Benny Hinn Spills the Beans: Paul Crouch Caught Having Sex with his Black Male Chauffeur?!?
Ken Smith
It has been an open secret for a long time that something very queer
has been going on over at TBN.... OOH-LA-LAAAA! :)
http://www.trinityfi.org/press/documentation01.html
http://www.trinityfi.org/press/oea_affadavit.PDF
http://www.trinityfi.org/press/oea_exh_a.PDF
http://www.trinityfi.org/press/oea_exh_b.PDF
http://www.trinityfi.org/press/oea_exh_c.PDF
http://www.trinityfi.org/press/latimes06.html
How on earth does any competent attorney file documents this
sensitive in the friggin' round file?! I either shred, file, or return
everything that comes into my office. Not only did Paul apparently "get
it" in the arse, but he *got it in the arse* from his attorney! :)
(Bob Larson will love this, 'cuz the dumpster divers got him, too,
and his friend Matt Crouch is in the mix. :) )
Theodore A. Kaldis
> [blah, blah, blah ...]
Ken, you need to get your heart right with the Lord (as does Ole
Anthony).
--
Theodore A. Kaldis
kal...@worldnet.att.net
Ken Smith
> Ken Smith wrote:
>
>>[blah, blah, blah ...]
>
> Ken, you need to get your heart right with the Lord (as does Ole
> Anthony).
We just can't believe *ANYONE* who testifies under oath, now can we,
Ted? Oh, that's right -- it's only those who testify to something that
doesn't comport with Ted's immaculate preconceptions.
I am confident that the Times has the goods on Paul Crouch, because I
know Ole, and how his people work.
I find it rich that someone with your track record for prevarication,
parsimony, adultery, and mendacity would be lecturing anyone else about
getting *their* hearts right with the Lord.
Practice what you preach, Teddums. Remove the beam from thine own
eye.... :)
Theodore A. Kaldis
> Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
>> Ken Smith wrote:
>>> [blah, blah, blah ...]
>> Ken, you need to get your heart right with the Lord (as does Ole
>> Anthony).
> We just can't believe *ANYONE* who testifies under oath, now can we,
> Ted? Oh, that's right -- it's only those who testify to something
> that doesn't comport with Ted's immaculate preconceptions.
Ken, you still need to get your heart right with the Lord.
> I am confident that the Times has the goods on Paul Crouch,
Maybe yes, maybe no. Even if so, then, so what? Paul Crouch will have
to answer to God -- just as will you (AND Ole Anthony). Ken Smith does
not get a free pass just because, say, Paul Crouch might be a sinner.
> because I know Ole, and how his people work.
Ole' Ole needs to know a little more about what the Bible has to say
about this sort of thing (or at least to follow it).
> [Ken's personal invective elided]
Ken, you STILL need to get your heart right with the Lord regardless of
what I might say or do.
Ken Smith
> Ken Smith wrote:
>>Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
>>>Ken Smith wrote:
BTW, when *Lonnie Ford* claims he had sex with Paul Crouch, it isn't
hearsay. You either believe him or you don't; based on what I see from
the lawyers' correspondence, I conclude that Mr. Ford's claims are very
believable.
>>>>[blah, blah, blah ...]
>>>
>>>Ken, you need to get your heart right with the Lord (as does Ole
>>>Anthony).
>>
>>We just can't believe *ANYONE* who testifies under oath, now can we,
>>Ted? Oh, that's right -- it's only those who testify to something
>>that doesn't comport with Ted's immaculate preconceptions.
>
> Ken, you still need to get your heart right with the Lord.
You first, Ted. *You* are the one who keeps spewing that drivel; I'd
think that your best endorsement of the practice would be to actually do
it, and impress the hell out of us by showing what a nice and thoroughly
agreeable person you suddenly become.
>>I am confident that the Times has the goods on Paul Crouch,
>
> Maybe yes, maybe no.
Knowing Ole, you can pretty much take it to the bank. I know how
they work over at Trinity, because I've worked with them before.
> Even if so, then, so what?
No big deal -- there's nothing wrong with homosexual relations
between consenting adults, now is there, Ted? You should get rid of
your guilt, and finally accept the fact that you *are* gay, Ted. Us
straight married men won't think any less of you ... as long as you
don't hit on us.
My whole interest in this is in showing that Christians like Paul,
Bob Larson, and you are hopeless hypocrites who couldn't practice what
they preached if their lives depended on it.
> Paul Crouch will have
> to answer to God -- just as will you (AND Ole Anthony). Ken Smith does
> not get a free pass just because, say, Paul Crouch might be a sinner.
I really don't expect to have to answer to your god; if he did exist,
he would have to answer to me first for his failure to hold up his end
of the bargain.
>>because I know Ole, and how his people work.
>
> Ole' Ole needs to know a little more about what the Bible has to say
> about this sort of thing (or at least to follow it).
According to you, policing corrupt televangelists is a Christian's
job -- and most emphatically not mine. (As Ole is doing what you don't
have the requisite Christian courage and personal character to do
because you obviously *aren't* doing it, you don't have standing to bitch.)
>>[Ken's personal invective elided]
It's relevant, and it's not invective. It is simply the truth, which
everyone here knows:
I find it rich that someone with your track record for prevarication,
parsimony, adultery, and mendacity would be lecturing anyone else about
getting *their* hearts right with the Lord.
Practice what you preach, Teddums. Remove the beam from thine own
eye.... :)
Speaking of reputations for truth-telling, look at what I just got in
the mail (http://home.earthlink.net/~19ranger57/aruba1.jpg)....
> Ken, you STILL need to get your heart right with the Lord regardless of
> what I might say or do.
When your god is finished sodomizing young boys on the golf course,
or otherwise finally awakens from the dead, let me know. I care not a
whit about the opinions of dead gods ... be they Odin, Thor, or Jesus.
Theodore A. Kaldis
> Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
>> Ken Smith wrote:
>>> Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
>>>> Ken Smith wrote:
> BTW, when *Lonnie Ford* claims he had sex with Paul Crouch, it isn't
> hearsay. You either believe him or you don't; [...]
And even if I do, TBN is still not discredited. (Because we know that
men have their failings.)
>>>>> [blah, blah, blah ...]
>>>> Ken, you need to get your heart right with the Lord (as does Ole
>>>> Anthony).
>>> We just can't believe *ANYONE* who testifies under oath, now can
>>> we, Ted? Oh, that's right -- it's only those who testify to
>>> something that doesn't comport with Ted's immaculate
>>> preconceptions.
>> Ken, you still need to get your heart right with the Lord.
> You first, Ted.
Already have. Now it's your turn.
> *You* are the one who keeps spewing that drivel; I'd think that your
> best endorsement of the practice would be to actually do it, and
> impress the hell out of us by showing what a nice and thoroughly
> agreeable person you suddenly become.
The Gospel is to be found in the pages of the Bible. There is no such
thing as the "'gospel' of the changed life". We are born again not of
corruptible seed, but or incorruptible, by the Word of God.
>>> I am confident that the Times has the goods on Paul Crouch,
>> Maybe yes, maybe no.
> Knowing Ole, you can pretty much take it to the bank.
But that would be inconsistent with Scripture.
> I know how they work over at Trinity, because I've worked with them
> before.
Which speaks loads about Trinity.
>> Even if so, then, so what?
> No big deal -- there's nothing wrong with homosexual relations
> between consenting adults, now is there, Ted?
Well, yes there is. God condemns it, both in Leviticus and in Romans.
> You should get rid of your guilt, and finally accept the fact that
> you *are* gay, Ted.
Only insofar as I am exuberantly happy. I am NOT homosexual, nor have
I ever been.
> Us straight married men won't think any less of you
You can go ahead and receive Christ as your Lord and Saviour, Ken. Us
Christians won't think any less of you.
> ... as long as you don't hit on us.
You can rest easy Ken. (But you must nevertheless be reminded that you
will one day stand before God, and wil have to answer to Him at the
Final Judgment.)
