Pastor

Jackson, TN

#129 Jun 27, 2011
FreeThinker82 wrote:
Charl,
I'm not here to bash you, there is a difference between your dogma and you and the refutation of your dogma does not equate to an insult upon you.
Consider the following. When asked about something you and I both agree is a myth, like Unicorns, you would be of the same mind as me. You would snicker at the person who challenged you to "prove there are no unicorns" and think that person intellectually dishonest and absurdly illogical if they claimed your inability to disprove their Unicorns existence justified their belief by default and that therefore you must respect their belief in Unicorns.
You might leave them to their silly belief until you found out that they were telling people that belief in their Unicorn granted forgiveness for all crimes ever committed; that lack of belief in their Unicorn meant there was no basis for morality; that not believing in their Unicorn damned them to suffer an eternity of punishment after they died.
If you heard them preaching such an immoral and stupid idea you would feel compelled to speak "harshly" with them, wouldn't you?
I post here because faith is a vice masquerading as a virtue, it is nothing but gullibility toward something which is asserted without evidence but with the promise of reward in the afterlife if accepted and infinite grotesque torture if refused.
Now, what else do you want to say about your Unicorn?
Hey free thinker, been reading some of your posts and I'm interested in how you arrived at your point of view. May I offer a rebuttal to your unicorn argument? I think we're comparing apples to oranges, as few people believe in unicorns, in fact I know of no one who does. Most people do believe in God. You may assume that is environmental conditioning. Theologians attribute it to the general revelation. Would like to hear your opinion on that. Also, want to add this:if I, and other Christians, are wrong,and mislead people, the worst they can blame us for is providing some false hope in life. However,if you are wrong and you mislead someone, the consequences are considerably more grave! Agree?
quit hiding the salaries

United States

#130 Jun 27, 2011
Request.....You can request all you want but I GURANTEE you will never see the salary figures unless you are one of a very select group of members.

To get on here and even attempt to think a typical 2, 3, 5, 7, or 10 year church member could request this salary information and receive it is FALSE and misleading. Be honest, how many requests do you know that were granted to see the salaries.

Why the need to request? Almost all legit charties eagerly publish this information.
Englewood deacon wrote:
<quoted text>
I am a former finance committee chairman and I want to clarify a few things. First of all Ben Mandrell is not earning 200k per year and he is not even the highest paid pastor in Jackson. Secondly, the decision not to publicize salaries was made before Ben was pastor. The decision was made by the finance committee who was a very diverse group of EBC members from various careers and socioeconomic backgrounds. If a member of EBC wants to know a staff person's salary then they can privately go to the committee and make their request. I feel very confident they would receive the info requested. Why does it even matter what they earn? These guys have graduate degrees and spend 50 to 70 hours per week in ministry and are on call 24/7. There are much more important things such as leading people to Christ.
Just The Facts Please

Jackson, TN

#131 Jun 27, 2011
Well, well that is not what he said to a group of parents over the last two weeks in a class he is leading. You need to check your facts.
Englewood deacon wrote:
<quoted text>
I have walked closely with Ben the last 4 years and I assure you that you have no idea what you are talking about. I have watched him personally minister to people outside of Sundays. His family lives in Illinois and when they visit they normally attend EBC. I suggest you get your facts straight before posting on a public forum.
Fiscal Responsibility

Jackson, TN

#132 Jun 27, 2011
Ben can choose to release his salary information tomorrow if he wants to, unless of course he might be embarassed about his compensation. If it is no big deal and you know, then how much is it?

Please tell us the thought process why EBC chooses not to release a full detailed budget and one that would include salaries?

It matters what they earn and how it is spent because EBC has a dismal record of money actually making it outside the church walls. The church in published reports gives 10% or less to missions. That means upwards of 90% stay in house. Any charity would be run out of business if 10 cents on the dollar made it outside the walls. Industry standard is more like 80-90% going towards the cause. Heck your pastor just admitted they overspent renovations by a whopping 40%.

EBC recently borrowed money to give 100K to missions for crying out loud. Do not give me the budget surplus spin whenthey borrowed money in the same month they give it away.

