
From: rs@enetis.net
Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2001 09:58:54 -0600 (MDT)
To: Martin Lindstedt <mlindste@jscomm.net>
Subject: Weiland answers Meggie's attack on Paul
-----Original Message-----
From: "Ted R. Weiland" <eweiland@scottsbluff.net>
To: Meggie <brndnms@bellsouth.net>
Meggie wrote:
> At 06:19 PM 8/10/01 -0600, Ted R. Weiland wrote:
>> It has been less than 4 minutes since I sent this
to >> you. You could not have read, to say noting
about >> study, what I sent to you.
>
> Sorry, but I read it. I also read your preconceived
attitude
Meggie, just because I had position contrary to yours
on the passages in question before you sent your
letter to me in which you ASKED for my opinion (which
you obviously did not want), doesn't mean that my mind
was closed on the subject. I carefully read/studied
your comments to see if there was any new light that I
needed to consider. However, you provided nothing that
was scripturally valid, so why would I change my
mind about what the scriptures are so clear about?
> without my possibility of questioning you on this.
>
>
>> This only goes to demonstrate that you do not have
a open mind and that you were only looking for support
for what you already hold as true. <<
>
>
> What it demonstrates Pastor Ted is doesn't take 4
minutes to read how you have pooh poohed everything I
have said,<
I'm sorry I didn't stroke your ego! That's not what
I'm called to do! If anything in your reasoning was
scripturally valid, I would have told you so. But,
Meggie, there simply wasn't anything that you said
that met that criterion.
> I get no opportunity to question you on anything. >
You said it from the beginning:
>
> "Meggie, I won't debate with you on this issue
either. (I guess you already know where this headed.)
To do more than to answer your question(s), i.e., to
debate with you would be to give you a forum to
do what I believe would be scripturally incorrect."<
You have mis-stated what I said. You had better reread
the previous quote.
Nevertheless, I'm not going to open the door to
questions that are formed in such a way as to teach.
I've been around the block more than once, and I know
how women such as yourself can use a question to usurp
authority! Your next statement proves my point: "I can
counter you on everything." I'm sure you think you
can, but regardless, I'm not going to let you try! I
don't debate with women! You asked for my opinion and
you got it. Now, because you didn't get a pat on the
back for a job well done, you're crying sour milk!
>
> What would anyone that can think, know about that
statement? l read what you wrote and I can counter
you on everything. If you choose to believe what you
want about it, I don't mind. I really don't need your
support on this issue.<
Then why did you write me in the first place?
> I can defend myself very well. But when men of God
have already made up their minds without listening to
you, what good does it do?<
I didn't listen to you!?! Your only reason for saying
this is because you didn't get agreement from me. You
certainly are not God, unless you're trying to usurp
His authority as well, so be honest, you have no
idea whether I listened to you or not. I assure you, I
gave your thoughts more time and consideration than
you gave my rebuttal.
>> I guess I'm not surprised.
>
>
> How could you be, you already had your mind made up.
Like I said, I have man that will debate you on this
topic if you really think you have this down pat.<
Meggie, I will not debate this issue with you any
further so don't bother to fire back another reply. If
your friend wants to try to convince me otherwise, I
will be pleased to recieve his comments. However, I do
not promise to give this any more time than I already
have, unless your friend can convince me that I am
wrong.
Ted
===================
This female, Meggie, routinely pesters all
Christian Identity churches, especially the
One-Seedliners perceived as weak on masculine
dominion, concerning Paul's laying down of policy
concerning the silence of women in the congregation
and the spiritual chain-of-command in I Corinthians
14:34-35. Even Wieland recognized Meggie's kind --
"I've been around the block more than once, and I know
how women such as yourself can use a question to usurp
authority!" -- and simply told Meggie firmly, that the
'discussion' was at an end. Perhaps I should have done
the same as opposed to try to unmask Meggie and her
fellow pickles, because my reward for fighting with
the baal-priest whiggers, mamzers and pickles was to
be expelled from my local Internet access for six
months.
http://users.mo-net.com/mlindste/ml100901.html
This particular female has been working the CI
congregations for years, and has been expelled as soon
as her works are made manifest. Presently she is a
regular with the rest of the mamzers, baal-priests,
and ZOGlings on Biblical_Israel, but is now running a
few listservers at the behest of some obviously
pussy-whupped skinheads and Babtist Hobbyists on
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ChristianSeparatist/
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/armyofisrael/
Not that such matters, such characters should have
their own private ghettos of their own until such time
as they get better, grow up, or simply succumb to the
influences of the satanic element they allowed to lead
them. The curse of YHWH for believing lies from the
Father of lies is to let their minds grow altogether
corrupted by their choice of beliefs and companions.
Meggie is notorious for her behavior and lies, so that
those who choose to call evil good are rightfully
damned for their stupidity.
--Martin Lindstedt
A Defender of the Faith
Sept 10, 2002
| |
|