> My whole interest in this is in showing that Christians like Paul,
> Bob Larson, and you are hopeless hypocrites who couldn't practice
> what they preached if their lives depended on it.
And you're quite wrong about this, because you don't really understand
what it is that we preach.
>> Paul Crouch will have to answer to God -- just as will you (AND Ole
>> Anthony). Ken Smith does not get a free pass just because, say,
>> Paul Crouch might be a sinner.
> I really don't expect to have to answer to your god;
That doesn't matter. One day, you WILL have to answer to Him when you
stand before Him at the Final Judgment. And you can't escape it.
> if he did exist, he would have to answer to me first for his failure
> to hold up his end of the bargain.
Oh, but He HAS held up His end of the "bargain". And God need not
answer to any man.
>>> because I know Ole, and how his people work.
>> Ole' Ole needs to know a little more about what the Bible has to say
>> about this sort of thing (or at least to follow it).
> According to you, policing corrupt televangelists is a Christian's
> job
Indeed it is -- but I don't read anywhere in the Bible where we are to
expose them to the world. Perhaps you can help me -- where in God's
Word does it say to do this?
> -- and most emphatically not mine.
Indeed.
> (As Ole is doing what you don't have the requisite Christian courage
> and personal character to do because you obviously *aren't* doing it,
I dunno ... what I see Ole doing here is something that is CONTRARY to
what the Scripture teaches.
> you don't have standing to bitch.)
Nor am I doing so. I'm just pointing out that it doesn't seem to be
consistent with what the Scripture says.
>> [Ken's personal invective elided]
> It's relevant,
No it isn't.
> and it's not invective.
Sure it is.
> [Repetition by Ken of same invective elided again]
> Practice what you preach, Teddums. Remove the beam from thine own
> eye ... :)
Ken, you STILL need to get your heart right with the Lord.
> [...]
>> Ken, you STILL need to get your heart right with the Lord regardless
>> of what I might say or do.
> When your god is finished sodomizing young boys on the golf course,
> or otherwise finally awakens from the dead, let me know.
God isn't dead. II Peter 3:9 says: "The Lord is not slack concerning
his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-
ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to
repentance." So please avail yourself of this time of grace, and
receive Christ as your Lord and Saviour, that you not perish into
everlasting torment.
> I care not a whit about the opinions of dead gods ... be they Odin,
> Thor, or Jesus.
Unlike the others, Jesus isn't dead.
Ken Smith
> Ken Smith wrote:
>>Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
>>>Ken Smith wrote:
>>>>Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
>>>>>Ken Smith wrote:
>>>>
>
>>BTW, when *Lonnie Ford* claims he had sex with Paul Crouch, it isn't
>>hearsay. You either believe him or you don't; [...]
Why did you snip the following passage:
"...based on what I see from the lawyers' correspondence, I conclude
that Mr. Ford's claims are very believable."
And why do you insist upon calling Lonnie Ford's description of his
alleged sexual encounter hearsay, when it clearly isn't? Why MUST you
lie for Paul Crouch, of all people?
> And even if I do, TBN is still not discredited. (Because we know that
> men have their failings.)
TBN has been discredited for many reasons -- the "blab it and grab
it" gospel comes immediately to mind. This is merely cumulative,
confirming the Sodom-like corporate culture over at The Blasphemy Network.
>>>>>>[blah, blah, blah ...]
>>>>>
>>>>>Ken, you need to get your heart right with the Lord (as does Ole
>>>>>Anthony).
>>>>
>>>>We just can't believe *ANYONE* who testifies under oath, now can
>>>>we, Ted? Oh, that's right -- it's only those who testify to
>>>>something that doesn't comport with Ted's immaculate
>>>>preconceptions.
>>>
>>>Ken, you still need to get your heart right with the Lord.
>>
>>You first, Ted.
>
> Already have.
Can't see it from your life, Ted.
> Now it's your turn.
Why? Seeing what it has done to you doesn't make it an attractive or
sensible move, as I've observed before:
____________________________________________________________
Subject: The Ted Kaldis EXORCIZE Video (was Re: The non-Evidence Question
Date: 14 May 2002 14:25:45 GMT
From: Ken Smith <Rang...@concentric.net>
Organization: Concentric Internet Services
Newsgroups:
alt.fan.bob-larson,alt.religion.christian.calvary-chapel,alt.atheism
"Theodore A. Kaldis" wrote:
> Ken Smith wrote:
> > Louis Kuhelj wrote:
> >> Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
> >>> Ken Smith wrote:
> >>>> Louis Kuhelj wrote:
> >>>>> Moe wrote:
>
> >>>>>> This is also a nice evasion of the actual challenge--that if
their god
> >>>>>> exists and showed himself to humans in the past why not now?
>
> >>>>> You mean like in the burning bush or the pilar of fire etc.
>
> >>>> Any credible evidence will do, Louis.
>
> >>> This works out to circular reasoning for Ken. For, with Ken, if
it is
> >>> evidence of God, then it is not credible; and if it is credible,
then God
> >>> is not involved: Ken does not believe in God. So you can never win.
>
> >>> [Actually, it is Ken who cannot win, for at the Final Judgement,
he will
> >>> be on the wrong side. And at that time, it will be too late to do
> >>> anything about it.]
>
> >> I'm afraid you are right.
>
> > And I'm afraid you are both blathering idiots.
>
> The key word here in Ken's statement is "afraid". Ken is deathly
> afraid that the Gospel is true. For Ken does not see the Gospel for
> what it is -- that God can wipe all our sins away
That's right, folks! YOU TOO, can be a shallow, selfish, misogynist,
homophobic glutton -- without even the slightest pang of guilt! Just
get your own copy of the Ted Kaldis Exorcise Video -- available for
just $19.95 (and ten percent of your income thereafter) -- brought to
you by Conco! Nail as many skags and 'hos as you want -- provided
you still *want* to -- with the optional Leykis Love-Meter!
Sign up now, and you get free membership in the Republican Party
with your order!
Imagine your exciting new life -- hanging out in hotel bars in natural
vacation spots like Dallas, Newark, and Cleveland, reading Gideon's
Bibles and watching the tube! Can it get any better than this, kiddies?
And if you *don't* sign up, Ted's invisible sky-daddy will kick your
ass!!!
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Join the Church of the Perpetual Treadmill! (was Re: Ken Smith
is a Drongo!!!!
Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2002 13:29:41 -0600
From: Ken Smith <Rang...@concentric.net>
Organization: MindSpring Enterprises
Newsgroups:
alt.christnet,alt.christnet.public,alt.religion.christian,alt.religion.christian.calvary-chapel,talk.religion.misc,alt.fan.bob-larson,alt.atheism
"Theodore A. Kaldis" wrote:
> Ken Smith wrote:
[snip]
When my wife and I started going together, our President was one
Gerald R. Ford (R-MI).
> Now for a Christian, it would be virtous to remain celibate outside of
> marriage -- but then I've never claimed to be the most virtuous of
> Christians.
>
> When was the last time? Would you believe last night? Well, almost,
> but not quite. Probably could have, if I had put forth a little more
> effort. But at my age, the feeling sometimes seems to be "why
> bother?".
___________________
From Men's Fitness magazine (Dec. 2001) on the advantages of
cardio [p. 148]:
Last, but hardly least, regular aerobic exercise correlates to
better sexual function, according to Kinsey Institute researcher
Debby Herbenick. "A history of vigorous exercise may benefit
men in the areas of sexual desire as well as erectile function --
both the ability to have erections and their firmness."
How so? "It's valuable to remember that sexual activity is a
form of exercise, so it makes sense that men and women who
are physically active may also enjoy better sexual performance."
The physiological reason is that exercise enhances blood flow,
the dynamo of erections. But there's also a psychological factor.
"Physically active men may have a better body image, feel
more confident in sexual situations, ad be more likely to see
themselves as sexually desirable," says Herbenick. "You could
also hypothesize that those who biuld endurance may carry this
endurance over into sexual activity." Or as a bumper sticker
reads: RUNNERS DO IT LONGER.