Bottom line EBC is 5 million in debt and has paid of virtually no overall debt reduction since Ben became pastor, again published reports. The church leadership and finance members should be ashamed. Your no different than the federal govt in that you are spending more than you take in.
Englewood deacon wrote:
<quoted text>
I am a former finance committee chairman and I want to clarify a few things. First of all Ben Mandrell is not earning 200k per year and he is not even the highest paid pastor in Jackson. Secondly, the decision not to publicize salaries was made before Ben was pastor. The decision was made by the finance committee who was a very diverse group of EBC members from various careers and socioeconomic backgrounds. If a member of EBC wants to know a staff person's salary then they can privately go to the committee and make their request. I feel very confident they would receive the info requested. Why does it even matter what they earn? These guys have graduate degrees and spend 50 to 70 hours per week in ministry and are on call 24/7. There are much more important things such as leading people to Christ.
BIG money CORRUPTS

Jackson, TN

#133 Jun 27, 2011
I thought the guys were "called" into the ministry. Your right, why does it matter what they earn. So cease hiding the information if it does not matter.

My fav is comparing hours worked and education. Again, I thought they were called into the ministry. If you want big salaries, stay secular. Not a fan of comparing churches to corporations, etc. Also, I doubt many at EBC work 50-70 hours a week more than a few weeks a year.
Englewood deacon wrote:
<quoted text>
Why does it even matter what they earn? These guys have graduate degrees and spend 50 to 70 hours per week in ministry and are on call 24/7. There are much more important things such as leading people to Christ.
Kenneth Vets

Bolivar, TN

#134 Jun 27, 2011
I do not attend EBC so i cannot comment on whether that church produces spiritual fruit.my own opinion is that larger churches tend to bring larger problems,and hence,produce less fruit. churches like west jackson,fellowship,EBC,etc. but thats just my opinion.

I do not understand why churches do not publish salaries for the entire staff.i also believe it is a shame for any preacher to make 6 figures.these people should be denying themselves daily,as Christ commands us.they should be examples for others,and the biggest way for them to show this is for them to live extremely modest lifestyles.i dont care how many hours a week they work.it doesnt send a good message.

Deacon,I am sure that EBC is a great church,and i hope that that Lord is working actively in your church.I am a Christian,and i definitely dont want to see EBC fail,like maybe some others do. but,I hope that you can understand my feelings and the feelings of others here.
Affluent Lifestyle

United States

#135 Jun 28, 2011
Let me assure you, no way can you live in Wyndchase, drive luxury suv and minivan, preparing to send 4 kids to private school and take several vacations a year all on ONE salary and it be less than six figures.
Kenneth Vets wrote:
I do not attend EBC so i cannot comment on whether that church produces spiritual fruit.my own opinion is that larger churches tend to bring larger problems,and hence,produce less fruit. churches like west jackson,fellowship,EBC,etc. but thats just my opinion.
I do not understand why churches do not publish salaries for the entire staff.i also believe it is a shame for any preacher to make 6 figures.these people should be denying themselves daily,as Christ commands us.they should be examples for others,and the biggest way for them to show this is for them to live extremely modest lifestyles.i dont care how many hours a week they work.it doesnt send a good message.
Deacon,I am sure that EBC is a great church,and i hope that that Lord is working actively in your church.I am a Christian,and i definitely dont want to see EBC fail,like maybe some others do. but,I hope that you can understand my feelings and the feelings of others here.
Kenneth Vets

Bolivar, TN

#136 Jun 28, 2011
since EBC is not my church,and he is not my pastor,my opinion is just that,my own opinion,and i am not trying to influence EBC members.but,if i found out that my pastor was living an affluent lifestyle (which is subjective),then i would probably have a problem with it.i want to know exactly where the church sending the money that i am giving 2 the Lord.just my opinion,but a 45k a year salary seems fair 2 me-plenty of people in this area do just fine with that.the majority of money that any church sends should go 2 missions.it is discouraging to me as a Christian,to see churches growing into mega churches.the pastor should know each and every member of their congregation personally,no associate pastors or whatever.none of us gives as much as we should back to the Lord (time,money,etc) but if the pastor isnt denying himself daily,how can he expect his flock to do the same?maybe some churches around here preach the "prosperity gospel" of joe osteen-God want you to have more,more,more.
again,im not picking on any single church around here,but we should all be closely examining our churches,leaders,and doctrines to make sure they fall in line with the message of Christ.
Lana Mom

