* ARE HOMOSEXUAL ACTS WRONG IF THEY'RE IN LOVE? *
Pastor Dave
Let me start this by saying that homosexuals and their
advocates try to claim that Christians spend their time
coming down on homosexuals, when there are many
other sins that we don't seem to spend that kind of
time on other sins.
This is a distraction, plain and simple!
1) This claim is not proof that homosexual acts
are not sin! In fact, the homosexuals aren't
even bright enough to figure out that it is
an admission by them that it is sin!
2) Those who commit other types of sins,
do not spend their time:
a) Claiming it isn't a sin on political platforms.
b) Having parades (Ever seen an "Adultery
Pride Parade?).
c) Seeking special protection under the law,
because of their sexual practices (Ever seen
an adulterer lobbying for special protection
for adulterers, or for it to be legally called
a "hate crime" is the spouse beats them up
and get more time for it?). Can you believe
that two men want special protection, because
one man sticks his penis up the other man's ass?!
That may sound crude, but tell me that that's not
what it boils down to! It is, so have the courage
to say it!
The fact is, they cannot respond directly to the issue
and so, seek to distract you from it!
As for what the Bible has to say about it, they will try to
make claims that the Bible doesn't speak against two
homosexuals who are in a "loving, monogamous relationship".
But where does God say in the Bible say that it's okay,
if they are "in love"? Where is that exception noted
in the Bible?
The fact is, that God condemns the acts that are committed
by homosexuals with each other. So are the homosexuals
claiming that when they are in love, that they won't have
homosexual sex?
You see folks, they have no defense. And you have to be
smart! You have to watch what they say in response! Why?
Because their response is never one that shows us where
God affirms homosexual acts between two homosexuals
claiming to be "in love" as "good". Rather, it is always
an attack and/or an argument from silence. So don't
be distracted by them! And remember, if they had any
real argument to make from the Scriptures, then they
wouldn't be seeking to distract you, hello? :)
And also remember that when they try to cite events
that took place in the Bible, that doesn't mean that
God approved of them, any more than He approves
of adultery, just because the Bible lists David as
committing adultery!
The truth is, that while the homosexuals try to play
word games with the Scriptures, that nowhere are
these acts approved of by God! Nowhere!
1) Marriage is stated in the Bible and it is always
between a man and a woman. A homosexual
in response, will attack marriage, saying that
so and so had more than one wife, etc.
a) Nowhere does God say to have more than
one wife (commit polygamy).
b) Ask the question; How does citing that some
men had more than one wife prove that God
is okay with homosexual sex?
c) This is one of those "distraction" attempts
I told you about, folks!
2) In every single place where the Bible mentions
homosexual sex, it is always condemned!
3) There is not one place in the Bible, in which God
states His approval of homosexual sex. NOT ONE!
4) It is up to the homosexual to show you where God
said that homosexual acts are okay with Him. That
does not mean that *claiming* that the ban only
dealt with male temple prostitutes is proof. Rather,
if God approved of "homosexual, monogamous
relationships", then surely it would be listed in
the Bible! Heterosexual marriage is many times!
What, did God just "forget" to mention such a
huge, majorly important issue?! Of course not!
So don't get involved with their word games, folks!
Just boil it down to this one question... "Where
in the Bible does God state His approval of a
homosexual relationship?". The silence will be
deafening! It always, always is, folks!
5) Any argument they make, will be one in which they:
a) Point at some act that someone did, as if that proves
that what they do is okay. Didn't Momma teach them
that two wrongs don't make a right?
b) Argue from silence. In other words, they claim that
since it doesn't specifically condemn it (even though
it does, but they play their word games), that it is
okay with God, or it is okay with Him, because God
didn't specifically mention two homosexuals "in love".
An argument from silence is no argument at all!
Should we argue that even though God said not
to murder, that it's okay to do it with a gun, because
God didn't specifically say, "Don't shoot anyone."?
c) A word game. They will claim that it means only
male temple prostitutes. If that is true, then why
doesn't God clearly state that marriage can be
between two members of the same sex? Why
did God specifically say that marriage is between
a man and a woman?
And even if we put aside the issue of homosexuals doing
these things, it would still be fornication! This is
something you don't hear them mention, folks!
You see folks, they're trying to make an exception for
homosexuals! Homosexuals are fornicating, period!
But they want to hypocritically confess that God said
specifically that fornication is a sin and yet, claim that
it is okay for two homosexuals who supposedly love
each other, to have sex. That is *hypocrisy*, period!
"So let homosexuals marry!", they'll say. "It doesn't
harm you!". Actually, it does. In many ways. But
that's another post and the fact is, that God specifically
stated that marriage is between a man and a woman
and this is about what the Bible says and not what
you can convince your Congressman to vote for,
so again, don't let them distract you, folks!
Here are the facts:
1) The only mention in the entire Bible of homosexual acts,
is God condemning them.
2) Marriage is specifically stated as being between a man
and a woman.
3) Nowhere in the Bible are homosexual acts spoken of
in a positive light! Not in one single place anywhere
in the Bible!
I used to argue each and every word argument with them
and win every time, because I know what I'm talking about
and I did the research and I know what the Bible says and
how to easily defeat their word games. And these people
are not bright at all! They just copy what they read on
some web page and pretend they're Biblical experts!
And I am telling you folks, it is a waste of time to argue
these word games! Haven't you noticed that they don't
much care anyway?! So you go ahead and let your ego
rule you if you wish and keep trying to argue those points.
Because that's all it is in the end (although maybe not at
first). Ego.
The reality is, that it is an easy Biblical victory and saves
a lot of time, if you just ask them to show you one single
passage in the Bible, in which God specifically and clearly
states His approval of homosexual relationships/acts.
Not examples that they will claim were homosexual
relationships, like David and Jonathan, even though
that also is easily proved not to be the case. But the
point is, that even if it were the case, nowhere in that
story do we read where God stamped His approval on it
and that is the point, folks! Ask them to show you where
GOD HIMSELF SAID THAT HE APPROVES OF IT, understand?
And you must remember folks, that real life is not usenet
and if you're in a setting in which the issue comes up,
you don't usually get an opportunity to stand there and
debate the issue for days and you won't have your PC
with you to look stuff up, should you need to.
And what is this about anyway? Is it about YOU and YOU
winning an argument? Or is it about God and standing
up for Him and showing other people quickly and efficiently,
before they walk away from boredom, that homosexual acts
clearly are not approved of by God and showing everyone
just how foolish the homosexual's (or homosexual advocate's)
argument is?
Put the burden on THE HOMOSEXUAL! You see folks,
if they want to claim that God approves of what they do
when the Bible clearly shouts out the condemnation of it,
then need to prove their case Biblically! And nothing will
make them realize how foolish the web pages they rely
on are, faster than this one request! :)
So for those who claim it's the Christians attacking the
homosexuals, that is a lie and you know it! It is the
homosexuals attacking God's word and trying to force
their way into Heaven and into the church, demanding
to be accepted as righteous before God and trying to
force churches to have to accept them by law! Already
people are suing churches for not making them ministers,
when they're admitted homosexuals, living in sin! This
is simply ridiculous and it needs to stop! And you will
never see it at any church I preach at, that's for sure!
No more than you'll see an active adulterer, liar or thief
preaching there!
And while people will try to claim that we're just being
condemning and "Jesus wouldn't do that", the fact is,
that Jesus blasted those who called themselves righteous
while perverting God's word!
"Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your
father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning,
and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in
him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own:
for he is a liar, and the father of it." - John 8:44
There are three different kinds of people, folks.
1) Those who are not saved.
To these people, we shouldn't be judgmental.
We were all there once, remember? Let's just
spread the word to them.
2) Those who are saved and try to serve the Lord.
These people may sin. But they recognize it as sin
and are sorry for it and even though sometimes it
may take some correction, they will repent.
3) Those who live in sin, or promote sin and yet,
call themselves Christians.
This type of person is, for example, the homosexual,
or homosexual advocate (insert any other sinful lifestyle
in here also) who claims that the sin is okay with God.
This type of person should be tossed out of the church
if they refuse to repent. This type of thing is heresy
and is not to be tolerated! And while their advocates
try to point the finger at us, don't let them intimidate
you, nor make you feel bad! Paul specifically noted
that people like this should be judged ("those within")
by the church and set out, unless they repent. We
cannot judge their eternal state, but we can say that
we will not have this in the church and tell them that
unless they repent and get saved, which they don't
appear to ever have actually done, since repentance
does not equal sticking up for sin, they are in trouble!
1 Corinthians 5:11-13
11) But now I have written unto you not to keep
company, if any man that is called a brother be
a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer,
or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one
no not to eat.
12) For what have I to do to judge them also that
are without? Do not ye judge them that are within?
13) But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore
put away from among yourselves that wicked person.
Those outside of the church God will judge.
Those within the church, we are to judge and put out
if necessary. This should not be our first goal, but it
must be done, if they will not repent.
Remember, to keep such within the church, is to:
1) Poison the church.
2) Appear to approve of such sins.
3) Make the entire church appear to be no different
than the world around it. After all, if the people
in the church are doing the same things as the
people outside the church, then how will the
church look any different to the people outside
of it? Why would they want to come to Christ,
when there would be no difference between
the church and the rest of the world? Then
they would just be signing up to be part of
"Club Hypocrisy"!
So again folks, don't let them try to turn the tables!
Don't be intimidated by these people who say these
things to you to make you fear, because they know
that the truth is that they're arguing that the works
of Satan should be accepted by you as righteousness!
As for us:
"For God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but
of power, and of love, and of a sound mind."
- 2 Timothy 1:7
And as for them:
"Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil;
that put darkness for light, and light for darkness;
that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!"
- Isaiah 5:20
--
Use the force, idiot!
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
Pastor Dave
Here are the facts:
1 Corinthians 5:11-13
1) Poison the church.
As for us:
And as for them:
--
Creation is the stage upon which God is revealed
His redemptive plan. We live out our part in the
history of redemption.
Elo
news:1vraa491mrf7d0p1p...@4ax.com...
....and here is one for the gay american bishop, gene wotsname!!!!
Romans ch16, v17, 18.
Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences
contrary to the doctrine ye have learned; and avoid them.
For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ but their own belly;
and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple.
BRUCE
Dude
Homosexuals are the new hate of the relgious right now that their past hates
of blacks and Asians are not acceptable. They now appeal to the predigous of
some to fire up against homosexuals
Aaron
<ananias917_@_gmail.com> wrote:
>
>Let me start this by saying that homosexuals and their
>advocates try to claim that Christians spend their time
>coming down on homosexuals, when there are many
>other sins that we don't seem to spend that kind of
>time on other sins.
>
Christians do spend an inordinate amount of time blasting
homosexuality, which only effects ten percent of humanity while at the
same time ignoring adultery which effects one hundred percent of
humanity.
That having been said, God said that homosexual sex is a sin. He gave
no conditions under which it is permissable. So, Yes, if two men
think that they love each other it is still a sin for them to have
sex.
Why do you feel a need to ask?
It is a sin to eat pork or shellfish or reptile or rat, and many more
Christians do that. Why not go for topics that would help more
people.
***SNIP***
That was way to long.
Aaron
wrote:
>
>"Pastor Dave" <ananias917_@_gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:peo8a4h3i8uulb5e7...@4ax.com...
>>
>***SNIP***
>
>Dude
>
>Homosexuals are the new hate of the relgious right now that their past hates
>of blacks and Asians are not acceptable. They now appeal to the predigous of
>some to fire up against homosexuals
>
That is not accurate; homosexuals have been percecuted by Christianity
for centuries. Of course, then non-christians also strongly opposed
homosexuality. Aside from a relitively short time when Plato's insane
ideas festered in Greco-Roman culture, homosexuality has been hated by
most human cultures. Even many people who do not support percecuting
homosexuals are repulsed by the sight of two men kissing. many who
would never think of persecuting homosexuals know that it is
ridiculous for homosexuals to pretend to get married since marriage is
a religious institution and God forbids homosexual sex. Homosexuals
may be an easy target for hate mongers, but that does not mean that
homosexual sex is not wrong/evil. Homosexual sex is forbidden by God.
You really can't get around that just by pointing out the fact that
some christians don't seem to care about their own sins like adultery,
murder, idolatry, et cetera. I don't know if Dave was just hate
mongering. I honestly saw no reason to read his entire post when the
answer to the subject question is so simple: homosexual sex is always
an evil action.
Al Smith
All of human history indicates that homosexuality is not only a
perversion, but a perversion that has been almost universally
condemned. The tolerance of homosexuality in the modern West is a
very disturbing indicator of the quickening decline and decadence of
Western society.
-Al-
Linda Lee
> > On Sat, 16 Aug 2008 14:21:32 GMT, "BRUCE" <blimeyTE...@StruthNO.com>
Biology argues against homosexuality as well, as it serves no purpose
whereas heterosexuality perpetuates the species. I don't hate
homosexuals though, and physical attacks on them should be labeled
'hate crimes' with the attendant harsher penalties, and discrimination
against them in matters of work, health, housing, etc. should be
illegal - criminally and civilly.
I just saw on the TV news how a doctor (pediatrician) had just lost a
lawsuit brought against him because he refused to treat a child who
had two 'moms' i.e. two homosexual women who acted as the child's
parents. Maybe 60 days in the county jail would be more persuasive
than just a lawsuit initiated at the expense of the people he
victimized.
Al Smith
Yes, you're right, biology is against the perpetuation of
homosexuality. Strangely enough, it has not died out, but seems to
have remained relatively constant as a percentage of the population
(although people squabble as to just what that percentage may be).
It is a puzzle how what is obviously counterproductive in a real
sense would continue to be perpetuated. The answer may be that
something else -- something useful -- is tied to homosexuality, and
when we get that useful thing, whatever it may be, we are forced,
genetically, to take homosexuality along with it.
I'm against any malice towards any homosexual, purely on the basis
of his or her homosexuality. Not only physical abuse and violence,
but also verbal abuse and intimidation of any kind, are to be
deplored. It's not the way good people behave. It is not Christian.
It's not polite to give someone a hard time over their sexuality.
On the other hand, I see no reason why homosexuality should be
actively supported by governments, the media, schools, or any other
official or semi-official institution or group.
-Al-
Linda Lee
But I've known people whose homosexuality is obviously from their
hormones being out of whack, men with real high voices, etc., so
although it's unproductive biologically, it is a common condition.
They used to label it a psychiatric condition and decided it was not
caused by any mental disorder, but that it was caused by too many of
the other gender's hormones.
Qadosh Stephanos
I've worked with heterosexual colleagues with real high voices! ;-)
No doubt, Dave is a bit disappointed to discover King James was gay.
Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, etc... are a boys only member's club.
Paul told woman to shut up. Mohammed covered them. Buddha's obedience.
Put back those 10 commandments in the schools, especially the Sabbath!
Closed on the weekly Sabbath, sorry, come back on Sunday for Big Sale!
Linda Lee
wrote:
Hi Qadosh,
I wondered where you'd been.
That is true, high or low voices in men or women are not conclusive,
but I have seen gays who really seemed to be the opposite sex in many
ways.
>
> No doubt, Dave is a bit disappointed to discover King James was gay.