____________________
Brother Teddy, we do need to get you into the Church of the
Perpetual Treadmill for regular services. If you can get it now,
just imagine how much more you'll get if you can fit into a size
34. And imagine how much more you'll *enjoy* it! :)
It's *your* choice: Join the CPT . . . or require CPR. :)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
[edited for brevity]
Subject: Re: Christianity has compelling proofs
Date: 13 Mar 2002 08:53:43 -0800
From: kal...@home.com (Theodore A. Kaldis)
Organization: http://groups.google.com/
Newsgroups: alt.religion.christian.calvary-chapel,alt.atheism
Ken Smith wrote:
> Teresita wrote:
>> Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
>>> So I've said "ugga booga". Why don't you go ahead and confess with
your
>>> mouth Jesus as your Lord? And believe in your heart that God has
raised
>>> him from the dead, and you shall not be ashamed. You will proudly
>>> proclaim how God has saved you to any and all who will listen. And you
>>> shall have eternal life. Where's the loss in that?
>> The loss of honor and self-integrity due to sacrificing reason for a
>> nothing backed up by warm fuzzy emotions of "burning in the bosom."
> Ted feels no shame in such an endeavor, because he needs the false
> hope Christianity provides far more.
Christianity provides _TRUE_ hope. If only Ken would learn how to avail
himself of it, he would certainly be far happier.
> He often comes home to an empty hotel room in a strange city, and
> probably has cause to wonder whether life has any meaning at all.
Nah, that never happens. I'll plug in my laptop, connect through the
network (if LodgeNet is available there) or else dial up Worldnet, and
start pounding away. And I'll turn on the tube and see what's on. (If
I'm in Dallas, they have heaps of religious programming on the TV
there.) Or maybe I'll just dig the Gideons Bible out of the drawer and
start reading and meditating on the Word of God. Or if I'm not in such
a spiritual mood, I might run down to the hotel bar for a few brewski's
and shoot the bull with the bartender.
[snipped here for brevity]
________________________________________________________
>>*You* are the one who keeps spewing that drivel; I'd think that your
>>best endorsement of the practice would be to actually do it, and
>>impress the hell out of us by showing what a nice and thoroughly
>>agreeable person you suddenly become.
>
> The Gospel is to be found in the pages of the Bible. There is no such
> thing as the "'gospel' of the changed life". We are born again not of
> corruptible seed, but or incorruptible, by the Word of God.
Au contraire! The Bible speaks of the "new man in Christ," of which
there is precisely no evidence in your life.
>>>>I am confident that the Times has the goods on Paul Crouch,
>>>
>>>Maybe yes, maybe no.
>>
>>Knowing Ole, you can pretty much take it to the bank.
>
> But that would be inconsistent with Scripture.
Nonsense.
>
>>I know how they work over at Trinity, because I've worked with them
>>before.
>
> Which speaks loads about Trinity.
They know that they can't count on or work with you.
>>>Even if so, then, so what?
>>
>>No big deal -- there's nothing wrong with homosexual relations
>>between consenting adults, now is there, Ted?
>
> Well, yes there is. God condemns it, both in Leviticus and in Romans.
>
>>You should get rid of your guilt, and finally accept the fact that
>>you *are* gay, Ted.
>
> Only insofar as I am exuberantly happy. I am NOT homosexual, nor have
> I ever been.
Keep telling yourself that and eventually, you might even believe it
yourself! We know that you would have liked to take Lonnie's place, but
for the self-confessed fact that you're too old and decrepit to even get
it up any more.
>>Us straight married men won't think any less of you
>
> You can go ahead and receive Christ as your Lord and Saviour, Ken. Us
> Christians won't think any less of you.
Been there, done that, got the PremiseKeepers' T-shirt. Based on
your own theology, I don't have to do anything -- and I'm also covered
by the Cream Gravy of the Kit'n Grrrrl. So, there! :)
>>... as long as you don't hit on us.
>
> You can rest easy Ken. (But you must nevertheless be reminded that you
> will one day stand before God, and wil have to answer to Him at the
> Final Judgment.)
And Al'lah the Most Merciful will be quite displeased with you, Ted.
>>My whole interest in this is in showing that Christians like Paul,
>>Bob Larson, and you are hopeless hypocrites who couldn't practice
>>what they preached if their lives depended on it.
>
> And you're quite wrong about this, because you don't really understand
> what it is that we preach.
Sure, I do. You have created a theology that lets you do whatever
you want to others, with your god's tacit blessing. It's Satanism,
under a negligee of deception.
>>>Paul Crouch will have to answer to God -- just as will you (AND Ole
>>>Anthony). Ken Smith does not get a free pass just because, say,
>>>Paul Crouch might be a sinner.
>>
>>I really don't expect to have to answer to your god;
>
> That doesn't matter. One day, you WILL have to answer to Him when you
> stand before Him at the Final Judgment. And you can't escape it.
I'm more likely to have to worry about body thetans.
>>if he did exist, he would have to answer to me first for his failure
>>to hold up his end of the bargain.
>
> Oh, but He HAS held up His end of the "bargain".
No, he hasn't. James 4:17.
> And God need not answer to any man.
Then your god is a cosmic Stalin, and morality is an illusion.
>>>>because I know Ole, and how his people work.
>>>
>>>Ole' Ole needs to know a little more about what the Bible has to say
>>>about this sort of thing (or at least to follow it).
>>
>>According to you, policing corrupt televangelists is a Christian's
>>job
>
> Indeed it is -- but I don't read anywhere in the Bible where we are to
> expose them to the world. Perhaps you can help me -- where in God's
> Word does it say to do this?
Ezek. 33:1-6, and Eph. 5:11 come immediately to mind, interpreted as
they were by people with far better qualifications to 'rightly divide
the Word' than you. You remember Dr. Ron Black, don't you? And Fred
Wheeler (who was an ABD divinity student)? You've never even set foot
in Bible college (unless you count Duh-g's Skool of Truck Drivin' and
Bible Preechin').
>>-- and most emphatically not mine.
>
> Indeed.
Well, that *is* your opinion, is it not?
>>(As Ole is doing what you don't have the requisite Christian courage
>>and personal character to do because you obviously *aren't* doing it,
>
> I dunno ... what I see Ole doing here is something that is CONTRARY to
> what the Scripture teaches.
Cite chapter and verse, Ted. (You never do.) This one, I gotta see!
>>you don't have standing to bitch.)
>
> Nor am I doing so. I'm just pointing out that it doesn't seem to be
> consistent with what the Scripture says.
In your tendentious opinion. I've learned from dealing with you over
the years that your god always says what you need him to say, as opposed
to what a dispassionate reading of Writ reveals.
>>>[Ken's personal invective elided]
>>
>>It's relevant,
>
> No it isn't.
Yes, it is.
>
>>and it's not invective.
>
> Sure it is.
No, it is not.
>
>>I find it rich that someone with your track record for prevarication,
>>parsimony, adultery, and mendacity would be lecturing anyone else
>>about getting *their* hearts right with the Lord.
>
>>Practice what you preach, Teddums. Remove the beam from thine own
>>eye ... :)
>
> Ken, you STILL need to get your heart right with the Lord.
Hey, I'm saved already ... according to your own book. Now, stop
bothering me with this drivel already!
>>[...]
>
>>>Ken, you STILL need to get your heart right with the Lord regardless
>>>of what I might say or do.
>>
>>When your god is finished sodomizing young boys on the golf course,
>>or otherwise finally awakens from the dead, let me know.
>
> God isn't dead. II Peter 3:9 says: "The Lord is not slack concerning
> his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-
> ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to
> repentance."
2 Peter is widely regarded as a fraud -- pseudepigraphical, as it is
referred to in the literature. Why should I believe a known fraud that
scholars openly admit to be a fraud?