Jackson, TN

#137 Jun 28, 2011
David Taylor & Billy Cantrell. Two of the most honest, humble ministers I have ever met. Not a ego bone in them.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#138 Jun 28, 2011
Pastor wrote:
I think we're comparing apples to oranges, as few people believe in unicorns, in fact I know of no one who does. Most people do believe in God.
Comparing belief in God to belief in Unicorns in my example is not an apple to oranges comparison because the same attributes were assigned to both. God and the hypothetical Unicorn were invisible, intangible, and existed in a spirit realm undetectable by humans. The distinction you draw, that of the number of believers being greater for one than the other, commits the fallacy of Argumentum ad populum; (appeal to belief, appeal to the majority, appeal to the people): where a proposition is claimed to be true or good solely because many people believe it to be so. The majority of humans once thought the world to be flat, this did make it so. The majority of the world once thought the earth to be the center of the cosmos; this did not make it so. The fact that large number of people think that Jesus was real and actually did the acts he is claimed to have performed does not make it so. Today a large population of people think that Allah is the one true God and Jesus was nothing but a prophet, are they right too?
Pastor wrote:
You may assume that is environmental conditioning. Theologians attribute it to the general revelation. Would like to hear your opinion on that.
If people developed a belief in gods because of general revelation why then are there so many gods? Assuming the three monotheisms to be the only religious options and belief in gods is driven by revelation why do we not see an even three way divide among the faiths? Environmental conditioning is a far better explanation and borne out by the regional distribution of the world’s religions. Now if you are talking about belief in the supernatural in general as a result of general revelation then I would still disagree. General revelation is just another word for the human propensity to fill in the gaps of our knowledge with whatever explanation best appeals to our desires. We are inclined as thinking beings to be uncomfortable with not knowing something because throughout our development as a species not knowing about our surroundings could get us killed.
Pastor wrote:
if I, and other Christians, are wrong,and mislead people, the worst they can blame us for is providing some false hope in life. However,if you are wrong and you mislead someone, the consequences are considerably more grave! Agree?
This argument is called Pascal's Wager and suffers from a fundamental flaw, the fallacy of a false dichotomy. You are giving only two options, that of non-belief and that of Christian belief. These are obviously not the only two choices. It could be that Jesus was a fraud and Judaism was the correct answer in which case the Christians and Muslims will not receive a reward. It could be that the Mohammad was correct and the Jews and Christians will burn forever for refusing the words of the prophet. It may be that God does not exist and, instead, some other being rules the universe. That being may dislike intensely and may inflict infinite punishment on anyone who believes in God or who believes anything out of self-interest. But a person who comes to believe in God on the basis of Pascal’s Wager would in that case be in "a heap of trouble," even though God does not exist. The expected utility of the theist's belief situation would be infinitely worse than that of the non-theist.
Let’s assume I did take you up on your offer and also assume that Christianity was the correct answer. Would God be pleased that I only professed belief because I thought I might win a bet?
Before anyone can begin arguing over what occurs in the afterlife their needs to be evidence that an afterlife is even possible. As it stands, there is absolutely no evidence that the human mind continues on once our biological brains cease to function.
Kenneth Vets

Bolivar, TN

#139 Jun 28, 2011
so freethinker82 - just because there is no evidence of something,does that disprove its existence?do you have children or family?do you love them?you cannot prove it,so does that mean that it isnt so?
for someone who is looking for intangible,empircal evidence that Jesus is the Son of God-well,that person is probably going to be disappointed,just as i would be disappointed if i asked someone for proof that my family loves me.science provides no better answers than faith.
freethinker82-you appear to me to be someone who is very intelligent and who puts alot of thought forward-but i ask you to open your heart.
Pastor