LOL.
>
> Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, etc... are a boys only member's club.
>
> Paul told woman to shut up.
> Mohammed covered them.
That is really bizarre. The next step would be to kill them all; but
then how would the species continue?
Al Smith
The tendency appears to be genetic, at least in many cases. You get
the tell-tale markers such as a lisp and effeminate hand gestures. I
know, because my nephew is a homosexual. When he was an infant, my
brother and I would watch him run across the floor and shake our
heads. He's flap his arms like a bird's wings. He always lisped. We
didn't say anything about it, but we were both silently hoping the
signs wouldn't amount to anything ... but they did.
On the other hand, a predisposition is not a compulsion. It is an
inclination. That gets lost sight of these days, when everyone is
expected to immediately give in to their whims and impulses at the
drop of a hat, no matter what they may be. In many cases, the
predisposition to homosexuality is not all that strong, and it can
be resisted. And should be, where possible, since no good ever comes
of it.
-Al-
Linda Lee
LOL. I never heard of pretend-flying as a sign of homosexuality. And
speaking as a female, I sure don't run that way. I did jump off of
things a lot as a baby though... Guess I should have flapped my arms.
Qadosh Stephanos
Been pretend-flying for wife and children to show I'm totally gay. ;-)
>That is true, high or low voices in men or women are not conclusive,
>but I have seen gays who really seemed to be the opposite sex in many
>ways.
I waa thinking about attending Paul's Apostle Church to learn about
God. After all, Paul was an Apostle, right? I mean Paul is my hero.
I read all of his books. This guy Paul is so right on. Tomorrow, I'm
going to get a hair cut like Paul had, and I'm going to tell woman to
shut up and clean the house. I'm feeling good about Paul, he knew how
to control women. ;-)
>> No doubt, Dave is a bit disappointed to discover King James was gay.
>
>LOL.
>
>>
>> Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, etc... are a boys only member's club.
>>
>> Paul told woman to shut up.
>
>> Mohammed covered them.
>
>That is really bizarre. The next step would be to kill them all; but
>then how would the species continue?
They're gonna be cloned in animal farm, without any presence of God.
Barry OGrady
>On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 13:44:51 -0400, Pastor Dave
><ananias917_@_gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>Let me start this by saying that homosexuals and their
>>advocates try to claim that Christians spend their time
>>coming down on homosexuals, when there are many
>>other sins that we don't seem to spend that kind of
>>time on other sins.
>>
>
>
>Christians do spend an inordinate amount of time blasting
>homosexuality, which only effects ten percent of humanity while at the
>same time ignoring adultery which effects one hundred percent of
>humanity.
Those figures are wildly inaccurate.
Homosexuality effects 0% of people. Adultery effects some people but
much less than 100%. Do you really believe no children are born to
married couples?
>That having been said, God said that homosexual sex is a sin. He gave
>no conditions under which it is permissable. So, Yes, if two men
>think that they love each other it is still a sin for them to have
>sex.
That is true. How many homosexuals have you killed as God commands?
>Why do you feel a need to ask?
Its a bit of a puzzle. God created humans in such a way that a certain
percentage would be homosexual then acts offended when they behave
according to the way he made them.
>It is a sin to eat pork or shellfish or reptile or rat, and many more
>Christians do that. Why not go for topics that would help more
>people.
God specified death for homosexuals, and people who pick up sticks
on Sunday.
>***SNIP***
>
>That was way to long.
Your to was one letter too short.
Barry
=====
Home page
http://members.iinet.net.au/~barry.og
Al Smith
> percentage would be homosexual then acts offended when they behave
> according to the way he made them.
Homicidal maniacs might make the same argument. It won't work for
them, and it doesn't work for homosexuals, either.
-Al-
Grabbitz
it doesnt matter how people have sex. if there even was a god, he wouldnt
care either.
the thing is alot of humans are shallow minded, and think that sex rules
everything. There is a hell of alot more out there in this beautiful
universe than sex, trust me.
So anyone to judge another simply by how they have sex is an idiot, and
deserves to be controlled by their relgion.
Barry OGrady
I'm not saying it an excuse to act on our God given desires. After all, we
are called on to be better than God made us, but it is still a puzzle.
>-Al-
lynx
> On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 14:16:43 GMT, Al Smith <inv...@address.com> wrote:
>
>
>>> Its a bit of a puzzle. God created humans in such a way that a certain
>>> percentage would be homosexual then acts offended when they behave
>>> according to the way he made them.
>>>
>> Homicidal maniacs might make the same argument. It won't work for
>> them, and it doesn't work for homosexuals, either.
>>
>
> I'm not saying it an excuse to act on our God given desires. After all, we
> are called on to be better than God made us, but it is still a puzzle.
>
homosexuals. For those of us who are of the view that man is purely a
biological machine, the current end product of billions of years of
evolution, and the product of a production process that begins in the
womb, then there's no problem at all. Gender abnormality is simply the
result of malfunction during the 'construction' process. A defective
article if you like.
But the 'puzzle' applies equally to heterosexuals. We are made with
sexual desires, but told not to indulge unless married. I guess God
wanted to teach us self control, and to what it feels like to be
constantly tempted and frustrated sexually. Or perhaps He just wanted to
give us lots of practice practice at wanking.
lynx
> and when we get that useful thing, whatever it may be, we are forced,
> genetically, to take homosexuality along with it.
>
> I'm against any malice towards any homosexual, purely on the basis of
> his or her homosexuality. Not only physical abuse and violence, but
> also verbal abuse and intimidation of any kind, are to be deplored.
> It's not the way good people behave. It is not Christian. It's not
> polite to give someone a hard time over their sexuality.
>
> On the other hand, I see no reason why homosexuality should be
> actively supported by governments, the media, schools, or any other
> official or semi-official institution or group.
liberation.
>
> -Al-
lynx
lynx
Al Smith
No, the religious laws regarding fidelity in marriage and no sex
before marriage result from the dangers of venereal disease, and
also probably from the disadvantage facing a child born out of
wedlock. Society protects itself, or at least tries to do so. Incest
is taboo for the much the same reasons -- it is genetically harmful
in the long run, and it tends to destroy the family structure.
-Al-
Al Smith
>
> It's very PC to do so at present, and we're living in the age of gay liberation.
Indeed we are. I wouldn't call it an "age" however -- more of a
hiccup in history.
-Al-
Al Smith
>
> I wonder if many homosexuals would agree with that.
What, that the impulse to have homosexual sex varies from one
homosexual to another? Why should it be of the same intensity for
everyone? That doesn't make sense. People are different. Some may be
unable to control their urges, but most can. In others, the urge may
not be all that strong to begin with.
-Al-
Barry OGrady
>Barry OGrady wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 14:16:43 GMT, Al Smith <inv...@address.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>> Its a bit of a puzzle. God created humans in such a way that a certain
>>>> percentage would be homosexual then acts offended when they behave
>>>> according to the way he made them.
>>>>
>>> Homicidal maniacs might make the same argument. It won't work for
>>> them, and it doesn't work for homosexuals, either.
>>>
>>
>> I'm not saying it an excuse to act on our God given desires. After all, we
>> are called on to be better than God made us, but it is still a puzzle.
>>
>It's only puzzling for those who adopt the position that God created
>homosexuals.
I understand that.
>For those of us who are of the view that man is purely a
>biological machine, the current end product of billions of years of
>evolution, and the product of a production process that begins in the
>womb, then there's no problem at all. Gender abnormality is simply the
>result of malfunction during the 'construction' process. A defective
>article if you like.
>
>But the 'puzzle' applies equally to heterosexuals. We are made with
>sexual desires, but told not to indulge unless married. I guess God
>wanted to teach us self control, and to what it feels like to be
>constantly tempted and frustrated sexually. Or perhaps He just wanted to
>give us lots of practice practice at wanking.
Could be.
There was a program on TV recently about a child who lost his penis
during a foreskin removal, and a doctor who wanted to prove his theory
that gender identity was nurture rather than nature.
The doctor and parents treated him as though a girl with the result that
the child committed suicide.
That suggests to me that people who feel as though they are a woman
in a man's body are genuine.
>> Barry
Pastor Dave
The original poster shall go unnamed. But I thought
this would still be a good lesson for others to read.
This was a message from a person who said that
homosexual relationships are "okay, as long as
they're in love".
> I am simply saying that it is my belief that
> the Bible verses which refer to homosexuality do
> only (with the possible exception of Romans 1)
> refer to a specific sexual act, that of male to male
> penetrative (i.e. anal) intercourse.
Any verse about male to male intercourse,
refer specifically to male to male intercourse.
> They do not refer to the state of being attracted
> to someone of the same gender, or even to the
> state of loving (or being in love with) someone
> of the same gender, or indeed sharing lives or
> accommodation with that person. The only thing
> specifically being prohibited seems (IMO) to be
> anal intercourse. I have given my reasons for
> believing this, which as far as I am concerned
> have not been effectively disputed, as of yet.
Because you said so? The fact is, the reason doesn't matter.
God said "Don't do it". That should be good enough for you,
but apparently for you, it isn't. What you're arguing is like
saying that it's okay for a man and a woman to have
intercourse before marriage, "as long as they're in love",
because hey, after all, God didn't mention love in the verses
that prohibit fornication.
The fact is, that you're trying to make an exception for
homosexuals. A loophole, specially designed for them,
based on what you think should be considered "love".
And don't bother branching off into a discussion about why
it is love (according to you). That's the problem with you.
You keep trying to divert to other areas, to avoid the main
issue at hand.
The acts are called an abomination and it doesn't say...
"But it's okay with God if you love the man". So you
are basing your comments on your own desire to
exclude homosexuals from being in sin, even though
they are clearly committing what God called an
abomination.
Furthermore, you are making an argument from silence,
if you are saying that those people would be excluded
from these commands. You are basing your claim on,
"God did not say that if they love each other, it is sin".
The bottom line is, it says... "Don't do that!" It is an
abomination!" And nowhere did He exclude two
homosexuals who think they're in love!
It does not say, "Don't do that unless you love them.".
And if God wanted to make an exception, He would
have noted it! God is not as stupid as you make Him
out to be and He knows how to express Himself.
The one thing that the homosexual advocates are never
(and have never been) able to do, is to show one positive
statement of homosexuality in the Bible by God! Not one!
Sure, they claim that David and Jonathan were homosexual
lovers, etc. and then interpret that as "God said it's okay"
and go from that false assumption! But where does GOD
say it was okay?!
I disagree with the statement that they were homosexual
lovers, but for the sake of argument, assuming they were,
the Bible listing something, does not automatically equate
to God's approval of it. The Fall is listed. How does that
mean that God approved of what Adam and Eve did?!
Yet that is the inevitable, bad conclusion that your line
of thinking must lead to, whether you want to admit it
or not!
You might say...
"Oh, but God specifically said that they shouldn't have
done that!"
Agreed! But so did He about these homosexual acts!
You might say...
"Oh, but God didn't mention a loving relationship there!"
I agree! But He also didn't say that what Adam and Eve did
would have been okay, as long as they really loved apples.
The bottom line is, that you need to understand that you
don't get to assume what God's motives are! Has it ever
occurred to you, that maybe what God is saying by leaving
out the reasons, is that the reasons don't matter?!
For example, killing is bad, but since the reason DID matter
to God, He made sure to NOTE the exceptions to the death
penalty, for taking another life.
But what you want to do, is take God words and judge
what His motives are. And in fact, in this issue, you
want to take what He did NOT say and attach motives
to THAT!
> You see, there are two things to consider.
>
> (1) Being honest and true about what the Bible
> *actually* says, and exposing dishonest or poor
> translations that lead to incorrect understandings
> and therefore conclusions, and
>
> (2) To always remember that when Prejudice walks
> in the front door, Honesty, Truthfulness, Fairness
> and Reason all make a quick exit out the back door.
>
> Now, the words 'homosexuality' and 'homosexual'
> can be ambiguous, and mean different things to
> different people.
Right now, _you_ are trying to be ambiguous.
It doesn't matter what it means to different people.
The bottom line is, the homosexual act is called an
abomination and no exceptions are noted. So it
doesn't matter how one gets to that point. The fact
is, that the act is wrong, period, end of story, thus
saith the Lord!
> That really only leaves Romans 1, which IMO needs
> to be understood contextually. It is clear from
> Romans 1 that the text is talking of people
> *turning from* what is natural (for them)
This is where you claim that as long as one is supposedly
born a homosexual, then it's okay for them to do it. That
argument doesn't fly.
1) It assumes that homosexuals are born that way.
2) It assumes that homosexual acts are okay with God,
as long as they are born that way.
Neither of these things are stated in Scripture and:
1) Don't bother trying to argue the "born that way"
argument. That is just another distraction and
it is irrelevant (see #2).
2) Nowhere does the Bible say that if homosexuals
are born that way, homosexual acts are okay.
3) Don't bother trying to claim, "they didn't know
back then", since the Bible is God's word and
therefore, you don't get to place it below your
opinions! Either you accept it as God's word,
or you make yourself the judge of what is right
in it and what is wrong in it, which would mean
that you should throw it out and that you would
be a hypocrite for trying to make arguments
from it about anything, since you don't believe
it is accurate anyway, if indeed you make this
type of argument that "they didn't know then".
>> Yes, you are.
>
> I am not. I am making a claim that is reasonable
> and legitimate.
In your own mind and you are so arrogant, that you
wish to claim that automatically means that it is!
And hey, no one should snap to a judgment about you,
but if you do it to them, it is reasonable and legitimate!
You are indeed a hypocrite! <chuckle>
> From my knowledge, I have no reason to believe
> that you are any more a Pastor than I am.
In other words, you place yourself on a pedestal and then
judge everyone else, thinking that your words must be
God speaking, since you obviously don't think you can
be wrong and demand that others don't do this to you!
And no, that is not open to discussion, nor your opinion.
You simply are that way!
You are indeed a hypocrite!
> Indeed, it is most likely (IMO) that a genuine Minister
> posting on here would NOT use any title, since to do
> so would be pretentious, and making an inferred claim
> to be more knowledgable or closer to God than other
> posters. A premise I cannot accept.
I don't really care what you accept and frankly, you seem
like nothing more than an arrogant ass to me. But hey,
I must be wrong for saying that, because only you get
to judge other people!
And where did I claim to be closer to God than others?
Oh, that's right, I didn't! But what do you care about
that, right?
The reality is, that since you know that you yourself
have nothing that can say qualifies you to speak at all
and since you know this and don't feel very confident
about your so called "knowledge", you try to make
sure that you make the greatest effort possible to
lower everyone else, not much caring what their
qualifications are, nor about the fact that you aren't
qualified to judge them, nor about the fact that you
spend your time insulting others, while hypocritically
claiming to all that dare to disagree with your self
promoted greatness are judging you!
Gee, I wonder if you speak like this in person to pastors?
Hey, when's the last time you went into a church and
pulled the pastor aside, after he said that homosexual
acts are a sin regardless and said all of these things
to him, huh? Better yet, since usenet is public, when's
the last time you railed against him with a full church?
<chuckle>
And just so you know, it is not pretentious to call oneself
what one is. Otherwise every single title in the world,
of any kind, should be abolished because hey, they are
pretentious! Frankly, you should consider yourself to
be pretentious, since you call yourself a human being!