> So please avail yourself of this time of grace, and
> receive Christ as your Lord and Saviour, that you not perish into
> everlasting torment.
If your Holey Babble means anything, I'm already saved. Go bother
someone who cares about your drivel or at least, wash off those old,
smelly sandals.
>>I care not a whit about the opinions of dead gods ... be they Odin,
>>Thor, or Jesus.
>
> Unlike the others, Jesus isn't dead.
Then, he is too busy sodomizing young boys on the golf course to be
of any value to anyone. Either way, I don't give a flying fuck.
forevernitefan
admit you owe me?
Moe
Eternal FOREVER KNIGHT fan
" A vampire cop? REALLY?"
Theodore A. Kaldis
> Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
>> Ken Smith wrote:
>>> Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
>>>> Ken Smith wrote:
>>>>> Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
>>>>>> Ken Smith wrote:
>>> BTW, when *Lonnie Ford* claims he had sex with Paul Crouch, it
>>> isn't hearsay. You either believe him or you don't; [...]
> Why did you snip the following passage:
> [elided]
Because it is your opinion, and I'm not inclined to respond to your
opinion.
> And why do you insist upon calling Lonnie Ford's description of his
> alleged sexual encounter hearsay, when it clearly isn't?
I'm not addressing Ford's assertions. I'm addressing the [alleged]
comments made by Benny Hinn.
> Why MUST you lie for Paul Crouch,
I'm not "lying" for Paul Crouch (or for anyone else, for that matter).
I don't know what Crouch did or didn't do. But I know that one day,
Paul Crouch must answer to God -- as must we all, including you.
> of all people?
What sort of problem do you have with Paul Crouch?
>> And even if I do, TBN is still not discredited. (Because we know
>> that men have their failings.)
> TBN has been discredited for many reasons
Chief among them, in your mind, I would think, is because they proclaim
the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
> -- the "blab it and grab it" gospel comes immediately to mind.
"Blab it and grab it" is a pejorative term for the misapplication of a
Biblical principle (misapplied primarily by those who have the same
mindset as those whom James was addressing in Ja. 4:3). You need to
learn what the Bible REALLY says about these principles -- but first,
you need to get your heart right with the Lord, else I could tell you
forthrightly, and you would never understand it (as Ole Anthony seems
also to fail to understand it).
> This is merely cumulative, confirming the Sodom-like corporate
> culture over at The Blasphemy Network.
If you are intent on finding fault, you will CERTAINLY find fault with
ANY [Christian] organisation. Because men are fallible.
>>>>>>> [blah, blah, blah ...]
>>>>>> Ken, you need to get your heart right with the Lord (as does Ole
>>>>>> Anthony).
>>>>> We just can't believe *ANYONE* who testifies under oath, now can
>>>>> we, Ted? Oh, that's right -- it's only those who testify to
>>>>> something that doesn't comport with Ted's immaculate
>>>>> preconceptions.
>>>> Ken, you still need to get your heart right with the Lord.
>>> You first, Ted.
>> Already have.
> Can't see it from your life, Ted.
That's okay. You're not the one who matters. (Anyway, there is no
such thing as the "'gospel' of the changed life".)
>> Now it's your turn.
> Why? Seeing what it has done to you doesn't make it an attractive or
> sensible move, as I've observed before:
> [elided]
If you're looking at me, you're looking in the wrong place. Jesus is
our example, and not any man. Men are fallible.
>>> *You* are the one who keeps spewing that drivel; I'd think that
>>> your best endorsement of the practice would be to actually do it,
>>> and impress the hell out of us by showing what a nice and
>>> thoroughly agreeable person you suddenly become.
>> The Gospel is to be found in the pages of the Bible. There is no
>> such thing as the "'gospel' of the changed life". We are born again
>> not of corruptible seed, but or incorruptible, by the Word of God.
> Au contraire!
Rather, FACT! The last sentence is a quote from the Bible. And the
Bible is the Word of God, and ABSOLUTELY true.
> The Bible speaks of the "new man in Christ," of which there is
> precisely no evidence in your life.
You're not the Final Arbiter of that.
>>>>> I am confident that the Times has the goods on Paul Crouch,
>>>> Maybe yes, maybe no.
>>> Knowing Ole, you can pretty much take it to the bank.
>> But that would be inconsistent with Scripture.
> Nonsense.
You know not the Scripture.
>>> I know how they work over at Trinity, because I've worked with them
>>> before.
>> Which speaks loads about Trinity.
> They know that they can't count on or work with you.
And yet I have the Spirit of God within me. (He who has ears to hear,
let him hear.)
>>>> Even if so, then, so what?
>>> No big deal -- there's nothing wrong with homosexual relations
>>> between consenting adults, now is there, Ted?
>> Well, yes there is. God condemns it, both in Leviticus and in
>> Romans.
>>> You should get rid of your guilt, and finally accept the fact that
>>> you *are* gay, Ted.
>> Only insofar as I am exuberantly happy. I am NOT homosexual, nor
>> have I ever been.
> Keep telling yourself that and eventually, you might even believe it
> yourself!
Don't need to. It's always been true, and I know it.
> [Disparaging comments by Ken elided]
>>> Us straight married men won't think any less of you
>> You can go ahead and receive Christ as your Lord and Saviour, Ken.
>> Us Christians won't think any less of you.
> Been there, done that,
I don't think so.
> got the PremiseKeepers' T-shirt.
One doesn't become right with the Lord by putting on a T-shirt.
> Based on your own theology, I don't have to do anything [...]
Only believe.
>>> ... as long as you don't hit on us.
>> You can rest easy Ken. (But you must nevertheless be reminded that
>> you will one day stand before God, and wil have to answer to Him at
>> the Final Judgment.)
> And Al'lah the Most Merciful will be quite displeased with you, Ted.
allah is demon spirit posing as a god, who will be banished to the pit
of hell.
>>> My whole interest in this is in showing that Christians like Paul,
>>> Bob Larson, and you are hopeless hypocrites who couldn't practice
>>> what they preached if their lives depended on it.
>> And you're quite wrong about this, because you don't really
>> understand what it is that we preach.
> Sure, I do. [...]
No you don't.
>>>> Paul Crouch will have to answer to God -- just as will you (AND
>>>> Ole Anthony). Ken Smith does not get a free pass just because,
>>>> say, Paul Crouch might be a sinner.
>>> I really don't expect to have to answer to your god;
>> That doesn't matter. One day, you WILL have to answer to Him when
>> you stand before Him at the Final Judgment. And you can't escape
>> it.
> I'm more likely to have to worry about body thetans.
Maybe today -- but NOT on that great and terrible day.
>>> if he did exist, he would have to answer to me first for his
>>> failure to hold up his end of the bargain.
>> Oh, but He HAS held up His end of the "bargain".
> No, he hasn't.
Yes He has -- by DEFINITION. God CANNOT lie.
> James 4:17.
Do you know what it is to do good, Ken?
>> And God need not answer to any man.
> Then your god is a cosmic Stalin, and morality is an illusion.
You know NOT God. God MAY of His Own choice answer a given man, but
then again, God knows what is in every man's heart.
>>>>> because I know Ole, and how his people work.
>>>> Ole' Ole needs to know a little more about what the Bible has to
>>>> say about this sort of thing (or at least to follow it).
>>> According to you, policing corrupt televangelists is a Christian's
>>> job
>> Indeed it is -- but I don't read anywhere in the Bible where we are
>> to expose them to the world. Perhaps you can help me -- where in
>> God's Word does it say to do this?
> Ezek. 33:1-6,
This passage has NOTHING to do with this. What it means is, if I can
see that you are at peril of harm to your eternal soul, and I fail to
warn you, God will require your blood at my hand.
Ken, you are at peril of losing your eternal soul. You need to receive
Christ as your Lord and Saviour.
> and Eph. 5:11 come immediately to mind,
Not exactly. This speaks more so of not associating with unregenerate
men who practise sinful acts. We are rather to REPROVE them, and/or
to "expose" their sinfulness TO THEM so that they might repent and come
to God.