Jackson, TN

#140 Jun 28, 2011
Free thinker, you should call yourself deep thinker! Your response was brilliant. I would like to pose an argument that might expose some things on which we agree. The church is corrupt. In fact, the whole point of the bible is that an incorruptible God wants relationship with corruptible man, and arranged redemption to make that possible. Jesus told us, however, that his church would be corrupted. The Matthew 13 parables explain the history of the church, prophetically. He told us that false teachers, prophets, and believers would infiltrate it and corrupt it from the inside. He said the church would become a global conglomerate, and human corruption would work its way through the entire structure. I think we can agree he was right! If he were perpetrating a massive earthly hoax, it's hard to believe he would prophesy such a depressing earthly outcome. Anyway, I submit that human corruption is universal (thus the need for divine intervention) and not limited to the church or religion. Corruption is found in government, education, business, sports, entertainment, and yes, science. Atheists tell me they trust science because it can be tested and proven, but Christianity cannot. That is a faulty premise. I am not a scientist. I have never unearthed fossils or ancient artifacts; never sent space probes to other planets; never split the atom, extracted DNA, or identified the cause of any disease. It would take a lifetime of learning to gain even an elementary understanding of the various fields of scientific study. I am almost completely dependent on scientists to conduct and explain science to me. That gives the scientist far more power over me than the theologian, and I think we both agree that power tends to corrupt. I can read my bible, study its original languages, use historical documents to gain context, and pray for wisdom to interpret. Theologians are sometimes wrong, and within reason, I can often prove it. To assume that science is worthy of greater faith, you must first assume that scientists are immune to the corruption found everywhere else. You must assume their religious views,atheist, Christian, or otherwise, never filter their interpretation of data; that they do not give in to peer pressure, are not motivated by money, recognition, or career advancement; that the corporations, universities, and think-tanks funding the research never expect the outcome of said research to benefit their agenda;that scientists only care about giving their best to humanity, forsaking personal agendas and ambitions simply to find the truth, for the good of mankind. In other words, you must assume, if you put all your faith in science, that scientists are the only people on earth living an authentic, biblical Christianity as directed by Christ. I do believe in an incorruptible God, but don't believe in an incorruptible church or science.
Pastor

Jackson, TN

#141 Jun 28, 2011
As to general revelation, Christianity was birthed out of Judaism. It is the next logical step in God's plan of revelation. Islam is closer to Christianity than most, but denies the redeeming purpose of Christ, so it is at odds with Christianity, and biblical Judaism. Interesting, isn't it, that the three major religions all stem from the same man, Abraham? There is a common root. The major difference is, Christians believe God's dispensation of promise to Abraham has been fulfilled in Jesus. Jews believe it will be fulfilled, but rejected Jesus as being from God. Muslims believe Christians and Jews are both wrong and another savior will come from Allah. The bible also prophesied all of this, that Jews would reject, and muslims would always be antagonistic towards Jews. There are no surprises here.
to: deacon

Jackson, TN

#142 Jun 28, 2011
What happened to you, could you not answer the questions? Or maybe you realized the church is not correct in not allowing the salary of the pastor be seen? I believe some of both maybe!

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#143 Jun 28, 2011
Kenneth Vets wrote:
so freethinker82 - just because there is no evidence of something,does that disprove its existence?
NO, the mere absence of something does not disprove its existence but this question is intended to shift the burden of proof. It is not incumbent upon anyone to disprove unsupported claim. The burden of proof lies squarely upon the shoulders of the party making the claim. For example, can you prove that a pink teapot is not orbiting the moon as we speak? Does your inability to disprove my hypothesis of a orbiting pink teapot justify me to assert that claim as a fact? NO. You are asserting God existence as fact but, like the teapot, my inability to disprove your God does not justify you asserting it as fact without evidence to support your claim. You exempt yourself by explaining that belief in God is contingent upon your faith, or the act of accepting something without evidence and in the absence of reason. Your argument for God is but wishful thinking, the formation of beliefs and making decisions according to what might be pleasing to imagine instead of by appealing to evidence, rationality or reality.
Kenneth Vets wrote:
do you have children or family?do you love them?you cannot prove it,so does that mean that it isnt so?
The old "you cannot prove emotions" argument. Love is an word to describe certain observable actions between humans. These actions are typically selfless in nature and serve to support the well being of another or induce pleasure & happiness in another person absent any guarantee of reciprocity. When these acts are observed being directed from one to another we describe the giver as having love for the receiver. The proof for the "love" of my parents is presented by the fact that they fed and clothed me from childhood, ensured I received an education, and instilled discipline and a good moral compass. The proof that my wife and I "love" each other is in the selfless acts we perform for each other, the giving and receiving of sexual pleasures, and the mutual understanding that we will only do these things with each other. Simply saying I love someone is not proof, but the evidence of "love" can be observed.
Kenneth Vets wrote:
for someone who is looking for intangible,empircal evidence that Jesus is the Son of God-well,that person is probably going to be disappointed,just as i would be disappointed if i asked someone for proof that my family loves me.science provides no better answers than faith.
freethinker82-you appear to me to be someone who is very intelligent and who puts alot of thought forward-but i ask you to open your heart.
Seeing as how I demonstrated your incorrectness about proving "love" I guess the above conclusion void. A person looking for evidence of God will only be disappointed if they actually thought such a being's existence would be a positive thing. I do not particularly like the idea of an eternal, unalterable, judge jury and executioner, against whom there could be, no appeal; and who wasn't finished with you, even when you died. I am relieved that there is absolutely no evidence for such a being. Science can and has provided far better answers than faith but the problem is that those answers are not to your liking.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#144 Jun 28, 2011
Pastor wrote:
As to general revelation, Christianity was birthed out of Judaism. It is the next logical step in God's plan of revelation.
According to who's logic? The Jews who invented God certainly did not find it very logical. What is logical is that you, a confessing Christian, are so quick to assume the position of Gods new favorite people. In Judaism, the idea of God as a duality or trinity is heretical — it's even considered by some polytheistic. According to Judaic beliefs, the Torah rules out a trinitarian God in Deuteronomy (6:4): "Hear Israel, the Lord is our God, the Lord is one."
Pastor wrote:
Islam is closer to Christianity than most, but denies the redeeming purpose of Christ, so it is at odds with Christianity, and biblical Judaism.
It is close because it is a plagiarism of Judaism and Christianity just as Christianity is a plagiarism of Judaism. Islam is rooted in the worship of Arabian tribal gods.
Pastor wrote:
Interesting, isn't it, that the three major religions all stem from the same man, Abraham?
Not really, Judaism succeeded where it did because it was the religion of a ruthless desert war god. Christianity would have died out with the other pagan religions if it had not been for the Roman Emperor Constantine using the new religion to consolidate power. Christianity would not have spread across Europe if it were not forced upon conquered people by force. The same can be said of Islam as it converted many of its early adherents by the sword as well. If one "interesting" thing links all three monotheisms together it is the fact in ancient times you were likely to be killed if you refused to accept them on faith. Lest we forget when your religion had real power and could force its views and dogma on the powerless. Thank goodness for the enlightenment and men like Jefferson who helped create a government where there would forever be a wall of separation between church and state.
Pastor wrote:
The bible also prophesied all of this, that Jews would reject, and muslims would always be antagonistic towards Jews. There are no surprises here.
When making claims of prophesy please cite your sources.
Kenneth Vets