You can claim whatever you want to about me,
but you just aren't too bright, son!
>>> Check the earliest and most reliable texts that
>>> are available
>>
>> Okay, I'm honestly trying to think that I have
>> misunderstood you and that you are maybe
>> honest.
>
> Thank you. Most posters (even those who disagree with me)
> at least credit me with sincerity, even if I get confused or
> muddled at times (I'm only human).
After reading this latest response of yours, I do not
consider you to be honest, but I do consider you to
be very arrogant and presumptuous and hypocritical.
>> But your "earliest and most reliable" is a bunch
>> of crap! It is clear that you do not have a clue
>> as to what the texts are. But this is another
>> discussion and I'm not going to branch off
>> into three different directions.
>
> Unfortunately, I CANNOT accept what you said here
Don't much care what you accept. Only care what's true.
And the reality is, that I have debated many like you
and each time, it ends with their defeat and their
insults flying at me and their running away, only to
go find a victim that they think isn't as bright and
that they can fool! And I say "fool", because now
they know the truth and they know that their
argument doesn't hold water!
> since you IMMEDIATELY followed your statement
> (which I do not accept at all) with a refusal to even
> defend yourself. My conclusion? Your statement
> is wrong and you know it is.
Now you're just acting stupid!
1) Your look at it as somehow meaning that *I* must
defend *myself*, as if it is somehow just me,
instead of Scripture that we are discussing.
2) You assume that I am wrong, because of your great
proof, which consists of "I said so".
>>>> while hypocritically pointing out that someone
>>>> else jumped the gun about him?
>>>
>>>Who?
>>
>> You claimed I'm not a pastor, as if you had proved it
>> and hypocritically claimed that I'm judging you?!?
>
> If you are a Pastor, you're not a very good one.
Once again, you are acting the arrogant, judgmental ass!
But let's see what you have to go on thus far, to make
that kind of claim:
1) I didn't immediately agree with you and said you
are wrong.
Hmmm... ummm... Yup! That's all of the evidence!
And FYI, since you're obviously ignorant as to what makes
someone a pastor, I will inform you. After that, continued
argument on your part regarding this, only proves to us all,
that your only concern is you looking good and not truth!
Furthermore, my scenario has nothing to do with how
I personally became a pastor, which I wouldn't bother
discussing with you, since you don't really care about
anything except trying to bring me down personally
to make yourself look better anyway.
1) What is required to be a legitimate Christian pastor?
a) God's call to be one, after being born again.
b) The laying on of hands to be sent out to preach.
c) A belief that the Bible is the Holy, Inerrant Word
of the Living, Holy God and that Jesus Christ is
His Son, raised from the dead, sitting at the
right hand of God the Father, ruling forever!
THAT'S IT! There is no other BIBLICAL requirement given!
So anything you try to add, is you trying to add it, because
you don't like the truth of the situation!
2) What is not required to be a legitimate Christian pastor?
a) Your approval.
b) The approval of any particular church or denomination,
or person.
c) A degree. Seminaries/Universities do not make men
pastors. They merely hand out degrees for passing
enough courses to earn said degree. One may be
an atheist and graduate and be a "Doctor of Theology"
and is not a pastor, unless the steps above (#1)
are met.
d) A belief in any particular doctrine stated by people,
no matter how many people claim it is *THE*
Christian doctrine.
e) A piece of paper from any organization, church,
school, or person.
Now you can agree, or disagree with these requirements
(and non-requirements), but they are indeed *THE* truth!
>>>> The church does not determine what
>>>> Scripture teaches; Scripture determines
>>>> what the church teaches.
>>>
>>>The Church WROTE the New Testament books
>>
>> No, Apostles (and Luke) wrote what God
>> directed them to write. What came after
>> that, is measure by that.
>
> They were members of the Church.
You may call them what you wish. But the reality is,
no, they were not just "members". There was no church!
They in fact FOUNDED the churches. They *CREATED*
the churches (not to glide past the True Source, which
is the Lord Jesus Christ).
Another reality is that any writings after the Bible,
are not and should not be considered by anyone
claiming to be a Christian, to be inerrant. The ruler
by which we measure all doctrine, is Scripture and
not ourselves, nor the writings of anyone after the
Scriptures, period, end of story!
And no, it doesn't matter that the Catholics disagree,
nor if the Episcopalians (Catholic Lite) do either!
I'm not trying to knock them, but rather, just stating
the fact that majority opinion does not determine truth.
If it did, then we should all be Muslims! :)
> Like it or not (and you won't), Tradition is all we have,
> since the New Testament itself is written Tradition.
If tradition were all we have, then we wouldn't have
Scripture, so your statement is fallacious at first glance.
And that may be what you believe, but it is not true
and is easily disproved, if one knows their Scriptures,
instead of just "tradition"!
>>>as well as deciding which books to include therein.
>>
>> Those are the words of ignorance. I.e., a half studied man.
>
> Wrong again! Boy, don't you keep getting it wrong!
You are arrogance personified and leave no room
for anyone except your half studied self to be right!
Now here is the bottom line... While you claimed that
I was all wrong about you and what you were going
to claim about the homosexual issue, the fact is, I did
hit the nail right on the head and you do claim exactly
what I said you would! And yet, you chose to jump
all over me, claiming that I am judging you wrongly
and insulting me!
That makes you a liar and a hypocrite!
And furthermore, I will not even bother to try to have
a discussion with someone who shows such a complete
lack of respect for me, especially as a pastor!
You think you can judge everyone and you think that
when they are right about you and what you're saying,
that it means that you should attack them some more
and that that somehow equals you being honest!
You are acting the fool! And you are very disrespectful!
And as we both know, a pastor's job is also to correct,
so you're a hypocrite when you claim I shouldn't be
correcting you this way! You need a good spiritual
smack upside the head and as we both know hypocrite,
you would never speak to a pastor this way in person!
And that makes you a coward, who won't speak in person
and then gets full of "keyboard courage", thinking he's
impressed someone because of his harsh words toward
people of the cloth in usenet!
Your attitude is pathetic, as is your hypocrisy!
Now you do what you want here, but one more time
that you speak to me in such a manner, means you
meet my kill file, whether you like that or not and
I don't really care if you try to "brave up" and pretend
that you don't care! Without people to rail against
through the Internet (lacking the courage to do it
in person), you wouldn't know what to do with
yourself and you'd be upset that you had no one
else to blame for your lack of getting the whole world
to bow to you, as if you are the guru of all that is
Biblical! Puhlease!
You will speak to me with respect and you will stop
jumping to conclusions about me!
And no, that isn't a hypocritical statement, since I was
absolutely, 100% right about what I said you were
going to be claiming, son!
And another thing that you will stop doing, if you wish
to continue a discussion, is trying to diversify the topics
into a bunch of them, causing the messages to entail
a bunch of different subjects and then, if I did respond
to each one, you won't respond to my response and
when I point that out, you'll complain that my response
was way too long, which was your doing, with your
long winded list of claims!
So cut the crap, Timothy! Stick with one specific subject
at a time and discuss it, responding point by point,
instead of trying to attack me and come up with a bunch
of other things, which are nothing more than distractions!
And speak to me with respect, or go home, little man!
You have gone from one subject (homosexual acts),
to many!
1) Homosexual acts.
2) The Bible was edited to leave out things.
3) I am not a pastor.
4) The original texts of various versions.
And the list goes on!
And guess what, Timmy?
You have not bothered to go through even one of them
to its conclusion! And that's because you know you have
nothing but your standard spiel and you know that you
can't defend any real rebuttal and so you try to distract
people from that, by claiming that it is the other person
who "won't defend themselves" and you just keep
attacking them, while claiming that's what they're doing
to you! And of course, any one who doesn't think that
two men who supposedly "love each other" should ram
each other up the butt in bed, simply cannot be a pastor,
right Timmy boy?!?
Oh and yea, I know, that last "butt" statement was really
evil, huh?!? I mean, what kind of pastor could say that?!
Yea, it's much more Godly if a pastor says something like:
"Hey, it's okay with God if two men want to do each other
up the butt!
Yup! That's just so much more Biblical, isn't it Timmy?!?
The fact is, that it is your ass that you're thinking with
and not your mind, nor even your heart!
You know you can't prove what you claim Scripturally
and you knew immediately when I said what you were
going to claim, that I was 100% right and so, you
immediately started your attacks to distract people
from that fact!
Now you can get with the program and act intelligent,
or you can continue acting like an ass!
And yes, I would indeed say this right to your face!
And yes, I would indeed say this to you right in the church!
In fact, just a couple of weeks ago I had two people
standing in front of me, with others there and I called
them both liars, right to their faces!
You see Tim, unlike you, I'm not a hypocrite! I don't
just pretend to stand up for what I believe!
You see Tim, unlike you, I'm not a hypocrite! I don't
worry about whether the Gospel is palatable to people
like you! I just preach it and I'm not a coward, who
talks big sitting in front of a keyboard and cowers
in person!
God is God and right is right and what God says is right
and your imagination is wrong!
--
Pastor Dave
Is single parenting something that should be chosen?
While I don't doubt that a single parent can raise
a child, I don't think single parenting gives that
child an advantage.
Pastor Dave
You might say...
You might say...
<chuckle>
And guess what, Timmy?
--
Pastor Dave
If the professor on Gilligan's Island can make a radio
out of a coconut, why can't he fix a hole in a boat?
dolf
22/7 as 3W1D ... {Formula of Progression of individual phenomena}
the major premise {YANG/FATHER/HEAVEN/MALE/FORM - Formula of Universal
Law}, which contains the law of that will: 7 x 24 x 13 = 2184 days of
the 'oth cycle = 6D or 6 x 364 associated to the 'constant sequence of
sun and moon' as 354 x 3 + 30 day intercalation = 1092 days x 2 = 2184 days
the minor premise {YIN/MOTHER/EARTH/FEMALE/MATTER - Formula of
Humanity}, which contains the command to behave in accordance with the
law, that is, the principle of subsumption under the law: x 49 = 6J or
294 x 364 days or 365.2425 x 293 years - Vernal Equinox Wednesday 20
March 1996 / 21 March = 1 Nisan 5756; and
the conclusion {ZHUN/SON/SEA/ENUMERATE/OFFSPRING - Formula of Autonomy},
which contains the verdict (sentence), that is laid down as right in the
case at hand: ... 6,000 topical years as Telos ('achariyth as 122J3W1D)
= Arch (re'shiyth as 3W1D) + c² [9(9²+1)/2] has #369 with Septet #41
centric on 13-17 September 2001 / 18 September = 1 Tishri 5762.
By which God says: "And I will sanctify my great name, which was
profaned among the heathen, which ye have profaned in the midst of them;
and the heathen shall know that I am the LORD, saith the Lord GOD, when
I shall be sanctified in you before their eyes.
For I will take you from among the heathen, and gather you out of all
countries, and will bring you into your own land.
And I will put my spirit (evidently the same spirit involved with
creation [Genesis 1:1-4]) within you, and cause you to walk in my
statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them." [Ezekiel 36:23,
24, 27 (KJV)]
If this is central to the Hebrew taxonomy as stoicheion with its 22
elements as milesian ordinals series: #1 (#ALEPH) ... #400 (#TAU) and as
impetus for its final form letters, what then is the Latin tongue as
being consequential upon 23 elements concluding with ordinal #500?
BINARY APPARATUS WITHIN A TERNARY NUMBER PARADIGM
var _81 = {
$1: {0:1 /* 'Nature contains Nature' */, 1:4 /* 'Nature amended in its
Nature' */},
$2: {0:2 /* 'Nature rejoices in its Nature' */, 1:5 /* 'Act of Nature' */},
$4: {0:3 /* 'Nature surmounts Nature' */, 1:6 /* 'Form of Nature' */},
$8: {0:4 /* 'Nature amended in its Nature' */, 1:7 /* 'Engendering
Nature' */},
$16: {0:5 /* 'Act of Nature' */, 1:8 /* 'Transforming Nature' */},
$32: {0:6 /* 'Form of Nature' */, 1:9 /* 'Autonomous Nature' */},
$64: {0:7 /* 'Engendering Nature' */, 1:10 /* 'Totality of Nature' */}}
// {ie. Realm of its Nature as Heaven - Formula of Universal Law}
1:{0:0, 1:{0:_81.$16, 1:_81.$8, 2:_81.$2, 3:_81.$1} /* 27 */,
2:{0:_81.$32, 1:_81.$16, 2:_81.$4, 3:_81.$2}} /* 54 */,
REMEMBER THE SABBATH
// {ie. System's Cosmology as Earth - Formula of Humanity}
2:{0:0, 1:{0:_81.$8, 1:_81.$1} /* 9 */, 2:{0:_81.$16, 1:_81.$2} /* 18 */},
HONOUR PARENTS (MOTHER LETTER: #SHIN)
// {ie. Self identity - Formula of Autonomy}
3:{0:0, 1:{0:_81.$2,1:_81.$1} /* 3 */, 2:{0:_81.$4, 1:_81.$2} /* 6 */},
DO NOT MURDER
// {ie. Formula of Progression of individual phenomena (Wan Wu)}
4:{0:{0:_81.$1} /* 1 */, 1:{0:_81.$2} /* 2 */, 2:{0:_81.$4} /* 3 */},
AVOID HETERONOMY AGAINST AUTONOMY (INCOMMENSURATE DYNAMICS)
= Tetragrammation hierarchy value as NUMBER.
// {ie. Organisation of the myriad or number of things}
5:{0:0, 1:{0:_81.$64, 1:_81.$16, 2:_81.$1} /* 81 */, 2:{0:_81.$64,
1:_81.$32, 2:_81.$16, 3:_81.$1} /* #113 of 9(9²+1)/2 = #369 */}
DO NOT STEAL (DISCRIMINATING NORM: 72J + 3(3²+1)/2 = 457 BCE)
(#113)
--- Intensely glowing, sparkling; gem.
--- Emptiness.
--- Married.
--- To cut into, engrave, delineate; statute, law, custom.
--- They rutted.
--- A treading down, subduing.
--- n. "Comfort of Yah".
--- A refuge, shelter (figuratively a reference to God).
--- n. "A Band".
--- To draw back; to be driven back, removed.
--- Drunkards.
--- To check or control, to administer affairs.
--- Ruler or governor; nobleman.
--- Remission or forgiveness.
--- A ring, earring.
--- To be pressed or bowed down, to be sad.
DO NOT BEAR FALSE WITNESS (OBLIGATING NORM: MARRIAGE OATHS (MOTHER
LETTER: #MEM))
#4000 MOD 22 = 16 [#'AYIN / #70] = #0 CE as HETEROS autonomic
transformative prototype and symbolic associator to series #15, #34,
#65, #111, #175, #260, #369 ... #2000 Y2K
"It was not 'out-of-date metaphysics' to 'speak of human nature as 'man'
or woman', he said. It came from the 'language of creation, despising
which would mean self-destruction for humans'. Gender theories, he said,
led to man's 'auto-emancipation' from creation and Creator." [Pope
Benedict's media statements on 'Saving humanity from homosexual or
transsexual behaviour was as important as protecting the environment'
Courtesy BBC News 23 December 2008]
Randy ® (pulpi...@gmail.com): "He has to pretend that, because he's a
preterist. Meanwhile, 2,000 years after the first century, there's still
murder, sorrow, death, genocide, abominations, etc. It is a mockery to
claim all this is the fulfillment of God's kingdom on earth."