But when a brother is "overtaken in sin", the Bible says [in Gal. 6:1]
that we who are spiritual are to restore such a one -- in a spirit of
meekness, and considering ourselves lest we also be tempted, and fall
after the same example of disobedience.
> interpreted as they were by people with far better qualifications to
> 'rightly divide the Word' than you.
And just exactly what are these "qualifications"? It certainly isn't
"book learning" -- the Word of God is Spirit, and is to be SPIRITUALLY
discerned. We interpret the Bible in light of the Bible (because the
Bible doesn't contrdict Itself), with the help of God's Holy Spirit,
Whom He has sent to us to guide us into all Truth and Righteousness.
> You remember Dr. Ron Black, don't you?
Nope. Never met the bloke. Was he someone who used to post regularly?
Why should I be impressed with what he says?
> And Fred Wheeler
Vaguely.
> (who was an ABD divinity student)?
Why should this impress me?
> You've never even set foot in Bible college [...]
How would you know? (I've never been a registered student of one, to
be sure, but I've spent time on the campus of, and attended individual
classes of several.)
>>> -- and most emphatically not mine.
>> Indeed.
> Well, that *is* your opinion, is it not?
It's also waht the Bible says.
>>> (As Ole is doing what you don't have the requisite Christian
>>> courage and personal character to do because you obviously *aren't*
>>> doing it,
>> I dunno ... what I see Ole doing here is something that is CONTRARY
>> to what the Scripture teaches.
> Cite chapter and verse, Ted. [...]
Gal. 6:1.
>>> you don't have standing to bitch.)
>> Nor am I doing so. I'm just pointing out that it doesn't seem to be
>> consistent with what the Scripture says.
> In your tendentious opinion. [...]
The Bible is there for you to read it for yourself. (Though until you
get your heart right with the Lord, you will not have an understanding
of it.)
>>>> [Ken's personal invective elided]
>>> It's relevant,
>> No it isn't.
> Yes, it is.
Is not.
>>> and it's not invective.
>> Sure it is.
> No, it is not.
It ABSOLUTELY is.
> [Tedious repetition of same invective elided yet again]
>>> Practice what you preach, Teddums. Remove the beam from thine own
>>> eye ... :)
>> Ken, you STILL need to get your heart right with the Lord.
> Hey, I'm saved already
So you confess Jesus Christ as your Lord and Saviour, right?
> ... according to your own book. [...]
What, the Bible? It certainly is my fervent prayer that you are.
>>>> Ken, you STILL need to get your heart right with the Lord
>>>> regardless of what I might say or do.
>>> When your god is finished sodomizing young boys on the golf course,
>>> or otherwise finally awakens from the dead, let me know.
>> God isn't dead. II Peter 3:9 says: "The Lord is not slack
>> concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is
>> longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but
>> that all should come to repentance."
> 2 Peter is widely regarded as a fraud [...]
By whom? Those who don't matter? GOD matter, and you need to listen
to God.
>> So please avail yourself of this time of grace, and receive Christ
>> as your Lord and Saviour, that you not perish into everlasting
>> torment.
> If your Holey Babble means anything, I'm already saved. [...]
If you confess that you are saved, I am going to agree with you. This
means that you confess Christ as your Lord and Saviour.
>>> I care not a whit about the opinions of dead gods ... be they Odin,
>>> Thor, or Jesus.
>> Unlike the others, Jesus isn't dead.
> [...]
Ken Smith
> Ken Smith wrote:
>>>>BTW, when *Lonnie Ford* claims he had sex with Paul Crouch, it
>>>>isn't hearsay. You either believe him or you don't; [...]
>>>
>>Why did you snip the following passage:
>
>>"...based on what I see from the lawyers' correspondence, I conclude
>>that Mr. Ford's claims are very believable."
>
> Because it is your opinion, and I'm not inclined to respond to your
> opinion.
>
>>And why do you insist upon calling Lonnie Ford's description of his
>>alleged sexual encounter hearsay, when it clearly isn't?
>
> I'm not addressing Ford's assertions. I'm addressing the [alleged]
> comments made by Benny Hinn.
They are admissions against interest, which are outside the Rule.
The affiant's claims are admissible testimony.
>>Why MUST you lie for Paul Crouch,
>
> I'm not "lying" for Paul Crouch (or for anyone else, for that matter).
> I don't know what Crouch did or didn't do. But I know that one day,
> Paul Crouch must answer to God -- as must we all, including you.
>
>>of all people?
>
> What sort of problem do you have with Paul Crouch?
I have a problem with con artists and frauds. That you don't speaks
volumes about your prodigious lack of character.
>>>And even if I do, TBN is still not discredited. (Because we know
>>>that men have their failings.)
>>
>>TBN has been discredited for many reasons
>
> Chief among them, in your mind, I would think, is because they proclaim
> the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
Try telling *that* one to Fred Wheeler. :)
>>-- the "blab it and grab it" gospel comes immediately to mind.
>
> "Blab it and grab it" is a pejorative term for the misapplication of a
> Biblical principle (misapplied primarily by those who have the same
> mindset as those whom James was addressing in Ja. 4:3). You need to
> learn what the Bible REALLY says about these principles -- but first,
> you need to get your heart right with the Lord, else I could tell you
> forthrightly, and you would never understand it (as Ole Anthony seems
> also to fail to understand it).
So, you are a proponent of "blab it and grab it," largely because it
meshes with your overwhelming greed and selfishness. Why does that not
surprise me?
>>This is merely cumulative, confirming the Sodom-like corporate
>>culture over at The Blasphemy Network.
>
> If you are intent on finding fault, you will CERTAINLY find fault with
> ANY [Christian] organisation. Because men are fallible.
And some men are more fallible than others -- such as yourself. As
for me, I tend to give high marks for those who are at least trying, as
Ole and his people are. As for you, your life screams a lack of faith,
as it is explained to you in James.
>>>>>>>>[blah, blah, blah ...]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Ken, you need to get your heart right with the Lord (as does Ole
>>>>>>>Anthony).
>>>>>>
>>>>>>We just can't believe *ANYONE* who testifies under oath, now can
>>>>>>we, Ted? Oh, that's right -- it's only those who testify to
>>>>>>something that doesn't comport with Ted's immaculate
>>>>>>preconceptions.
>>>>>
>>>>>Ken, you still need to get your heart right with the Lord.
>>>>
>>>>You first, Ted.
>>>
>>>Already have.
>>
>>Can't see it from your life, Ted.
>
> That's okay. You're not the one who matters.
If we can't see it from your life, how do you know that my heart
isn't right with the God of the Universe?
> (Anyway, there is no such thing as the "'gospel' of the changed life".)
Your eisegetical views are perfectly understandable, as it removes
any and all pressure on you to actually live your faith. Your god
*always* says precisely what you want him (in your selfishness and
greed) to say. At the end of the day, you have invented your own god,
calling him Jesus for sake of convenience.
>>>Now it's your turn.
>>
>>Why? Seeing what it has done to you doesn't make it an attractive or
>>sensible move, as I've observed before:
>
>>[elided]
>
> If you're looking at me, you're looking in the wrong place.
Given your life and demonstrated lack of character, that is a
colossal understatement.
> Jesus is our example,
He failed, too. Miserably. Jas. 4:17.
>>>>*You* are the one who keeps spewing that drivel; I'd think that
>>>>your best endorsement of the practice would be to actually do it,
>>>>and impress the hell out of us by showing what a nice and
>>>>thoroughly agreeable person you suddenly become.
>>>
>>>The Gospel is to be found in the pages of the Bible. There is no
>>>such thing as the "'gospel' of the changed life". We are born again
>>>not of corruptible seed, but or incorruptible, by the Word of God.
>>
>>Au contraire!
>
> Rather, FACT!