Bolivar, TN

#145 Jun 28, 2011
thinker-you say there is no proof of Gods existence-but I see proof of his existence everywhere I look.the order of the universe,the existence of human life,etc-are we really all to believe that this perfect harmonization came to fruition as a result of pure chance?that would require an even bigger act of faith than believing in a higher power-there are so many things that science cannot explain,and things that are constantly changing-string theory being one of them.

respectably,your "proof of love" has flaws as well.you say that the proof of love from your parents comes from them clothing you,giving you an education,instilling discipline,etc-but these could just as easily have been perpetrated by people with purely selfish motives,to achieve a selfish end.can you prove that your parents did what they did out of love,and not out of purely selfish motives?there may not be any evidence of this notion,but as you say,lack of evidence doesnt lead to proof of anything.i dont see how you have proven or demonstrated anything that contradicts what i have said.

it sounds like you dont believe in God because you dont like the notion of what God stands for-and you are relieved that there is no evidence (by your own words) of His existence.respectfully,this notion is a bit silly-not believing something because you dont want it to be true.i have a friend who recently died of ALS-for a long time after his diagnosis,he desperately wanted to believe that he didn't have ALS;in fact,he managed to convince himself,for a while,that the evidence wasn't there-he even got additional doctor opinions which pointed away from ALS;however,it didnt change the fact that he had ALS.you can convince yourself that God doesnt exist,but that wont actually change whether or not He does or doesnt exist.
Kenneth Vets