#6000 MOD 22 = 13 [#MEM / #40] = #2000 Y2K / Equinox of DATE(1996,3,20)
/ @ (21 March = 1 Nisan) + (5 * 364) + 182 days = Wednesday
DATE(2001,9,12) with Equinox of Saturday DATE(2001,9,23) commencing the
Sabbath year of 'oth cycle has #369 with Septet #41 centric on 13-17
September 2001 / @ 18 September = 1 Tishri 5762.
DO NOT COVET (MANIFESTING NORM: (MOTHER LETTER: #ALEPH))
11 Sept 2001 + 6D (#2184 = 7 x 24 x 13 [x 49 = 6J as Wed 20 March on
Equinox / 1 Nisan on 21 March 294 x 364 or 293 x 365.2425 of the topical
year)] 'OTH Cycle + #500 = 16 Jan 2009
And at the end of the Formless and the Void and the Darkness (that is at
the end of the exile) this saying shall have place: "For you have
forsaken the fear of the strong one, who was your saviour [Acts
7:52-53], you of the house of Jacob {that supplants, undermines; the
heel}, because your land is filled with idols as from the east, and
soothsayers like the Philistines {those who dwell in villages}, and they
go in the customs of the Gentiles.
The haughty looks of man shall be humbled and men's strength shall faint
[Isaiah 19:2-4; 16-17] and the LORD alone is strong in that time."
[Aramaic Targum of Isaiah 2:6,11]
And the Tetragrammation alone shall be exalted in that day (that is, in
the time of Messiah)." [Book of Concealed Mystery (c) 2000 The Ways of
Mysticism, p 22]
I've heard that the Anglican Church of Australia is considering
recommending overturning the blasphemy laws--seems that they won't be
able to do so in relation to the accusation of hypocrisy and fascism
being raised against them and the former military service, Governor
General Michael Jeffrey and Prime Minister John Winston Howard with
respects to their impropriety, impiety over the August 2004 passage of
marriage laws and turning a blind to the continuing culture of injustice
towards racial, sexual and religious vilification which is Australian
Society.
These fascist Irish Catholic dogs need to show a greater respect for the
Commonwealth--the atheist ones are particularly feral mongrels who are a
disease in this country. Another month or so and I should have my
project sufficiently progressed to present a human rights complaint to
the Dutch consulate--by passing Australian justice altogether as immoral.
- dolf
- http://www.grapple.id.au/Chronicles/germination.html
dolf
REMEMBER THE SABBATH
DO NOT MURDER
dolf
REMEMBER THE SABBATH
DO NOT MURDER
dolf
grounds for the continuing denial of justice by these Americans with
respect to 11 September 2001 who are disrespectfully and habitually
disloyal to State.
If I'm respectfully compliant as a law abiding citizen, to the
principles of natural governance enumerated by the Letters Patent to the
Australian Commmonwealth--why then, am I being subject to abuse and
derangement by an unprincipled fascist dog Pastor Dave
<ananias917_@_gmail.com>
My concern is that I have provided a Word of God and natural theological
persoective, which you seem ignorant and intolerant of.
Re: * HOMOSEXUAL ACTS ARE WRONG; THUS SAITH THE LORD! *
From: Ananias917 (anani...@gmail.com)
Sent: Tuesday, 3 February 2009 11:49:20 PM
To: dolf (dolf...@hotmail.com)
dolf wrote:
>
> Isn't Cardinal George Pell Irish and on his way to hell?
My concern in determining what is right or wrong
is the word of God, not what some man says or does.
As for whether or not someone will go to Hell,
God will decide that. All we can say as Christians,
is that if someone does not repent and serve the
Lord, then they are certainly not bound for Heaven.
But who knows what any person will do before they die?
DOLF BOEK PROVIDED THIS WORD OF GOD CENTRIC AND NATURAL THEOLOGICAL
PERSPECTIVE
The Chinese DAOIST metaphysical philosophical / theological view of the
Tetragrammation view of Number being published in 2 BCE and during the
Han dynasty.
var TETRAGRAM = {
1:[0, 27, 54],
2:[0, 9, 18],
3:[0, 3, 6],
4:[1, 2, 3]
} // Chinese Daoist understanding of number as Yang, Yin, Zhun
I have a replica circular jewelry box from about 206 BCE (preceding the
Han Dynasty of 206 BCE-220 CE) which shows a dragon (Emperor/Male) and
phoenix (Consort/Female) and which conforms to the planetary
prohibitions (as a heritage to other peoples) given at Sinai
[Deuteronomy 4] and referenced in Paul's theology of [Romans 1]
If this is central to the cosmological view of the Hebrew taxonomy as
stoicheion with its 22 elements as milesian ordinals series: #1 (#ALEPH)
... #400 (#TAU) and as impetus for its final form letters, what then is
the Latin tongue as being consequential upon 23 elements concluding with
ordinal #500?
The Apostle Paul proffers only two theological choices
a "Jew who follows the Torah" is inclusive of the lunar and solar calendar:
The Everlasting Covenant's 'oth cycle as 6D or #2184 days, which
includes a lunar 3 x 354 + 30 = #1092 day analogy, is here shown as a
measurement associated with a certain harmonic to an event of 11
September 2001 + 6D (#2184) + #500 as (2684 days) = 16 Jan 2009 which
has an anology to the crucifixion of Jesus of Nazareth.
Or a "pious hymenealist cultist Gregorian calendar Gentile", which in
his day as the Julian calendar had a faulty intercalation of which he
would be aware:
7 x 24 x 13 = 2184 days (priestly service of the Jewish Temple) x 49 =
6J as 294 x 364 days or 293 x 365.2425 days
That the Catholic claim to Christian identity is made redundant and
ineffectual. And a muslim who follows a lunar calendar is therefore
antagonistic to the negation provided by Paul's theology.
But a Jew who follows the lunar calendar is able to be grafted in again
as per the natural and common law model:
22/7 as 3W1D ... {Formula of Progression of individual phenomena}
the major premise {YANG/FATHER/HEAVEN/MALE/FORM - Formula of Universal
Law}, which contains the law of that will: 7 x 24 x 13 = 2184 days of
the 'oth cycle = 6D or 6 x 364 associated to the 'constant sequence of
sun and moon' as 354 x 3 + 30 day intercalation = 1092 days x 2 = 2184 days
the minor premise {YIN/MOTHER/EARTH/FEMALE/MATTER - Formula of
Humanity}, which contains the command to behave in accordance with the
law, that is, the principle of subsumption under the law: x 49 = 6J or
294 x 364 days or 365.2425 x 293 years - Vernal Equinox Wednesday 20
March 1996 / 21 March = 1 Nisan 5756; and
the conclusion {ZHUN/SON/SEA/ENUMERATE/OFFSPRING - Formula of Autonomy},
which contains the verdict (sentence), that is laid down as right in the
case at hand: ... 6,000 topical years as Telos ('achariyth as 122J3W1D)
= Arch (re'shiyth as 3W1D) + c² [9(9²+1)/2] has #369 with Septet #41
centric on 13-17 September 2001 / 18 September = 1 Tishri 5762.
BINARY APPARATUS WITHIN A TERNARY NUMBER PARADIGM
REMEMBER THE SABBATH
DO NOT MURDER
marriage laws and turning a blind eye to the continuing culture of
injustice towards racial, sexual and religious vilification which is
Australian Society.
These fascist Irish Catholic dogs need to show a greater respect for the
Commonwealth--the atheist ones are particularly feral mongrels who are a
disease in this country. Another month or so and I should have my
project sufficiently progressed to present a human rights complaint to
the Dutch consulate--bypassing Australian justice altogether as immoral.
New South Wales Chief Justice Jim Spigelman, in an address to the Law
Society at Parliament House in Sydney on 2 February 2009, following
earlier attendance at Red Mass at Saint Mary's Catholic Cathedral (a
tradition originating in 1245 at Sainte Chapelle, Paris), predicted,
"There would be a renewed emphasis on the 'moral code that underpins the
traditional authority of our profession.' And warned that the courts and
the legal profession must improve their cost-efficiency, or be bypassed
by other methods of dispute resolution. 'That ethic of service, which
emphasises honesty, fidelity, diligence and professional self restraint,
will now resume its salience over the pursuit of commercial gain at the
core of legal practice.'
dolf
acts to describe the diabolical.
That the semantics of some incomprehensible idealism must be the only
grounds for the continuing denial of justice by these Americans with
respect to 11 September 2001 who are disrespectfully and habitually
disloyal to State.
If I'm respectfully compliant as a law abiding citizen, to the
principles of natural governance enumerated by the Letters Patent to the
Australian Commmonwealth--why then, am I being subject to abuse and
derangement by an unprincipled rabid fascist dog Pastor Dave
<ananias917_@_gmail.com>
My concern is that I have provided a Word of God and natural theological
perspective, which you seem ignorant and intolerant of.
Re: * HOMOSEXUAL ACTS ARE WRONG; THUS SAITH THE LORD! *
From: Ananias917 (anani...@gmail.com)
Sent: Tuesday, 3 February 2009 11:49:20 PM
To: dolf (dolf...@hotmail.com)
dolf wrote:
>
> Isn't Cardinal George Pell Irish and on his way to hell?
My concern in determining what is right or wrong
is the word of God, not what some man says or does.
As for whether or not someone will go to Hell,
God will decide that. All we can say as Christians,
is that if someone does not repent and serve the
Lord, then they are certainly not bound for Heaven.
But who knows what any person will do before they die?
DOLF BOEK PROVIDED THIS WORD OF GOD CENTRIC AND NATURAL THEOLOGICAL
PERSPECTIVE
If this is central to the cosmological view of the Hebrew taxonomy as
stoicheion with its 22 elements as milesian ordinals series: #1 (#ALEPH)
... #400 (#TAU) and as impetus for its final form letters, what then is
the Latin tongue as being consequential upon 23 elements concluding with
ordinal #500?
The Chinese DAOIST metaphysical philosophical / theological view of the
Tetragrammation view of Number being published in 2 BCE and during the
Han dynasty.
var TETRAGRAM = {
1:[0, 27, 54],
2:[0, 9, 18],
3:[0, 3, 6],
4:[1, 2, 3]
} // Chinese Daoist understanding of number as Yang, Yin, Zhun
I have a replica circular jewelry box which dates from about 206 BCE
(preceding the Han Dynasty of 206 BCE-220 CE) which shows a dragon
(Emperor/Male) and phoenix (Consort/Female) and which conforms to the
planetary prohibitions (as a heritage to other peoples) given at Sinai
[Deuteronomy 4] and referenced in Paul's theology of [Romans 1].
The Apostle Paul proffers only two theological choices
a "Jew who follows the Torah" is inclusive of the lunar and solar calendar:
The Everlasting Covenant's 'oth cycle as 6D or #2184 days, which
includes a lunar 3 x 354 + 30 = #1092 day analogy, is here shown as a
measurement associated with a certain harmonic to an event of 11
September 2001 + 6D (#2184) + #500 as (2684 days) = 16 Jan 2009 which
has a correspondence to the crucifixion of Jesus of Nazareth.
Or a "pious hymenealist cultist Gregorian calendar Gentile", which in
his day as the Julian calendar had a faulty intercalation of which he
would be aware:
7 x 24 x 13 = 2184 days (priestly service of the Jewish Temple) x 49 =
6J as 294 x 364 days or 293 x 365.2425 days
That the Catholic claim to Christian identity is made redundant and
ineffectual. And a muslim who follows a lunar calendar is therefore
antagonistic to the negation provided by the Judaeo-Christian Paul's
theology as Apostle to the Gentiles.
REMEMBER THE SABBATH
DO NOT MURDER
My concern, to use the analogy of Jesus' arrest, trial proroguing and
crucifixion, is that many indivduals who may well be Catholic--are
commenting on law and order and sexuality issues--without a proper
regard for the abhorrence with which the organisation (Roman Catholic)
are to be regarded in the political life of this country as Commonwealth.
.JackNote: Super: #41 - Playing with Reversal/ Sameness in Difference;
I-Ching: H26 - Restraining Force; Tetra: #60 - Accumulation, Ego: #51 -
Natural Guides and Natural Virtuosity/ Nursing Virtue; I-Ching: H47 -
Exhaustion; Tetra: #69 - Exhaustion, Nuance: #6 - Superiority of the
Female/ Completion of Form; I-Ching: H25 - Innocence; Tetra: #66 - Departure
.Understanding: Male Idea: #494 has 5 Categories: #4, #10, #80, #400 =
n. Gigantic; #8, #20, #30, #30, #6, #400 = A troubling, darkening; #40,
#30, #20, #4, #400 = A net or snare, a catch; #40, #40, #400, #10, #4 =
To be put to death; #3, #5, #1, #40, #5, #40, #400 = The curb (dominion)
of the mother-city;
Female Idea: #411 has 12 Categories: #1, #4, #6, #400 = Turnings or
surroundings; circumstances or causes; account; (#417); #1, #10, #400 =
Being, existence; possession; there is, there was; #1, #30, #10, #300,
#70 = n. God Saves, Elishah; #1, #200, #200, #10 = n. Mountaineer; #1,
#400, #10 = Thou; #1, #400, #10 = n. With Yah; #5, #6, #400 = To haste;
#9, #2, #400 = 10th Hebrew month (January new moon to February new
moon), wintermonth; n. Pleasantness; #40, #300, #6, #60, #5 = A spoiling
or plundering; #40, #300, #40, #1, #30 = On the left; #70, #40, #300, #1
= n. Load or Burden; #70, #300, #10, #1, #30 = n. Made of God;
And that they seem too ready to proffer an apology for the mother
city/state in an attempt to normalise what is repulsive and immoral.
I've heard that the Anglican Church of Australia, in dialogue with
athiests, are even considering recommending overturning the blasphemy
laws--seems that they won't be able to do so in relation to the
accusation of hypocrisy and fascism being raised against them and the
former military service, Governor General Michael Jeffrey and Prime
Minister John Winston Howard with respects to their impropriety, impiety
over the August 2004 passage of marriage laws and turning a blind eye to
the continuing culture of injustice towards racial, sexual and religious
vilification which is Australian Society.
These fascist Irish Catholic dogs need to show a greater respect for the
Commonwealth--the atheist ones are particularly feral mongrels who are a
disease in this country. Another month or so and I should have my
project sufficiently progressed to present a human rights complaint to
the Dutch consulate--bypassing Australian justice altogether as immoral.
New South Wales Chief Justice Jim Spigelman, in an address to the Law
Society at Parliament House in Sydney on 2 February 2009, following
earlier attendance at Red Mass at Saint Mary's Catholic Cathedral (a
tradition originating in 1245 at Sainte Chapelle, Paris), predicted,
"There would be a renewed emphasis on the 'moral code that underpins the
traditional authority of our profession.' And warned that the courts and
the legal profession must improve their cost-efficiency, or be bypassed
by other methods of dispute resolution. 'That ethic of service, which
emphasises honesty, fidelity, diligence and professional self restraint,
will now resume its salience over the pursuit of commercial gain at the
core of legal practice.'