Ted, I am not interested in your eisegesis. The Bible talks about
the 'new man in Christ.' If the new man is the same as the old, the
passage makes no sense by definition.
> The last sentence is a quote from the Bible.
That's nice. Problem is, it isn't relevance to this discussion.
> And the Bible is the Word of God, and ABSOLUTELY true.
I don't believe that nonsense. It is a book written and edited by men.
>
>>The Bible speaks of the "new man in Christ," of which there is
>>precisely no evidence in your life.
> You're not the Final Arbiter of that.
But I am a legitimate arbiter of it, according to the Bible.
>>>>>>I am confident that the Times has the goods on Paul Crouch,
>>>>>
>>>>>Maybe yes, maybe no.
>>>>
>>>>Knowing Ole, you can pretty much take it to the bank.
>>>
>>>But that would be inconsistent with Scripture.
>>
>>Nonsense.
>
> You know not the Scripture.
I can quote it every bit as well as you and Duh-g, although my study
of that useless book of babble has waned over the years.
>>>>I know how they work over at Trinity, because I've worked with them
>>>>before.
>>>
>>>Which speaks loads about Trinity.
>>
>>They know that they can't count on or work with you.
>
> And yet I have the Spirit of God within me.
Your eisegetical views are perfectly understandable, as it removes
any and all pressure on you to actually live your faith. Your god
*always* says precisely what you want him (in your selfishness and
greed) to say. At the end of the day, you have invented your own god,
calling him Jesus for sake of convenience.
> (He who has ears to hear, let him hear.)
Now, the portly fool thinks he's friggin' Jesus!
>
>>>>>Even if so, then, so what?
>>>>
>>>>No big deal -- there's nothing wrong with homosexual relations
>>>>between consenting adults, now is there, Ted?
>>>
>>>Well, yes there is. God condemns it, both in Leviticus and in
>>>Romans.
>
>>>>You should get rid of your guilt, and finally accept the fact that
>>>>you *are* gay, Ted.
>>>
>>>Only insofar as I am exuberantly happy. I am NOT homosexual, nor
>>>have I ever been.
>>
>>Keep telling yourself that and eventually, you might even believe it
>>yourself!
>
> Don't need to. It's always been true, and I know it.
It's about time you finally came out of the closet.
>>We know that you would have liked to take Lonnie's place, but for
>>the self-confessed fact that you're too old and decrepit to even
>>get it up any more.
>
>>>>Us straight married men won't think any less of you
>>>
>>>You can go ahead and receive Christ as your Lord and Saviour, Ken.
>>>Us Christians won't think any less of you.
>>
>>Been there, done that,
>
> I don't think so.
And what do you know?
>>got the PremiseKeepers' T-shirt.
>
> One doesn't become right with the Lord by putting on a T-shirt.
Nor by merely professing that he is a Christian. If you don't live
it, you can't legitimately claim it.
>>Based on your own theology, I don't have to do anything -- and I'm
>>also covered by the Cream Gravy of the Kit'n Grrrrl. So, there! :)
>
> Only believe.
I *BELIEVE* in the Cream Gravy of the Kit'n Grrrl!!!!
OTOH, Jesus betrayed my trust. But that doesn't matter, because once
saved, always saved.... :)
>>>>... as long as you don't hit on us.
>>>
>>>You can rest easy Ken. (But you must nevertheless be reminded that
>>>you will one day stand before God, and wil have to answer to Him at
>>>the Final Judgment.)
>>
>>And Al'lah the Most Merciful will be quite displeased with you, Ted.
>
> allah is demon spirit posing as a god, who will be banished to the pit
> of hell.
And so is your false god, Ted. One fact is established beyond cavil:
your god is not the god of the Bible.
>
>>>>My whole interest in this is in showing that Christians like Paul,
>>>>Bob Larson, and you are hopeless hypocrites who couldn't practice
>>>>what they preached if their lives depended on it.
>>>
>>>And you're quite wrong about this, because you don't really
>>>understand what it is that we preach.
>>
>>Sure, I do. You have created a theology that lets you do whatever
>>you want to others, with your god's tacit blessing. It's Satanism,
>> under a negligee of deception. [...]
>
> No you don't.
Your eisegetical views are perfectly understandable, as it removes
any and all pressure on you to actually live your faith. Your god
*always* says precisely what you want him (in your selfishness and
greed) to say. At the end of the day, you have invented your own god,
calling him Jesus for sake of convenience.
>>>>>Paul Crouch will have to answer to God -- just as will you (AND
>>>>>Ole Anthony). Ken Smith does not get a free pass just because,
>>>>>say, Paul Crouch might be a sinner.
>>>>
>>>>I really don't expect to have to answer to your god;
>>>
>>>That doesn't matter. One day, you WILL have to answer to Him when
>>>you stand before Him at the Final Judgment. And you can't escape
>>>it.
>>
>>I'm more likely to have to worry about body thetans.
>
> Maybe today -- but NOT on that great and terrible day.
Your eisegetical views are perfectly understandable, as it removes
any and all pressure on you to actually live your faith. Your god
*always* says precisely what you want him (in your selfishness and
greed) to say. At the end of the day, you have invented your own god,
calling him Jesus for sake of convenience.
>>>>if he did exist, he would have to answer to me first for his
>>>>failure to hold up his end of the bargain.
>>>
>>>Oh, but He HAS held up His end of the "bargain".
>>
>>No, he hasn't.
>
> Yes He has -- by DEFINITION. God CANNOT lie.
But he can fail to live up to his representations.
>>James 4:17.
>
> Do you know what it is to do good, Ken?
Yes. I reject utterly the notion that might makes right and the ends
justify the means, and further maintain that if God cannot get done what
he wants done by scrupulously ethical means, he is not a god worthy of
the name. See, Jas. 4:17.
>>>And God need not answer to any man.
>>
>>Then your god is a cosmic Stalin, and morality is an illusion.
>
> You know NOT God. God MAY of His Own choice answer a given man, but
> then again, God knows what is in every man's heart.
Do you even know what justice is?
>>>>>>because I know Ole, and how his people work.
>>>>>
>>>>>Ole' Ole needs to know a little more about what the Bible has to
>>>>>say about this sort of thing (or at least to follow it).
>>>>
>>>>According to you, policing corrupt televangelists is a Christian's
>>>>job
>>>
>>>Indeed it is -- but I don't read anywhere in the Bible where we are
>>>to expose them to the world. Perhaps you can help me -- where in
>>>God's Word does it say to do this?
>>
>>Ezek. 33:1-6,
>
> This passage has NOTHING to do with this. What it means is, if I can
> see that you are at peril of harm to your eternal soul, and I fail to
> warn you, God will require your blood at my hand.
Your eisegetical views are perfectly understandable, as it removes
any and all pressure on you to actually live your faith. Your god
*always* says precisely what you want him (in your selfishness and
greed) to say. At the end of the day, you have invented your own god,
calling him Jesus for sake of convenience.
> Ken, you are at peril of losing your eternal soul. You need to receive
> Christ as your Lord and Saviour.
>
>>and Eph. 5:11 come immediately to mind,
>
> Not exactly. This speaks more so of not associating with unregenerate
> men who practise sinful acts. We are rather to REPROVE them, and/or
> to "expose" their sinfulness TO THEM so that they might repent and come
> to God.
Your eisegetical views are perfectly understandable, as it removes
any and all pressure on you to actually live your faith. Your god
*always* says precisely what you want him (in your selfishness and
greed) to say. At the end of the day, you have invented your own god,
calling him Jesus for sake of convenience.
Do not participate in the unfruitful deeds of darkness, but instead
even expose them; for it is disgraceful even to speak of the things
which are done by them in secret. But all things become visible when
they are exposed by the light, for everything that becomes visible is
light.
- Eph. 5:11-13, NASB
The NASB is the most literal translation, and uses the best text.
> But when a brother is "overtaken in sin", the Bible says [in Gal. 6:1]
> that we who are spiritual are to restore such a one -- in a spirit of
> meekness, and considering ourselves lest we also be tempted, and fall
> after the same example of disobedience.