Bolivar, TN

#146 Jun 28, 2011
The Jews rejecting Jesus Christ was prophesied by Isaiah in 53:3:
He was despised and rejected by mankind,
a man of suffering, and familiar with pain.
Like one from whom people hide their faces
he was despised, and we held him in low esteem.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#147 Jun 28, 2011
Pastor wrote:
In fact, the whole point of the bible is that an incorruptible God wants relationship with corruptible man, and arranged redemption to make that possible.
Now you're making a fallacious appeal to authority. What reason is there to assume that the authors of the books in your bible actually received what they wrote from God? What reason is there to assume that what your Bible says matters if you have yet to provide good reason to assume such a being is possible?
Pastor wrote:
Jesus told us, however, that his church would be corrupted.
Yet more appeals to authority. I'm not concerned with what Jesus is claimed to have said. The earliest books of the gospels were written 20 years after he is suppose to have been executed. The likelihood that what Jesus is claimed to have said is what he actually said, if he made any pronouncements at all, is questionable.
Pastor wrote:
Atheists tell me they trust science because it can be tested and proven, but Christianity cannot. That is a faulty premise. I am not a scientist. I have never unearthed fossils or ancient artifacts; never sent space probes to other planets; never split the atom, extracted DNA, or identified the cause of any disease. It would take a lifetime of learning to gain even an elementary understanding of the various fields of scientific study. I am almost completely dependent on scientists to conduct and explain science to me. That gives the scientist far more power over me than the theologian, and I think we both agree that power tends to corrupt.
So you would rather assume that all Scientist are involved in a massive conspiracy to make up lies with which to use to show the Bible to be false?[FACEPALM] Science has the benefit of peer review and nothing is science is "set in stone". Scientific conclusions only stand until a better explanation is found or the conclusion is overthrown by new contradictory evidence. So what if you cannot test every scientific finding yourself, all that matters is that in principle you could. This is in stark contrast to the dogma of religion. Nothing in religion is subject to peer review, it is the word of God and that is that. Nothing in religion can be empirically tested. Religion is the conspiracy that refuses to be debunked by placing the origin of the conspiracy outside the reach of study and demanding blind acceptance. There is no scientific conspiracy to fool you and scientist could give a damn if you believe in their findings, what matters is what the evidence shows. If the evidence reveals that the Planck length is equal to 1.616252(81)×10&#8722;35 meters your belief is irrelevant. Scientist have no power over you, they are not demanding you accept it on faith, you are welcome to investigate the evidence and if you disagree you will not be condemned to some science hell. The difference between science and theology is night and day and I'm sad to see you trying to blur them together.
Pastor wrote:
I can read my bible, study its original languages, use historical documents to gain context, and pray for wisdom to interpret.
So doing all that gives you some magical understanding about how Jesus brought people back from death? Does doing that allow you to explain how exactly demons are driven out of a man and into pigs? Talking to thin air give you all that "knowledge"? Prayer never cured any illness, science did. Study of the Bible did help develop methods for organ transplants, science did. Prayer doesn't save lives, it's a way to do nothing but feel like you are.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#148 Jun 28, 2011
Pastor wrote:
To assume that science is worthy of greater faith, you must first assume that scientists are immune to the corruption found everywhere else. You must assume their religious views,atheist, Christian, or otherwise, never filter their interpretation of data; that they do not give in to peer pressure, are not motivated by money, recognition, or career advancement; that the corporations, universities, and think-tanks funding the research never expect the outcome of said research to benefit their agenda;that scientists only care about giving their best to humanity, forsaking personal agendas and ambitions simply to find the truth, for the good of mankind. In other words, you must assume, if you put all your faith in science, that scientists are the only people on earth living an authentic, biblical Christianity as directed by Christ. I do believe in an incorruptible God, but don't believe in an incorruptible church or science.
Again with the conspiracy theories, man come on already. Science is opposed to faith, it is based upon evidence and peer review, this is opposite of what religion deals in; dogma. I don't put any faith in science because if I choose I can study the methods and results for myself. Christianity is directed by what Paul of Tarsus said when he founded the church off the legend of a man executed 20 years prior. God cannot be incorruptible because he isn't real. Science can only be corrupt until the false claims are shown to be false by other scientist. It doesn't matter what anyone scientist, university, or think-thank says, it is what they can demonstrate. I wish I didn't have to explain all these very important differences to you because repeating them to every new religious person I meet is tiresome.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Jackson Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
hey Arizona... 1 hr Calzona 18
Montoya and Angela 2 hr angela 6
Review: Briley John Michael DNP 2 hr What 123
Ruffin named West Tennessee Healthcare Educator... 2 hr Political Vomit 4
School Board Should Resign 3 hr Chamber of Commer... 8
Ruffin in VIP magazine 3 hr Fact 42
Jackson trick or treat night (Oct '11) 3 hr Duh 9
worst restaurant in madison co 6 hr Hungry Hillbilly 77
Dr Jeff young 7 hr seekinganswers 79
35 years in prison pleases cop dad (Jul '07) 15 hr Woda 140
RUDE Englewood Staff 16 hr Auntie Theist 152

Freeze Watch for Madison County was issued at October 30 at 11:32PM CDT

Jackson Dating
Find my Match

Jackson People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Jackson News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Jackson

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]