Nous: #76
Time: 20:50 hrs
Date: 2009.02.02
Torah: #200 #5 #70 %81 = #32
Dao: Strength's Warning Signs/ Revealers of Virtue
Tetra: #64 - Sinking
I-Ching: H20 - Sinking
Latin: Ens {God who received sinners} Alt: Hariel {The Mountains of God} {
1. PROTECTS & CURES DISEASE
2. HEALTH & LONGEVITY
3. PATERNAL LOVE
4. Techout
}
Pastor Dave
Let me start this by saying that homosexuals and their
advocates try to claim that Christians spend their time
coming down on homosexuals, when there are many
other sins that we don't seem to spend that kind of
time on other sins.
This is a distraction, plain and simple!
1) This claim is not proof that homosexual acts
are not sin! In fact, the homosexuals aren't
even bright enough to figure out that it is
an admission by them that it is sin!
2) Those who commit other types of sins,
do not spend their time:
a) Claiming it isn't a sin on political platforms.
b) Having parades (Ever seen an "Adultery
Pride Parade?).
c) Seeking special protection under the law,
because of their sexual practices (Ever seen
an adulterer lobbying for special protection
for adulterers, or for it to be legally called
a "hate crime" is the spouse beats them up
and get more time for it?). Can you believe
that two men want special protection, because
one man sticks his penis up the other man's ass?!
That may sound crude, but tell me that that's not
what it boils down to! It is, so have the courage
to say it!
The fact is, they cannot respond directly to the issue
and so, seek to distract you from it!
As for what the Bible has to say about it, they will try to
make claims that the Bible doesn't speak against two
homosexuals who are in a "loving, monogamous relationship".
But where does God say in the Bible say that it's okay,
if they are "in love"? Where is that exception noted
in the Bible?
The fact is, that God condemns the acts that are committed
by homosexuals with each other. So are the homosexuals
claiming that when they are in love, that they won't have
homosexual sex?
You see folks, they have no defense. And you have to be
smart! You have to watch what they say in response! Why?
Because their response is never one that shows us where
God affirms homosexual acts between two homosexuals
claiming to be "in love" as "good". Rather, it is always
an attack and/or an argument from silence. So don't
be distracted by them! And remember, if they had any
real argument to make from the Scriptures, then they
wouldn't be seeking to distract you, hello? :)
And also remember that when they try to cite events
that took place in the Bible, that doesn't mean that
God approved of them, any more than He approves
of adultery, just because the Bible lists David as
committing adultery!
The truth is, that while the homosexuals try to play
word games with the Scriptures, that nowhere are
these acts approved of by God! Nowhere!
1) Marriage is stated in the Bible and it is always
between a man and a woman. A homosexual
in response, will attack marriage, saying that
so and so had more than one wife, etc.
a) Nowhere does God say to have more than
one wife (commit polygamy).
b) Ask the question; How does citing that some
men had more than one wife prove that God
is okay with homosexual sex?
c) This is one of those "distraction" attempts
I told you about, folks!
2) In every single place where the Bible mentions
homosexual sex, it is always condemned!
3) There is not one place in the Bible, in which God
states His approval of homosexual sex. NOT ONE!
4) It is up to the homosexual to show you where God
said that homosexual acts are okay with Him. That
does not mean that *claiming* that the ban only
dealt with male temple prostitutes is proof. Rather,
if God approved of "homosexual, monogamous
relationships", then surely it would be listed in
the Bible! Heterosexual marriage is many times!
What, did God just "forget" to mention such a
huge, majorly important issue?! Of course not!
So don't get involved with their word games, folks!
Just boil it down to this one question... "Where
in the Bible does God state His approval of a
homosexual relationship?". The silence will be
deafening! It always, always is, folks!
5) Any argument they make, will be one in which they:
a) Point at some act that someone did, as if that proves
that what they do is okay. Didn't Momma teach them
that two wrongs don't make a right?
b) Argue from silence. In other words, they claim that
since it doesn't specifically condemn it (even though
it does, but they play their word games), that it is
okay with God, or it is okay with Him, because God
didn't specifically mention two homosexuals "in love".
An argument from silence is no argument at all!
Should we argue that even though God said not
to murder, that it's okay to do it with a gun, because
God didn't specifically say, "Don't shoot anyone."?
c) A word game. They will claim that it means only
male temple prostitutes. If that is true, then why
doesn't God clearly state that marriage can be
between two members of the same sex? Why
did God specifically say that marriage is between
a man and a woman?
And even if we put aside the issue of homosexuals doing
these things, it would still be fornication! This is
something you don't hear them mention, folks!
You see folks, they're trying to make an exception for
homosexuals! Homosexuals are fornicating, period!
But they want to hypocritically confess that God said
specifically that fornication is a sin and yet, claim that
it is okay for two homosexuals who supposedly love
each other, to have sex. That is *hypocrisy*, period!
"So let homosexuals marry!", they'll say. "It doesn't
harm you!". Actually, it does. In many ways. But
that's another post and the fact is, that God specifically
stated that marriage is between a man and a woman
and this is about what the Bible says and not what
you can convince your Congressman to vote for,
so again, don't let them distract you, folks!
Here are the facts:
1) The only mention in the entire Bible of homosexual acts,
is God condemning them.
2) Marriage is specifically stated as being between a man
and a woman.
3) Nowhere in the Bible are homosexual acts spoken of
in a positive light! Not in one single place anywhere
in the Bible!
I used to argue each and every word argument with them
and win every time, because I know what I'm talking about
and I did the research and I know what the Bible says and
how to easily defeat their word games. And these people
are not bright at all! They just copy what they read on
some web page and pretend they're Biblical experts!
And I am telling you folks, it is a waste of time to argue
these word games! Haven't you noticed that they don't
much care anyway?! So you go ahead and let your ego
rule you if you wish and keep trying to argue those points.
Because that's all it is in the end (although maybe not at
first). Ego.
The reality is, that it is an easy Biblical victory and saves
a lot of time, if you just ask them to show you one single
passage in the Bible, in which God specifically and clearly
states His approval of homosexual relationships/acts.
Not examples that they will claim were homosexual
relationships, like David and Jonathan, even though
that also is easily proved not to be the case. But the
point is, that even if it were the case, nowhere in that
story do we read where God stamped His approval on it
and that is the point, folks! Ask them to show you where
GOD HIMSELF SAID THAT HE APPROVES OF IT, understand?
And you must remember folks, that real life is not usenet
and if you're in a setting in which the issue comes up,
you don't usually get an opportunity to stand there and
debate the issue for days and you won't have your PC
with you to look stuff up, should you need to.
And what is this about anyway? Is it about YOU and YOU
winning an argument? Or is it about God and standing
up for Him and showing other people quickly and efficiently,
before they walk away from boredom, that homosexual acts
clearly are not approved of by God and showing everyone
just how foolish the homosexual's (or homosexual advocate's)
argument is?
Put the burden on THE HOMOSEXUAL! You see folks,
if they want to claim that God approves of what they do
when the Bible clearly shouts out the condemnation of it,
then need to prove their case Biblically! And nothing will
make them realize how foolish the web pages they rely
on are, faster than this one request! :)
So for those who claim it's the Christians attacking the
homosexuals, that is a lie and you know it! It is the
homosexuals attacking God's word and trying to force
their way into Heaven and into the church, demanding
to be accepted as righteous before God and trying to
force churches to have to accept them by law! Already
people are suing churches for not making them ministers,
when they're admitted homosexuals, living in sin! This
is simply ridiculous and it needs to stop! And you will
never see it at any church I preach at, that's for sure!
No more than you'll see an active adulterer, liar or thief
preaching there!
And while people will try to claim that we're just being
condemning and "Jesus wouldn't do that", the fact is,
that Jesus blasted those who called themselves righteous
while perverting God's word!
"Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your
father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning,
and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in
him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own:
for he is a liar, and the father of it." - John 8:44
There are three different kinds of people, folks.
1) Those who are not saved.
To these people, we shouldn't be judgmental.
We were all there once, remember? Let's just
spread the word to them.
2) Those who are saved and try to serve the Lord.
These people may sin. But they recognize it as sin
and are sorry for it and even though sometimes it
may take some correction, they will repent.
3) Those who live in sin, or promote sin and yet,
call themselves Christians.
This type of person is, for example, the homosexual,
or homosexual advocate (insert any other sinful lifestyle
in here also) who claims that the sin is okay with God.
This type of person should be tossed out of the church
if they refuse to repent. This type of thing is heresy
and is not to be tolerated! And while their advocates
try to point the finger at us, don't let them intimidate
you, nor make you feel bad! Paul specifically noted
that people like this should be judged ("those within")
by the church and set out, unless they repent. We
cannot judge their eternal state, but we can say that
we will not have this in the church and tell them that
unless they repent and get saved, which they don't
appear to ever have actually done, since repentance
does not equal sticking up for sin, they are in trouble!
1 Corinthians 5:11-13
11) But now I have written unto you not to keep
company, if any man that is called a brother be
a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer,
or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one
no not to eat.
12) For what have I to do to judge them also that
are without? Do not ye judge them that are within?
13) But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore
put away from among yourselves that wicked person.
Those outside of the church God will judge.
Those within the church, we are to judge and put out
if necessary. This should not be our first goal, but it
must be done, if they will not repent.
Remember, to keep such within the church, is to:
1) Poison the church.
2) Appear to approve of such sins.
3) Make the entire church appear to be no different
than the world around it. After all, if the people
in the church are doing the same things as the
people outside the church, then how will the
church look any different to the people outside
of it? Why would they want to come to Christ,
when there would be no difference between
the church and the rest of the world? Then
they would just be signing up to be part of
"Club Hypocrisy"!
So again folks, don't let them try to turn the tables!
Don't be intimidated by these people who say these
things to you to make you fear, because they know
that the truth is that they're arguing that the works
of Satan should be accepted by you as righteousness!
As for us:
"For God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but
of power, and of love, and of a sound mind."
- 2 Timothy 1:7
And as for them:
"Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil;
that put darkness for light, and light for darkness;
that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!"
- Isaiah 5:20
--
Pastor Dave
The following is part of my auto-rotating
sig file and not part of the message body.
"It cannot be emphasized too strongly that this great nation
was founded... by Christians... not on religions, but on
the Gospel of Jesus Christ." - Patrick Henry
Jude Alexander
:
: Let me start this by saying that homosexuals and their
: advocates try to claim that Christians spend their time
: coming down on homosexuals, when there are many
: other sins that we don't seem to spend that kind of
: time on other sins.
:
: This is a distraction, plain and simple!
Crap sandwich.
:
: 1) This claim is not proof that homosexual acts
: are not sin! In fact, the homosexuals aren't
: even bright enough to figure out that it is
: an admission by them that it is sin!
Do you often make many crap sandwiches?
:
: 2) Those who commit other types of sins,
: do not spend their time:
:
: a) Claiming it isn't a sin on political platforms.
: b) Having parades (Ever seen an "Adultery
: Pride Parade?).
I guess the Irish pride parade proved the Irish know it's it's a sin. :) For
your stupid information, the Irish pride parade was started FOR THE SAME
REASON the Gay pride parade was.... to combat the NEGATIVITY of assholes like
yourself, Dave! :)
: c) Seeking special protection under the law,
: because of their sexual practices (Ever seen
: an adulterer lobbying for special protection
: for adulterers, or for it to be legally called
: a "hate crime" is the spouse beats them up
: and get more time for it?). Can you believe
: that two men want special protection, because
: one man sticks his penis up the other man's ass?!
: That may sound crude, but tell me that that's not
: what it boils down to! It is, so have the courage
: to say it!
"Adulterers" don't have a large pile of brain dead Fundies trying to make it
illegal for them to do anything! lol
Zip your pants up, Davo, your ignorance is showing! :)
snipped the mini novel! lol
Rod
> Let me start this by saying that homosexuals and their
> advocates try to claim that Christians spend their time
> coming down on homosexuals, when there are many
> other sins that we don't seem to spend that kind of
> time on other sins.
>
> This is a distraction, plain and simple!
>
and give them AND US a break from your crappy religion!
Pastor Dave
thusly:
Let us note folks, the awesome intelligence of one, "Rod"!
The one who has obviously shown that no one can argue
with how intelligently he approaches a subject! <chuckle>
It is obvious that this man still harbors a lot of hate for me,
after I have shown his non-sensical arguments to be what
they are. :)
And this folks, in indeed the best that those who promote
homosexual acts can offer in the way of a counter point. :)
Maybe Rod knows a little bit more about this than he lets on?
I don't know. That's all I can think of. :)
--
Pastor Dave
The following is part of my auto-rotating
sig file and not part of the message body.
Part of the message of salvation, is the Creation.
Believing in the Creator. When Paul preached to
those worshipping nature and said... "turn from
these vanities unto the living God, which made
heaven and earth and the sea and all things that
are therein:" - Acts 14:15 Paul believed it too.
Rod
> On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 14:53:40 -0600, Rod <spa...@yahoo.com> spake
> thusly:
>
>
>> Pastor Dave wrote:
>>
>>> Let me start this by saying that homosexuals and their
>>> advocates try to claim that Christians spend their time
>>> coming down on homosexuals, when there are many
>>> other sins that we don't seem to spend that kind of
>>> time on other sins.
>>>
>>> This is a distraction, plain and simple!
>> <snip venomous diatribe> Get off your soapbox convict
>> and give them AND US a break from your crappy religion!
>
> Let us note folks, the awesome intelligence of one, "Rod"!
<Snip diatribe of a convict and butt monkey in his own right.>
Rod
> On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 14:53:40 -0600, Rod <spa...@yahoo.com> spake
> thusly:
>
>
>> Pastor Dave wrote:
>>
>>> Let me start this by saying that homosexuals and their
>>> advocates try to claim that Christians spend their time
>>> coming down on homosexuals, when there are many
>>> other sins that we don't seem to spend that kind of
>>> time on other sins.
>>>
>>> This is a distraction, plain and simple!
>> <snip venomous diatribe> Get off your soapbox convict
>> and give them AND US a break from your crappy religion!
>
> Let us note folks, the awesome intelligence of one, "Rod"!
> The one who has obviously shown that no one can argue
> with how intelligently he approaches a subject! <chuckle>
>
> It is obvious that this man still harbors a lot of hate for me,
> after I have shown his non-sensical arguments to be what
> they are. :)
>
> And this folks, in indeed the best that those who promote
> homosexual acts can offer in the way of a counter point. :)
>
> Maybe Rod knows a little bit more about this than he lets on?
> I don't know. That's all I can think of. :)
>
to trash me again, eh convict?
Pastor Dave
thusly:
Says the man who took time out to enter this thread
to trash me.
And says the man who trolls Biblical news groups
to trash God and His Christ and those who follow Him.
Now here's what you could not respond to...
*************************************************************************
Let me start this by saying that homosexuals and their
advocates try to claim that Christians spend their time
coming down on homosexuals, when there are many
other sins that we don't seem to spend that kind of
time on other sins.