That doesn't exactly seem to be *your* modus operandi, Ted. If even
you don't believe it, why should we?
>>interpreted as they were by people with far better qualifications to
>>'rightly divide the Word' than you.
>
> And just exactly what are these "qualifications"?
They are as saved as you are, and have book learning to boot.
> It certainly isn't
> "book learning" -- the Word of God is Spirit, and is to be SPIRITUALLY
> discerned.
And what is to say that you are more spiritual than they are?
Judging by your LIFE and CONDUCT, I'd bet on them over you any day of
the week, and twice on Sunday.
> We interpret the Bible in light of the Bible (because the
> Bible doesn't contrdict Itself), with the help of God's Holy Spirit,
> Whom He has sent to us to guide us into all Truth and Righteousness.
Actually, it does ... but as a general rule of interpretation, you do
need to try to interpret it as if it were a coherent whole.
>
>>You remember Dr. Ron Black, don't you?
>
> Nope. Never met the bloke. Was he someone who used to post regularly?
> Why should I be impressed with what he says?
It's that Ph.D. from divinity school.
>>And Fred Wheeler
>
> Vaguely.
>
>>(who was an ABD divinity student)?
>
> Why should this impress me?
Because they have the book learning AND the same spiritual
credentials you invariably try to lord over others. You seem to think
that yours is the last word on what Holy Writ means ... evidently
because God talks to you when you read your Gideon's on the shitter.
>>You've never even set foot in Bible college [...]
>
> How would you know? (I've never been a registered student of one, to
> be sure, but I've spent time on the campus of, and attended individual
> classes of several.)
Oh, my!!! Why, I am SOOOOO impressed. That doesn't even rise to the
level of attending Sunday School.
>>>>-- and most emphatically not mine.
>>>
>>>Indeed.
>>
>>Well, that *is* your opinion, is it not?
>
> It's also waht the Bible says.
Your eisegetical views are perfectly understandable, as it removes
any and all pressure on you to actually live your faith. Your god
*always* says precisely what you want him (in your selfishness and
greed) to say. At the end of the day, you have invented your own god,
calling him Jesus for sake of convenience.
>
>>>>(As Ole is doing what you don't have the requisite Christian
>>>>courage and personal character to do because you obviously *aren't*
>>>>doing it,
>>>
>>>I dunno ... what I see Ole doing here is something that is CONTRARY
>>>to what the Scripture teaches.
>>
>>Cite chapter and verse, Ted. [...]
>
> Gal. 6:1.
Doesn't say anything about whether the public should or should not be
informed. Ezekiel 33 does.
>>>>you don't have standing to bitch.)
>>>
>
>>>Nor am I doing so. I'm just pointing out that it doesn't seem to be
>>>consistent with what the Scripture says.
>>
>>In your tendentious opinion. I've learned from dealing with you over
>>the years that your god always says what you need him to say, as
>>opposed to what a dispassionate reading of Writ reveals.
>
> The Bible is there for you to read it for yourself.
Which is why I am saying what I do.
> (Though until you
> get your heart right with the Lord, you will not have an understanding
> of it.)
Which is, evidently, why you don't understand it.
>>>>>[Ken's personal invective elided]
>>>>
>>>>It's relevant,
>>>
>>>No it isn't.
>>
>>Yes, it is.
>
> Is not.
Is too.
>>>>and it's not invective.
>>>
>>>Sure it is.
>>
>>No, it is not.
>
> It ABSOLUTELY is.
>
>>I find it rich that someone with your track record for prevarication,
>>parsimony, adultery, and mendacity would be lecturing anyone else
>>about getting *their* hearts right with the Lord.
>>[Tedious repetition of same invective elided yet again]
Your heart isn't right with the Lord, as evidenced by your life and
your bizarre interpretation of the Bible. You have a "This does not
apply to Ted" caveat in virtually EVERY significant passage.
>
>>>>Practice what you preach, Teddums. Remove the beam from thine own
>>>>eye ... :)
>>>
>>>Ken, you STILL need to get your heart right with the Lord.
>>
>>Hey, I'm saved already
>
> So you confess Jesus Christ as your Lord and Saviour, right?
I did at one time. And once saved, always saved, right?
>
>>... according to your own book. [...]
>
> What, the Bible? It certainly is my fervent prayer that you are.
Not Ted Kaldis' Thoroughly-Fucked Bible, but the one everyone else uses.
>>>>>Ken, you STILL need to get your heart right with the Lord
>>>>>regardless of what I might say or do.
>>>>
>>>>When your god is finished sodomizing young boys on the golf course,
>>>>or otherwise finally awakens from the dead, let me know.
>>>
>>>God isn't dead. II Peter 3:9 says: "The Lord is not slack
>>>concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is
>>>longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but
>>>that all should come to repentance."
>>
>>2 Peter is widely regarded as a fraud [...]
>
> By whom? Those who don't matter? GOD matter, and you need to listen
> to God.
He's obviously too busy sodomizing young boys on the golf course or
being dead to state an opinion on the matter.
>
>>>So please avail yourself of this time of grace, and receive Christ
>>>as your Lord and Saviour, that you not perish into everlasting
>>>torment.
>>
>>If your Holey Babble means anything, I'm already saved. [...]
>
> If you confess that you are saved, I am going to agree with you. This
> means that you confess Christ as your Lord and Saviour.
I did at one time, which is all that matters according to your book.
>
>>>>I care not a whit about the opinions of dead gods ... be they Odin,
>>>>Thor, or Jesus.
>>>
>>>Unlike the others, Jesus isn't dead.
>>
pleasedontsueme
Hello Mr Kaldis how are you doing? Do you have anger in your heart
towards Ken?
pleasedontsueme
I take it Mr. Smith you are not a Christian?
Ken Smith
A massive amount, if he tells the truth. He hates everybody....
BULL-F***IN'-S*IT! ... Wipe your f***in' @ss with your opinion,
b*tch. ... you must have some bug up your @ss. B*tch. ... You
know sh*t.
-- Theodore A. Kaldis
[Widdle Baby Jesus just ***LOVES*** ast*r*sks. :) ]
And then, there are these classics:
______________________________________________________
Subject: Re: It Really IS About Ken Smith ...
Date: Sat, 27 Sep 2003 07:44:03 -0500
From: John Hattan <jo...@thecodezone.com>
Organization: The Code Zone
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.fan.bob-larson
"Theodore A. Kaldis" <kal...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>I have never expressed malice, online or otherwise.
I have the necessary qualifications to speak on behalf of Jesus.
--Theodore A. Kaldis
What "cute" hindu chick? Sorry, but I think the swarthy dot-heads are
dogs. I wouldn't even f*** her with your d***.
--Theodore A. Kaldis
Hey, they let ragheads and towelheads and slapheads and camel jockeys
in. Why shouldn't they let me in? At least I'm not from a completely
alien culture.
--Theodore A. Kaldis
Darling, you're just wound a little too tight. And I know exactly
what'll loosen you up.
--Theodore A. Kaldis
But no towel-heads, no slap-heads, no rag-heads, no camel jockeys, and
no bloody swarthy wogs!
--Theodore A. Kaldis
What other words are there? "Gook". "Slope". "Slant-eye". The list
continues further downhill from here.
--Theodore A. Kaldis
BTW, you're not ugly, or a fat chick, now are you?
--Theodore A. Kaldis
I do not use the word "nigger", nor do I use the word "coon"
--Theodore A. Kaldis
At that rate, assuming there are somewhere between 25 to 50 million
blacks in the U.S. (and I don't know what the exact figure is, but I
would surmise that it falls somewhere within that range), they each get
between US$140 to $280. Chump change. With that they would only be
"nigger rich".
--Theodore A. Kaldis
I've already been assaulted a couple of times, but both times by Guido's
rather than by coons.