This is a distraction, plain and simple!
1) This claim is not proof that homosexual acts
Here are the facts:
1 Corinthians 5:11-13
1) Poison the church.
As for us:
And as for them:
--
Pastor Dave
The following is part of my auto-rotating
sig file and not part of the message body.
"To walk in darkness is enlightenment to the carnal mind
and without knowledge of Truth they will deny the same
until the day of judgement." - Unknown
The Doctor
Posted in whole because edm.general enquiring minds wants to know.
--
Member - Liberal International This is doc...@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doc...@nl2k.ab.ca
God, Queen and country! Never Satan President Republic! Beware AntiChrist rising!
http://twitter.com/rootnl2k http://www.myspace.com/502748630
Merry Christmas 2009 and Happy New Year 2010
Rod
Says the man who is still wondering why you were turned
loose on society again...
So, did you take time out from beating your wife and
molesting your dog, and does your PO know about it?
I'm simply asking because I know you'll either dodge
the questions or lie about it altogether....
Pastor Dave
thusly:
Gee, have I upset you Rod? I must have. After all,
look at all the venom spewing forth from your mouth.
Want to accuse me of attacking you again, after you
entered the thread that I was in and verbally assaulted
me? Or do you have even more assaults to launch?
I have to admit, you are funny, Rod! I'll give ya that! :)
--
Pastor Dave
The following is part of my auto-rotating
sig file and not part of the message body.
The Last Days were in the first century:
Romans 13:11-2
11) And that, knowing the time, that NOW
it is high time to awake out of sleep:
for NOW is our salvation nearer than when
we believed.
12) The night is far spent, the day is
AT HAND: let us therefore cast off the
works of darkness, and let us put on
the armor of light.
Rod
Just as I thought...the cheese eater two step....honesty
isn't such a good policy for you, is it convict?
PV
<total snip of material that has nothing to do with edm.general>
In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts controversial, inflammatory,
extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online
discussion forum, chat room or blog, with the primary intent of provoking
other users into an emotional response[1] or of otherwise disrupting normal
on-topic discussion.[2]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet)
--
PV
Stupidity is a condition
Ignorance is a choice
duke
Yep.
The Dukester, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
Misanthropic Curmudgeon
[snip]
> homosexuals and their advocates try to
> claim that Christians spend their time
> coming down on homosexuals,
Would you rather be going down on homosexuals? :)
> when there are many other sins that we don't seem
> to spend that kind of time on other sins.
Like eating clams and shrimp, which is also an "abomination" listed
just a few pages over from homosexuality being an "abomination"
too!?!?!!?!?!
> 2) Those who commit other types of sins,
> do not spend their time: [snip]
> c) Seeking special protection under the law,
Well, if the god-squad had not spent millenia persecuting homosexuals,
and kept their nose out of other people's bedrooms, protection under
the law would not be neccessary.
> As for what the Bible has to say about it, they will try to
> make claims that the Bible doesn't speak against two
> homosexuals who are in a "loving, monogamous relationship".
> But where does God say in the Bible say that it's okay,
> if they are "in love"? Where is that exception noted
> in the Bible?
Matthew8:5-15
Genesis2:24 and Ruth1:14
Matthew19:10-12
Acts8:26-40
2Samual1:26
> You have to watch what they say in response! Why?
> Because their response is never one that shows us where
> God affirms homosexual acts between two homosexuals
> claiming to be "in love" as "good". Rather, it is always
> an attack and/or an argument from silence.
Wrong.
Because scripture is quoted back at you? That has to hurt!
> 1) Marriage is stated in the Bible
Marriage predates your bible, and exists/existed in cultures who never
heard of your bible. And in many of these cultures, homosexual
marriage was considered normal
> a) Nowhere does God say to have more than
> one wife (commit polygamy).
Wrong. Exodus21:10 and Deautrononmy21:15 give guidelines what to do
and not do.
And polygonomy is condoned in about a dozen other places that come to
mind.
> 3) There is not one place in the Bible, in which God
> states His approval of homosexual sex. NOT ONE!
Wrong: as above
> 1) The only mention in the entire Bible of homosexual acts,
> is God condemning them.
Wrong: as above
> 3) Nowhere in the Bible are homosexual acts spoken of
> in a positive light! Not in one single place anywhere
> in the Bible!
Wrong: as above
Bible Studies with Satan
> On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 14:53:40 -0600, Rod <spa...@yahoo.com> spake
> thusly:
>
>
>>Pastor Dave wrote:
>>
>>> Let me start this by saying that homosexuals and their
>>> advocates try to claim that Christians spend their time
>>> coming down on homosexuals, when there are many
>>> other sins that we don't seem to spend that kind of
>>> time on other sins.
>>>
>>> This is a distraction, plain and simple!
>>
>> <snip venomous diatribe> Get off your soapbox convict
>> and give them AND US a break from your crappy religion!
>
> Let us note folks, the awesome intelligence of one, "Rod"!
Dave, your religion IS crappy. You're the farthest away from Christ I've ever
seen. Jesus has a lost flock in the US.
> The one who has obviously shown that no one can argue
> with how intelligently he approaches a subject! <chuckle>
>
> It is obvious that this man still harbors a lot of hate for me,
> after I have shown his non-sensical arguments to be what
> they are. :)
>
> And this folks, in indeed the best that those who promote
> homosexual acts can offer in the way of a counter point. :)
>
> Maybe Rod knows a little bit more about this than he lets on?
> I don't know. That's all I can think of. :)
>
--
God did not need to work miracles to convince atheists but to convert heathens.
-- Sir Francis Bacon
Pastor Dave
You might say...
You might say...
<chuckle>
And guess what, Timmy?
--
Pastor Dave
The following is part of my auto-rotating
sig file and not part of the message body.
�A man who hasn't found something worth dying for,
is not fit to live." - Martin Luther King Jr.
Jude Alexander
of STONE-AGED MEN concerning the issue.
There is homosexuality in the higher animals which tells us PLAINLY that
homosexuality is a behavior that has NOTHING to do with God and that it is a
deviance from the norm that happens. They don't choose to be homosexual but
you DO CHOOSE to be condemning and ignorant!
It's YOU FundaMENTALs who are choosing to do evil with your IGNORANCE that
you hold so close in the name of maintaining the LIE of inerrancy and that
every word, perception and act in the bible shows God's will!
dolf
female in the Spirit.
If this taken to its logical conclusion, homosexual acts aren't
wrong--but spiritual wickedness is.
On 27/12/09 4:31 AM, Pastor Dave wrote:
>
>
> The original poster shall go unnamed. But I thought
> this would still be a good lesson for others to read.
>
> This was a message from a person who said that
> homosexual relationships are "okay, as long as
> they're in love".
>
>
[snipped for brevity]
dolf
female in the Spirit.
If this is taken to its logical conclusion, homosexual acts aren't
wrong--but spiritual wickedness is.
On 27/12/09 4:31 AM, Pastor Dave wrote:
>
>
> The original poster shall go unnamed. But I thought this would still
> be a good lesson for others to read.
>
> This was a message from a person who said that homosexual
> relationships are "okay, as long as they're in love".
>
>
[snipped for brevity]
dolf
female in the Spirit.
If this is taken to its logical conclusion, homosexual acts aren't
wrong--but spiritual wickedness is.
And the recent resignations in the Irish Roman Catholic Church over
obstructionism concerning child sexual abuse is an example.
On 27/12/09 4:31 AM, Pastor Dave wrote:
>
>
> The original poster shall go unnamed. But I thought this would still
> be a good lesson for others to read.
>
> This was a message from a person who said that homosexual
> relationships are "okay, as long as they're in love".
>
>
[snipped for brevity]
Pastor Dave
Let me start this by saying that homosexuals and their
advocates try to claim that Christians spend their time
coming down on homosexuals, when there are many
other sins that we don't seem to spend that kind of
time on other sins.
This is a distraction, plain and simple!
1) This claim is not proof that homosexual acts
are not sin! In fact, the homosexuals aren't
even bright enough to figure out that it is
an admission by them that it is sin!
2) Those who commit other types of sins,
do not spend their time:
a) Claiming it isn't a sin on political platforms.
b) Having parades (Ever seen an "Adultery
Pride Parade?).
c) Seeking special protection under the law,
because of their sexual practices (Ever seen
an adulterer lobbying for special protection
for adulterers, or for it to be legally called
a "hate crime" is the spouse beats them up
and get more time for it?). Can you believe
that two men want special protection, because
one man sticks his penis up the other man's ass?!
That may sound crude, but tell me that that's not
what it boils down to! It is, so have the courage
to say it!
The fact is, they cannot respond directly to the issue
and so, seek to distract you from it!
As for what the Bible has to say about it, they will try to
make claims that the Bible doesn't speak against two
homosexuals who are in a "loving, monogamous relationship".
But where does God say in the Bible say that it's okay,
if they are "in love"? Where is that exception noted
in the Bible?
The fact is, that God condemns the acts that are committed
by homosexuals with each other. So are the homosexuals
claiming that when they are in love, that they won't have
homosexual sex?
You see folks, they have no defense. And you have to be
smart! You have to watch what they say in response! Why?
Because their response is never one that shows us where
God affirms homosexual acts between two homosexuals
claiming to be "in love" as "good". Rather, it is always
an attack and/or an argument from silence. So don't
be distracted by them! And remember, if they had any
real argument to make from the Scriptures, then they
wouldn't be seeking to distract you, hello? :)
And also remember that when they try to cite events
that took place in the Bible, that doesn't mean that
God approved of them, any more than He approves
of adultery, just because the Bible lists David as
committing adultery!
The truth is, that while the homosexuals try to play
word games with the Scriptures, that nowhere are
these acts approved of by God! Nowhere!
1) Marriage is stated in the Bible and it is always
between a man and a woman. A homosexual
in response, will attack marriage, saying that
so and so had more than one wife, etc.
a) Nowhere does God say to have more than
one wife (commit polygamy).
b) Ask the question; How does citing that some
men had more than one wife prove that God
is okay with homosexual sex?
c) This is one of those "distraction" attempts
I told you about, folks!
2) In every single place where the Bible mentions
homosexual sex, it is always condemned!
3) There is not one place in the Bible, in which God
states His approval of homosexual sex. NOT ONE!
4) It is up to the homosexual to show you where God
Here are the facts:
1) The only mention in the entire Bible of homosexual acts,
is God condemning them.
2) Marriage is specifically stated as being between a man
and a woman.
3) Nowhere in the Bible are homosexual acts spoken of
in a positive light! Not in one single place anywhere
in the Bible!
I used to argue each and every word argument with them
1 Corinthians 5:11-13
1) Poison the church.
As for us:
And as for them:
--
Pastor Dave
The following is part of my auto-rotating
sig file and not part of the message body.
The Bible says that death came by sin and sin came
by Adam (Rom 5:12; 1 Cor 15:21-22).
Evolution says lots of things lived and died before
Adam and Eve got here and therefore attempts to rule
out what the Bible says.
One or the other is right, but they can't both be right.
duke
Jude
Wassamattawitu, huh?
Pastor Dave
Here are the facts:
1 Corinthians 5:11-13
1) Poison the church.
As for us:
And as for them:
--
Pastor Dave
Abortion = 1 dead, 1 wounded.
Jude
>
> Let me start this by saying that homosexuals and their
> advocates try to claim that Christians spend their time
> coming down on homosexuals, when there are many
> other sins that we don't seem to spend that kind of
> time on other sins.
>
> This is a distraction, plain and simple!
You're a massive hypocrite. Just about every time you remarks about
homosexuals you use the words "vile sin." I guess that is just like vile
adulterers and vile robbers and vile blasphemers, etc. etc.? YOU show you
own prejudice by your OWN words! It just so happens that you are willing to
line yourself up with the perception of STONE -AGED men! Wow, ain't that
special!
Rico
that sex should only occur in a legal marriage, therefore since most
countries around the world don't allow same sex marriage, then homosexuals
shouldn't have sex with anyone if they don't want a spouse of the opposite
gender.
"Pastor Dave" <ananias917_@_gmail.com> wrote in message
news:o2icj5pdhoesumcjm...@4ax.com...
--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ne...@netfront.net ---
@tampabay.rr.com Pastor Dave
<Richard...@three.com.au> spake thusly:
> Don't care much for the actual discussion,
> however, the bible also states that sex
> should only occur in a legal marriage,
> therefore since most countries around
> the world don't allow same sex marriage,
> then homosexuals shouldn't have sex
> with anyone if they don't want a spouse
> of the opposite gender.
Just FYI, top posting is considered rude in usenet,
since multiple people may participate and it means
that the order of the conversation will get messed
up, as it already has. :)
As for marriage, the Bible also prescribes marriage
as being between a man and a woman, so making
homosexual marriage legal does not mean it's not
a sin for them to have sex.
--
Pastor Dave
The following is part of my auto-rotating
sig file and not part of the message body.
When Christianity becomes religion it leaves the heart hungry.
Rico
to scroll through a heap of dribble in order to see what I want to say
"Pastor Dave" <newsgroup-mail @ tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:j2t3k5hl3ndm1rnl3...@4ax.com...
--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ne...@netfront.net ---
@tampabay.rr.com Pastor Dave
<Richard...@three.com.au> spake thusly:
>Then I'll be rude since I'd rather have people see my post rather than have
>to scroll through a heap of dribble in order to see what I want to say
And rude you are, idiot! When you top post and the next
person follows etiquette, it means that the person after
that, has to scroll up and down trying to figure out who
said what, in what order!
Now let's get down to it! It isn't about people scrolling
through dribble, you liar! It is about you and your ego,
wanting people to notice only what you have to say,
because your ego and vanity are that damn big!
--
Pastor Dave
"In Germany, they first came for the communists
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a communist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up
because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the
trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I
wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the
Catholics and I didn't speak up because I wasn't
a Catholic. Then they came for me. And by that
time there was nobody left to speak up.
-Martin Niemoller
dolf
And I've responded to this discussion thread to highlight just to
highlight that the thread is readable. Its coherence is assisted by the
level of quoted indentation.
Pastor Dave
Let me start this by saying that homosexuals and their
advocates try to claim that Christians spend their time
coming down on homosexuals, when there are many
other sins that we don't seem to spend that kind of
time on other sins.
This is a distraction, plain and simple!
1) This claim is not proof that homosexual acts
Here are the facts:
1 Corinthians 5:11-13
1) Poison the church.
As for us:
And as for them:
--
Pastor Dave
God doesn't call the qualified; He qualifies the called.
::: Jesus is LORD :::
_Dave's method is:_
TEN STEPS HOW TO MAKE PRETERISTS FOR MY CULT:
1.) Try preparing them for the preterism nonsense by making them
recognize me as a legitimate "pastor" and "leader".
2.) Bombard them kindly and with an Angel's tongue with a lot of
sophisticated looking oversized articles on preterism or anything that
nobody could ever follow.
3.) If they have a point yet and refute you, accuse them of snipping
from those "sophisticated looking oversized articles that nobody could
ever follow or check out".
4.) If that does not help, accuse them of adding to those
"sophisticated looking oversized articles that nobody could ever follow
or check out".
5.) If that does not help, accuse them of lying about those
"sophisticated looking oversized articles that nobody could ever follow
or check out".
6.) If that does not help, call them names if they insist in refuting
your points form your "sophisticated looking oversized articles that
nobody could ever follow or check out".
7.) If that does not help, try threatening them to death. Some might run
away after that.
8.) If that does not help, block them if they can refute you.
9.) If they refute you, do not miss any chance to libel them as "evil"
or paint them as a monster by using any other way.
10.) ? [I have no idea, because I have not seen it yet. The rest can be
proved]
What "Pastor" Dave wrote himself about himself was (see proof below)
that
- he was ordained by a "minister" and some Elders who laid hands on him,
who sent him out to preach
- he was not a member of their church (which is rather dubious, and I
would really know what denomination they were - no serious church would
ordain a Preterist to preach, and I would really very much like to talk
with them if that is all the truth)
- he is no member of a church (only his home church)
- they ordained him while he was in prison
- churches disgust him (I believe it is because they would never accept
his false teaching)
- he did not say what he was in prison for
- got the piece of paper for marrying people people and
- he thinks he is very well studied without a church, (but yet did not
understand the basics, as he claims the Second Coming of Christ in 70
A.D.)
- he denies teachings of other Christians (and so denies Colossians 3:16
(WEB): "Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly; in all wisdom
teaching and admonishing one another with psalms, hymns, and spiritual
songs, singing with grace in your heart to the Lord." He also denies
Matthew 28:19-20 (WEB) "Go, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing
them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,
teaching them to observe all things which I commanded you. Behold, I am
with you always, even to the end of the age." I do not see he was
"taught" or would be teachable here in ACC. The result is his false
teaching that does not leave any hope for believers, because there is
still pain, suffering and death even for them - yet "Pastor" Dave thinks
this is Heaven already. How can one be so blind??? And how can he make
disciples with that? Obviously there are some who are this stupid that
they think this is Heaven already while the next tooth-ache will show
them how far they are away from that yet. *sigh* Obviously he has never
learned the Gospel by other Christians, but Scripture says in 2 Timothy
4:2 (WEB) "preach the word; be urgent in season and out of season;
reprove, rebuke, and exhort, with all patience and teaching." (2 John
1:9-10 WEB) Whoever transgresses and doesn't remain in the teaching of
Christ, doesn't have God. He who remains in the teaching, the same has
both the Father and the Son. If anyone comes to you, and doesn't bring
this teaching, don't receive him into your house, and don't welcome
him")
- he ordains other people by laying hands on them
- he obviously has papers to do the jobs as a "Pastor". (but that is
really not very difficult in the States, just have a look there:
http://www.spiritualhumanism.org/)
What I know about "Pastor" Dave from experience in ACC is that
- he is up for strife with Christians who have joined a church
- he calls people names all the time and lies about them
- he uses methods to post so people cannot really follow what was going
on - very often he insults others in new threads and exposes them in the
subject lines
- he lies about the Gospel by claiming that Jesus has come back in 70
A.D. already
- he shows only little or no love for others, not for other Christians,
either, if they rebuke him for his heresy about the Gospel and for
leading others a wrong path
- he is in severe pain very often and yet thinks this is Heaven already,
while he does not call the earth earth in 2 Peter 3:10 (WEB), for
example: "But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in
which the heavens will pass away with a great noise, and the elements
will be dissolved with fervent heat, and the earth and the works that
are in it will be burned up."
All in all I can only warn of this false teacher, and I do not really
see that there might be ANY serious church that would support his
teaching. He made at least one disciple here already, which should cause
all Christians here to be very concerned. He should proof his ordainment
as a "Pastor".
Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and
offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.
For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own
belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the
simple. (Romans 16:17-18 KJV)
___________________________________________________
::::::: http://www.acc-growing-deeper.de :::::::
::::::: http://www.acc-growing-deeper.de/Israel.html :::::::
::::::: http://www.e-sword.net :::::::
"Pastor" Dave ananias917_@_gmail.com wrote in
Jude
"Pastor Dave" <ananias917_@_gmail.com> wrote in message
news:fovk56968qqg35l4g...@4ax.com...
>
> Let me start this by saying that homosexuals and their
> advocates try to claim that Christians spend their time
> coming down on homosexuals, when there are many
> other sins that we don't seem to spend that kind of
> time on other sins.
>
> This is a distraction, plain and simple!
No, it isn't. It clear to any adult with a clear conscience and honesty
that "special words" are reserved for the homosexual and/or homosexuality.
I personally have read FROM "RELIGIOUS" PEOPLE these words for homosexuals:
vile, disgusting, filthy, loathsome, nauseating, gross, abomination, as well
as God-hater and other names as well.
When was the last time you or anybody else heard a "religious" person use
these same words toward adulterers, stealers, frauds, liars, even freaking
murderers?
Common English slangs toward the male homosexual are:
anal assassin, anal astronaut, ass bandit, arse bandit, back door bandit,
batty boy/ botty boy), bender, bent, bentshot, bone smuggler, sausage
smuggler, brownie king or brown piper, bufter, booty buffer, bugger, bum
bandit, bun bandit, bum boy, bum chum, bum robber, bumhole engineer, butt
pirate, butt rider, butt rustler, chutney ferret, cock jockey, cock knocker,
cockpipe cosmonaut, crack jockey, donut puncher, doughnut puncher, fag,
faggot, fag stick, fairy, flit, fruit, fruit loop, fruit packer, butt fruit,
fudge packer, knob jockey, light in the loafers, limp wristed, Marmite
miner, mary, miss molly, nancy, nancy boy, girlyboy, nellie, oklahomo,
pansy, penispPhantom, pickle kisser, pillow biter, mattress muncher, poof,
poofter, pouf, poove, pooftah, pooff, puff, pole fancy, queen, princess,
ring raider, rump ranger, sausage jockey, shirt lifter, shit stabber, sod,
turd burglar, twink , uphill gardener, upstairs gardner, woolly, woofter,
woolie woofter, as well as many others from other countries.
Common English slangs toward teh female homsoexual are:
dyke, bull dyke, bull dagger, bulldicker,bean flicker, butch, butch-broad,
carpet muncher, rug muncher, diesel dyke, drag dyke, drag King, muff diver,
kitty puncher, pussy puncher, lezzie, lesbo, leso, lezzer, todger dodger.
snipped all the excuses for continuing to believe in uninformed religious
writers of the bible.
Pastor Dave
The original poster shall go unnamed. But I thought
this would still be a good lesson for others to read.
This was a message from a person who said that
homosexual relationships are "okay, as long as
they're in love".
> I am simply saying that it is my belief that the
> Bible verses which refer to homosexuality do
> only (with the possible exception of Romans 1)
> refer to a specific sexual act, that of male to
> male penetrative (i.e. anal) intercourse.
Any verse about male to male intercourse,
refers specifically to male to male intercourse.
> They do not refer to the state of being attracted
> to someone of the same gender, or even to the
> state of loving (or being in love with) someone
> of the same gender, or indeed sharing lives or
> accommodation with that person. The only thing
> specifically being prohibited seems (IMO) to be
> anal intercourse. I have given my reasons for
> believing this, which as far as I am concerned
> have not been effectively disputed, as of yet.
The reason doesn't matter. God said "Don't do it".
That should be good enough for you. Your claim
(argument) here is like saying it's okay for a man
and a woman to have intercourse before marriage,
"as long as they're in love, because hey, after all,
God didn't mention love in the verses that prohibit
fornication". Homosexual sex is fornication, period!
The fact is, that you're trying to make an exception for
homosexuals. A loophole, specially designed for them,
based on what you think should be considered "love".
And don't bother branching off into a discussion about
why it is love (according to you). That's the problem
with homosexuals and their advocates when arguing
these things. They keep trying to divert to other areas,
to avoid the main issue at hand.
The acts are called an abomination and it doesn't say...
"But it's okay with God if you love the man". So you
are basing your comments on your own desire to
exclude homosexuals from being in sin, even though
they are clearly committing what God called an
abomination.
Furthermore, you are making an argument from silence
when you claim that those people should be excluded
from these commands. You are basing your claim on,
"God did not say that if they love each other, it is sin".
The bottom line is, it says... "Don't do that! It is an
abomination!" And nowhere did God exclude two
homosexuals who think they're in love, end of story!
It does not say, "Don't do that unless you love them.".
And if God wanted to make an exception, He would
have noted it. God is not as stupid as you make Him
out to be and He does know how to express Himself.
The one thing that the homosexual advocates are never
(and have never been) able to do, is to show one positive
statement of homosexuality in the Bible by God. Not one!
Sure, they claim that David and Jonathan were homosexual
lovers, etc. and then interpret that as "God said it's okay"
and go from that false assumption. But where does GOD
say it was okay? The simple fact is, that He doesn't.
I disagree with the statement that they were homosexual
lovers, but for the sake of argument, assuming they were,
the Bible listing something, does not automatically equate
to God's approval of it. The Fall is listed. How does that
mean that God approved of what Adam and Eve did?
Yet that is the inevitable, bad conclusion that your line
of thinking must lead to, whether you want to admit it
or not.
You might say...
"Oh, but God specifically said that they shouldn't have
done that!"
Agreed! But so did He about these homosexual acts!
You might say...
"Oh, but God didn't mention a loving relationship there!"
I agree! But He also didn't say that what Adam and Eve did
would have been okay, as long as they really loved fruit. :)
The bottom line is, that you need to understand that you
don't get to assume what God's motives are. Has it ever
occurred to you, that maybe what God is saying by leaving
out the reasons, is that the reasons don't matter? Hello???
For example, killing is bad, but since the reason DID matter
to God, He made sure to NOTE the exceptions to the death
penalty, for taking another life.
But what you want to do, is take God words and judge what
His motives are. And in fact, in this issue, you want to take
what He did NOT say and attach motives to THAT! Huh???
> You see, there are two things to consider.
>
> (1) Being honest and true about what the Bible
> *actually* says, and exposing dishonest or poor
> translations that lead to incorrect understandings
> and therefore conclusions, and
>
> (2) To always remember that when Prejudice walks
> in the front door, Honesty, Truthfulness, Fairness
> and Reason all make a quick exit out the back door.
>
> Now, the words 'homosexuality' and 'homosexual'
> can be ambiguous, and mean different things to
> different people.
Right now, _you_ are trying to be ambiguous.
It doesn't matter what it means to different people!
The bottom line is, the homosexual act is called an
abomination and no exceptions are noted! So it
doesn't matter how one gets to that point. The fact
is, that the act itself is wrong and it is the act that
God is dealing with there, period.
> That really only leaves Romans 1, which IMO needs
> to be understood contextually. It is clear from
> Romans 1 that the text is talking of people
> *turning from* what is natural (for them)...
This is where you claim that as long as one is supposedly
born a homosexual, then it's okay for them to do it. I'm
sorry, but that argument just doesn't fly, since it also is
an argument from silence and assumes things that are
not in evidence and for which the evidence does not exist.
1) It assumes that homosexuals are born that way.
2) It assumes that homosexual acts are okay with God,
as long as they are born that way.
Neither of these things are stated in Scripture and:
1) Don't bother trying to argue the "born that way"
argument. That is just another distraction and
it is irrelevant (see #2).
2) Nowhere does the Bible say that if homosexuals
are born that way, homosexual acts are okay.
3) Don't bother trying to claim, "They didn't know
back then!". The Bible is God's word and to
claim that they didn't know back then, is to
say that it is merely human words in the Bible
and not God's word. And if that's what you
believe, then why do you read the Bible?
> Like it or not (and you won't), Tradition is all we have,
> since the New Testament itself is written Tradition.
If tradition were all we have, then we wouldn't have
Scripture, so your statement is fallacious at first glance.
And that may be what you believe, but it is not true
and is easily disproved, if one knows their Scriptures,
instead of just "tradition". Besides this, Paul stated
very clearly that tradition is a separate thing and
limited valid tradition to what they had taught to
the churches and to what they had already taught
them and warned them not to believe what anyone
else besides them tried to teach them.
So there goes your "tradition" argument, with which
you try to include in any and all claims of "tradition"
by anyone who says what it is that you want to hear!
The fact is, that it is your ass that you're thinking with
and not your mind, nor even your heart!
You know you can't prove what you claim Scripturally
and so, you immediately started your attacks on me
(which I snipped) to distract people from that fact!
God is God and right is right and what God says is right
and your imagination is wrong and that is why Scripture
tells us to beware of the "imaginations" of people like you!
--
Pastor Dave
The Last Days were in the first century:
Matthew 3:7,10,12
7) But when He saw many of the Pharisees and
Sadducees come to his baptism, he said unto
THEM, O GENERATION of vipers, who hath warned
YOU to flee from the wrath to come?
10) And NOW also the axe is laid unto the root
of the trees: therefore every tree which bringeth
not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into
the fire.
12) Whose fan is in his hand, and he will thoroughly
purge his floor, and gather his wheat into the garner;
but he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.
Sam Taylor
Subject. .................BUT.............................
as My Civil beliefs are Constitutional seperated,
from My Religious beliefs, and the fact
I live in a Democratic Represenative Republic, not
in a Theocracy, I seperate them Civily.
thus allowing both, them and I the same Civil rights,
that I am afforded.
YES I said the same rights fully equal between them, and those whom hold my
religious beliefsnews:mei0k6d506kr5ef9h...@4ax.com...
Guillermina
Find them in Galatians 5:18-19.
To be save, we need to deny ourselves with our passions and desires and
follow a more excellent path, the one traced by Jesus Christ.
This is the walk with spirit.
Not even the Apostle Paul pretended to have reached it, but he continue
in the way of victory in Jesus Christ offering himself every day on
living sacrifice.
To say that dishonest acts of homosexuality are not sins is a blasphemy.
This is a race that is only won by The Holly Spirit acting within us. We
all need to constantly fight our flesh.
Pastor Dave
Let me start this by saying that homosexuals and their
advocates try to claim that Christians spend their time
coming down on homosexuals, when there are many
other sins that we don't seem to spend that kind of
time on other sins.
This is a distraction, plain and simple!
1) This claim is not proof that homosexual acts
Here are the facts:
1 Corinthians 5:11-13
1) Poison the church.
As for us:
And as for them:
--
Pastor Dave
The best Bible software: http://www.theword.net/ is free!
The Last Days were in the first century:
"And saying, Repent ye: for the Kingdom of Heaven
is AT HAND." - Matthew 3:2
Jude Alexander
>> Let me start this by saying that homosexuals and their
>> advocates try to claim that Christians spend their time
>> coming down on homosexuals, when there are many
>> other sins that we don't seem to spend that kind of
>> time on other sins.
>>
>> This is a distraction, plain and simple!
No, it's a lie that you tell yourself and others over and over and over.
Who really takes you seriously, Dave? Think about it...
Yeah, when the last time you saw anybody ranting and raving, using words
like "vile" against heterosexual adultery? :O
Snipped the rest of your clueless crap.
Rod
>
> Let me start this by saying that homosexuals and their
> advocates try to claim that Christians spend their time
> coming down on homosexuals, when there are many
> other sins that we don't seem to spend that kind of
> time on other sins.
>
Let me interject a few words at this point; your religion claims
that you are not under the law but Grace, being in Christ. Therefore
you are a new creature, so where there is no law, there is no sin,
and as Paul says that Gentile Christians have no other burdens placed on
them other than to abstain from eating meat sacrificed to idols
and idol worship itself, homosexuality cannot be a sin if those people
are in Christ.
vince garcia
Did God denounce and judge homosexuality years before the law was ever
given and people were "under" it?
Was cain accountable for murder before the Law was given, even though he
was not "under" the law?
Remember we talked about this concept a while back?
.Matt.
A little off topic here, but here goes anyhow.
Do you believe Christians have the right to force non-Christians to
follow Christian law?
God Bless
Matt
Rod
Yes, however if the person is in Christ then he is unable to sin,
for where there is no law there is no sin. Cain wasn't in Christ,
and didn't have the opportunity.
>
> Remember we talked about this concept a while back?
It doesn't change the fact of what I've said. if the Gay is in Christ
then he cannot sin.
Just Another Critic
No.
>
> God Bless
>
> Matt
duke
A sin against nature and definitely against God's teachings.
The dukester, American-American
Jude Alexander
>> On Thu, 28 Apr 2011 20:41:08 -0400, Pastor Dave
>> <ananias917_@_gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> A sin against nature and definitely against God's teachings.
By that standard, all "unnatural" things are against God's teachings....
And where do the pathetic most insecure people in the world believe gives
them insight into God? The BIBLE, a book riddled with 1,000s of every kind
of error that can be made. WOW, what a world we live in!
Left handed is unnatural as well.
Enlarged heart is unnatural as well.
Is disease natural?
If something can go physical off the intended target, then what is that?
DUH
What about the people born with NO gender. They exist, you know. Who are
they able to be attracted to and find that they are orientated toward
bonding and nesting with what???? Come, on OH FUCKING WISE DICKWAD, tell us
ALL how to micromanage the human being in every fucking way possible. Give
on thing blessing and another cursing. You have the power of love and fear
and what do you always choose, Pukster?
vince garcia
Hi matt. Not sure what you mean "force" and what context you're asking
in.
Depending on what kind of government we're talking about, yes, we should
"force" non christians NOT to commit murder/theft/kidnapping, etc., at
minimum
> God Bless
>
> Matt
.Matt.
<vggar...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Those laws are laws even atheist follow. Should we force Homosexuals
to by Christian standards? At least in the
>
>
>
>
>> God Bless
>>
>> Matt
vince garcia
>
> On 4/30/2011 7:56 PM, vince garcia wrote:
> > Rod wrote:
> >>
> >> On 4/28/2011 7:41 PM, Pastor Dave wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Let me start this by saying that homosexuals and their
> >>> advocates try to claim that Christians spend their time
> >>> coming down on homosexuals, when there are many
> >>> other sins that we don't seem to spend that kind of
> >>> time on other sins.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Let me interject a few words at this point; your religion claims
> >> that you are not under the law but Grace, being in Christ. Therefore
> >> you are a new creature, so where there is no law, there is no sin,
> >> and as Paul says that Gentile Christians have no other burdens placed on
> >> them other than to abstain from eating meat sacrificed to idols
> >> and idol worship itself, homosexuality cannot be a sin if those people
> >> are in Christ.
> >
> >
> > Did God denounce and judge homosexuality years before the law was ever
> > given and people were "under" it?
> >
> > Was cain accountable for murder before the Law was given, even though he
> > was not "under" the law?
>
> Yes, however if the person is in Christ then he is unable to sin,
Are you basing that on 1 jn 3:9?
I would not give that so literal an interpretation.
> for where there is no law there is no sin.
Now that's from paul. And yes, where no law is, there is no
transgression.
But at the same time...
Rom 6:15 What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but
under grace? God forbid.
The context of what paul is teaching, is that if you are under a Law as
a point of right standing with God, you are automatically a transgressor
because of your inability to keep that law perfectly in thought word and
deed, which is God's stnadard.
jas 2:10 For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in ONE
POINT, he is guilty of all.
As I tried explaining before, even though Christians are not under ANY
law, they are still accountable to the conscience God has given, and if
they violate that consciemnce they are guilty.
BUT...that guilt does not automatically translate to damnation because
the Christian--as opposed to the non-Christian--has a foreign
righteousness imputed to him that still keeps him in a state of
salvation so long as he does not abandon or reject the faith. Cain did
not have that--he was a fallen human living with an unjustified body and
soul.
Cain wasn't in Christ,
> and didn't have the opportunity.
cain was in an unregenerate fallen state with no intrinsic righteousness
to his credit, and so even if he 'wasn't under the law' and had no
transgression (in the sense of not binding himself to keep a law he
could not keep to God's standard), he still died in an unregenerate
state and WAS accountable for violating the conscience God had given him
that let him know he was doing wrong when he killed his brother.
He can't claim ignorance.
Unless God had applied the merits of Christ to him, even if he never
killed his brother, and lived and died with a normal life, he would have
died damned.
ABEL, not cain, was the one in covenant with God thru faith
>
> >
> > Remember we talked about this concept a while back?
>
> It doesn't change the fact of what I've said. if the Gay is in Christ
> then he cannot sin.
sure he can. I sinned today by exceeding the posted speed limit by a
couple miles an hour. That has no effect on salvation.
But if i go out and rape/rob/murder--things which the NT SPECIFICALLY
say I cannot do and inherit eternal life--that is a different issue
vince garcia
I can only give you my quick off the cuff response.
I would not criminalize it, but would not grant it any special legal
protection whatever.
duke
>duke wrote:
>>> On Thu, 28 Apr 2011 20:41:08 -0400, Pastor Dave
>>> <ananias917_@_gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> A sin against nature and definitely against God's teachings.
>By that standard, all "unnatural" things are against God's teachings....
Unnatural sex definitely is against God's teachings.
>And where do the pathetic most insecure people in the world believe gives
>them insight into God? The BIBLE, a book riddled with 1,000s of every kind
>of error that can be made. WOW, what a world we live in!
Nope, not the bible.
>Left handed is unnatural as well.
>Enlarged heart is unnatural as well.
>Is disease natural?
None of those are by choice.
>If something can go physical off the intended target, then what is that?
>DUH
>What about the people born with NO gender. They exist, you know. Who are
>they able to be attracted to and find that they are orientated toward
>bonding and nesting with what???? Come, on OH FUCKING WISE DICKWAD, tell us
>ALL how to micromanage the human being in every fucking way possible. Give
>on thing blessing and another cursing. You have the power of love and fear
>and what do you always choose, Pukster?
Reject satan, choose God.
Pastor Dave, Th.D.
Let me start this by saying that homosexuals and their advocates
try to claim that Christians spend their time coming down on
homosexuals, when there are many other sins that we don't seem
to spend that kind of time on other sins.
figure out that it is an admission by them that it is sin!
2) Those who commit other types of sins, do not spend
their time:
a) Claiming it isn't a sin on political platforms.
b) Having parades (Ever seen an "Adultery Pride Parade?).
c) Seeking special protection under the law, because of
their sexual practices (Ever seen an adulterer lobbying
for special protection for adulterers, or for it to be
legally called a "hate crime" is the spouse beats them
up and get more time for it?). Can you believe that
two men want special protection, because one man
The fact is, they cannot respond directly to the issue and so,
seek to distract you from it!
As for what the Bible has to say about it, they will try to make
claims that the Bible doesn't speak against two homosexuals
who are in a "loving, monogamous relationship".
But where does God say in the Bible say that it's okay, if they
are "in love"? Where is that exception noted in the Bible?
The fact is, that God condemns the acts that are committed
by homosexuals with each other. So are the homosexuals
claiming that when they are in love, that they won't have
You see folks, they have no defense. And you have to
be smart! You have to watch what they say in response!
Why? Because their response is never one that shows us
acts between two homosexuals claiming to be "in love",
is "good". Rather, it is always an attack and/or an argument
from silence! So don't be distracted by them! And remember,
then they wouldn't be seeking to distract you, hello? :)
And also remember that when they try to cite events that
acts are okay, that doesn't mean that God approved of them,
Bible lists David as committing adultery!
The truth is, that while the homosexuals try to play word games
The very best Bible software: http://www.theword.net/ is free!
«::F::»«::U::»«::L::»«::F::»«::I::»«::L::»«::L::»«::E::»«::D::»
"If something in science suddenly becomes so sacrosanct
that you can't question it, then it ceases to be science",
he said. "And I really think that's what's become of
Darwinism." - Roger DeHart
dolf
Phelps of the Westboro Church. Just terminate their soul and have no
compassion on them or their parishioners: Set the sword of justice
against their soul O LORD.
The Grapple Paradigm is a mathematical model as cube which was created
to question the origins and foundations of all religious belief and to
eliminate their inherent opposition by silencing their incessant
obstruction to the existence of another’s quietude. These systems of
belief are essentially symbolical, in being derived from a geometric
pattern as notionally a transcendent principle (eg. male/female dualism
or sun/moon cycles) conveyed by an ordered cosmos, emanated from a
chaotic realm.
Although often universally characterised as an exercise in futility by
my protagonists who are vehemently opposed to and dissuade any
undertaking of enquiry into the validity of origins of belief. It would
seem self evident given the Gregorian calendar reforms of 1582 CE, that
something is seriously amiss with the Roman caesarian origins of empire
governance.
But this is not simply an exercise in historical materialism as to the
cause of murderous opposition to all who would stand in the way of
claims to pre-eminence amongst the angels of glory within the celestial
hierarchy. The practical reality of such enquiry is that we may cause to
enter into the mind of public consciousness, an understanding to the
following conundrums which have for decades consumed our resources and
depreciated our Western quality of life:
Same Sex Marriage: A cubic model providing an equitable distribution of
number throughout the yearly cycle and paradigm of soul, overcomes the
dichotomy to unity of being intrinsic to heterosexual marriage as the
irreconcilable dualism realised by the Pythagorean (570-495 BCE)
conception that the diagonal of a 1 x 1 cube is the √2 and therefore
incommensurate. The inclusion of marriage without adequate definition in
Section 51 (xxi) of the Australian Constitution of 1901 deprives the
Church from deploying this dissonance to its own ritual institutional
advantage and to the detriment of the State. A formal monogamous
definition of gamogenesis: “marriage means the union of a man and a
woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life”
only occurred in August 2004 with the passage of the Marriage
Legislation Amendment Bill as an Act to amend the Australian
Commonwealth Marriage Act 1961 and Family Law Act 1975.
According to Reuters, Pope Benedict XVI on Monday 9 January 2012 told
diplomats from nearly 180 countries that "pride of place goes to the
family, based on the marriage of a man and a woman."
"This is not a simple social convention, but rather the fundamental cell
of every society. Consequently, policies which undermine the family
threaten human dignity and the future of humanity itself," he said.
Adding: "The family unit is fundamental for the educational process and
for the development both of individuals and states; hence there is a
need for policies which promote the family and aid social cohesion and
dialogue."
This is only the latest in a series of homophobic comments made by the
religious leader. In 2010 he condemned gay marriage in a public address
to half a million people. During the annual mass at Fatima’s Sanctuary
in Portugal, the then-83-year-old described gay marriage as the “most
insidious and dangerous challenges that today confront the common good.”
In a separate incident, he previously claimed behaviour beyond
traditional heterosexual relations was a “destruction of God’s work”.
[Sourced and courtesy: news.PinkPaper.com 2012.01.10].
Islamic militancy and Shia law idealism: Whilst such a semantical system
of belief claims a superiority to all which has preceded, they also have
a Kabbalistic dependency and therefore must conform to its boundaries
and limits--one such limit and for which the claim of religious impetus
is categorically delusional, was the Islamic terrorist attack of 11
September 2001. A view may be formed, that the displacement and
dispersal of Muslims throughout the world due to decades of military
conflict caused by factional militancy and the lack of autonomic
democratic governance, in its exhibited social hysteria and paranoia,
beyond a mathematical symbolism as foundation as ensnarement of the
psyche, has no real and substantial basis as reality--that medieval
tribalism as dust bowl village disputes, has for far too long needlessly
occupied the western mind.
German Fascism’s institutional opposition and elimination of Judaism:
Some 60 years have elapsed since the malevolent evil which was German
nationalist socialism undertook a systematic annihilation of Judaism by
holocaust. Even given Martin Heidegger’s (1889-1976) support of such
opportunism, and his existential and phenomenological explorations of
the ‘question of being and time’ and ‘metaphysics of language’--as the
basic question of what it is to exist and of what being itself is. There
remains no common conscious acceptance and plausible explanation as to
whether such philosophical inquiry and inducement lay the foundations
for the elimination of opposition. In Heidegger was an existential
passion, an emanation of intellectual concentration, that made
everything that preceded it seem feeble. The brilliant scheme of Being
and Time really meant a total transformation of the intellectual
climate, a transformation that had lasting effects on almost all the
sciences. Heidegger shattered the exclusiveness of academic philosophy
and had a tremendous effect, not only in Germany but also in the whole
world. He had the speculative power to develop those things that
commanded the attention of a crisis-ridden time, and he did it
conceptually on the level of classical thinkers of philosophy. Just as
might have been the case in fifth-century Athens when the young, under
the banners of the new sophistic and Socratic dialectic, vanquished all
conventional forms of authority, law, and custom with radical new
questions, so too the radicalism of Heidegger’s inquiry produced in the
German universities an intoxicating effect that left all moderation
behind. [Gadamer 2004:139]
My intention is to resolve these questions by an examination of
cosmological models associated with the attribution of time such the
Jewish Kabbalistic contrivance known as the celestial hierarchy and the
Chinese literature on cosmological changes, the I-Ching and Dao Te
Ching. Indeed the Grapple cube was specifically constructed to provide a
commonality between these heretofore disparate oriental systems of belief.
The Grapple noumenon provides some 729 possible categories of
understanding, as appraisals and semantical framework for hosting the
lexicon of terms (sans Aleister Crowley’s usage) deployed by the
1895-1906 originating Ordo Templi Orientis / Order of Oriental Templars
as an A-U-M Kabbalistic compliant organisation which emulated the rites
and practices of the Royal Arch Freemasons. It also provides an
equivalent gematric basis to the Hebrew and Greek concordance and
Strong’s references to the biblical text. Development of this project
[see here for Grapple.html] has reached an acceptable level of function,
whereby it is now possible to publicly articulate the motivating cause
for such an undertaking.
Over time, I expect it to publicly disseminate and become a pernicious
vexation to those who luxuriate from the privilege of ignorance en masse.
-- www.grapple369.com
dolf
duke
<newsgroup-mail@tampa_bay_rr.com> wrote:
Yes, it's a soul destroying act.
*****
1 John 3:4-6
4 Everyone who sins breaks the law; in fact,
sin is lawlessness. 5 But you know that he
appeared so that he might take away our sins.
And in him is no sin. 6 No one who lives in
him keeps on sinning. No one who continues to
sin has either seen him or known him.
*****
idlehands
The Bible was not faxed from heaven to earth
--
Jude
"idlehands" <hidefromu@nospam h u s h.c0m> wrote in message
news:jfdcc5$hmo$1...@dont-email.me...
>
> The Bible was not faxed from heaven to earth