--Theodore A. Kaldis
Raghead women are too ugly to become flight attendants.
--Theodore A. Kaldis
That's easy. This is yet another example of feminine ``logic'' (truly
an oxymoron if ever there was one).
--Theodore A. Kaldis
Ragheads, towel heads, camel jockeys, and other swarthy types not
allowed.
--Theodore A. Kaldis
The Dick-suckin' Chicks are toast.
--Theodore A. Kaldis
I have the Holy Spirit to lead me into all the truth and righteousness.
--Theodore A. Kaldis
---
John Hattan Grand High UberPope - First Church of Shatnerology
jo...@thecodezone.com http://www.shatnerology.com
Ken Smith
> Ken Smith wrote:
>>Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
>>>Ken Smith wrote:
[snip]
Just call me a recovering ex-Christian. I fired Jesus for lying on
his resume -- and consistently refusing to show up for work....
Theodore A. Kaldis
> Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
>> Ken Smith wrote:
[...]
>>> And why do you insist upon calling Lonnie Ford's description of his
>>> alleged sexual encounter hearsay, when it clearly isn't?
>> I'm not addressing Ford's assertions. I'm addressing the [alleged]
>> comments made by Benny Hinn.
> They are admissions against interest, which are outside the Rule.
> The affiant's claims are admissible testimony.
And this ain't a courtroom.
>>> Why MUST you lie for Paul Crouch,
>> I'm not "lying" for Paul Crouch (or for anyone else, for that
>> matter). I don't know what Crouch did or didn't do. But I know
>> that one day, Paul Crouch must answer to God -- as must we all,
>> including you.
>>> of all people?
>> What sort of problem do you have with Paul Crouch?
> I have a problem with con artists and frauds. [...]
And I'm not convinced that he's a "con artist" and a "fraud". Anyway,
he isn't exactly a favourite of mine, and I don't pay all that much
attention to him. But he is God's servant, and it's not my place to
judge him.
>>>> And even if I do, TBN is still not discredited. (Because we know
>>>> that men have their failings.)
>>> TBN has been discredited for many reasons
>> Chief among them, in your mind, I would think, is because they
>> proclaim the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
> Try telling *that* one to Fred Wheeler. :)
Why should I? It isn't much of a concern to me what Fred Wheeler
thinks.
>>> -- the "blab it and grab it" gospel comes immediately to mind.
>> "Blab it and grab it" is a pejorative term for the misapplication of
>> a Biblical principle (misapplied primarily by those who have the
>> same mindset as those whom James was addressing in Ja. 4:3). You
>> need to learn what the Bible REALLY says about these principles --
>> but first, you need to get your heart right with the Lord, else I
>> could tell you forthrightly, and you would never understand it (as
>> Ole Anthony seems also to fail to understand it).
> So, you are a proponent of "blab it and grab it,"
No, I told you that it refers to a MISapplication of Scripture.
> largely because it meshes with your overwhelming greed and
> selfishness. [...]
The Bible says that God gives us the power to gain wealth so that He
might establish His Covenant. It does NOT say that God establishes His
Covenant so that He might give us the power to gain wealth. Let's put
things in Biblical order here.
>>> This is merely cumulative, confirming the Sodom-like corporate
>>> culture over at The Blasphemy Network.
>> If you are intent on finding fault, you will CERTAINLY find fault
>> with ANY [Christian] organisation. Because men are fallible.
> And some men are more fallible than others [...]
This is true.
> As for me, I tend to give high marks for those who are at least
> trying, as Ole and his people are. [...]
But what is it exactly that he is trying to do? From what it looks
like to me it is NOT consistent with Scripture.
>>>>>>>>> [blah, blah, blah ...]
>>>>>>>> Ken, you need to get your heart right with the Lord (as does
>>>>>>>> Ole Anthony).
>>>>>>> We just can't believe *ANYONE* who testifies under oath, now
>>>>>>> can we, Ted? Oh, that's right -- it's only those who testify
>>>>>>> to something that doesn't comport with Ted's immaculate
>>>>>>> preconceptions.
>>>>>> Ken, you still need to get your heart right with the Lord.
>>>>> You first, Ted.
>>>> Already have.
>>> Can't see it from your life, Ted.
>> That's okay. You're not the one who matters.
> If we can't see it from your life, how do you know that my heart
> isn't right with the God of the Universe?
If you say that your heart is right with the God of the universe, I
won't disagree with you. Because there is only ONE God -- the God of
the Bible, Who created the "universe" that we perceive. And (to
rephrase "blab it & grab it") you can have what you say.
>> (Anyway, there is no such thing as the "'gospel' of the changed
>> life".)
> Your eisegetical views are perfectly understandable,
This particular view is true.
> as it removes any and all pressure on you to actually live your
> faith.
We walk by FAITH, not by "pressure" (or sight, according to the Bible).
> Your god *always* says precisely what you want him (in your
> selfishness and greed) to say. [...]
No, God has already spoken, and His Word is recorded in the Bible. And
I cannot change it.
>>>> Now it's your turn.
>>> Why? Seeing what it has done to you doesn't make it an attractive
>>> or sensible move, as I've observed before:
>> [elided]
>> If you're looking at me, you're looking in the wrong place.
> [...]
>> Jesus is our example,
> He failed, too.
No sir, He did NOT. (Matthew McConaughey's character says the same
thing to Stellan Skarsgård's character in _Amistad_, and he responds
with exactly the same words.)
> Miserably.
He succeeded beyond our wildest dreams.
> Jas. 4:17.
Why don't you also look at 4:12 while you're at it?
>>>>> *You* are the one who keeps spewing that drivel; I'd think that
>>>>> your best endorsement of the practice would be to actually do it,
>>>>> and impress the hell out of us by showing what a nice and
>>>>> thoroughly agreeable person you suddenly become.
>>>> The Gospel is to be found in the pages of the Bible. There is no
>>>> such thing as the "'gospel' of the changed life". We are born
>>>> again not of corruptible seed, but or incorruptible, by the Word
>>>> of God.
>>> Au contraire!
>> Rather, FACT!
> Ted, I am not interested in your eisegesis.
You shouldn't be interested in what anyone says that the Bible says,
but rather in what the Bible ACTUALLY SAYS. And I am merely quoting
Scripture here. How is that "eisegesis"?
> The Bible talks about the 'new man in Christ.' If the new man is the
> same as the old, the passage makes no sense by definition.
There, as we know that the Bible is the Word of God, and that God
CANNOT lie, we are FORCED to conclude that the New Man in Christ is NOT
the same as the old man -- REGARDLESS of how things may appear. For we
walk by FAITH, not by sight.
>> The last sentence is a quote from the Bible.
> That's nice. Problem is, it isn't relevance to this discussion.
Sure it is.
>> And the Bible is the Word of God, and ABSOLUTELY true.
> I don't believe that nonsense.
Keep reading it. You'll come around. For God's Words have Life in
them.
> It is a book written and edited by men.
The Bible was written by men inspired by God's Holy Spirit. And any
trusted and reliable Bible (such as the King James) has NOT been
"edited".
>>> The Bible speaks of the "new man in Christ," of which there is
>>> precisely no evidence in your life.
>> You're not the Final Arbiter of that.
> But I am a legitimate arbiter of it, according to the Bible.
Cite? I'm not so sure.
>>>>>>> I am confident that the Times has the goods on Paul Crouch,
>>>>>> Maybe yes, maybe no.
>>>>> Knowing Ole, you can pretty much take it to the bank.
>>>> But that would be inconsistent with Scripture.
>>> Nonsense.
>> You know not the Scripture.
> I can quote it every bit as well as you and Duh-g,
But do you understand it? If not, please ask God for understanding,
and He will give it to you.
> although my study of that useless book of babble has waned over the
> years.
You should devote more time to it. It will do you good.
>>>>> I know how they work over at Trinity, because I've worked with
>>>>> them before.
>>>> Which speaks loads about Trinity.
>>> They know that they can't count on or work with you.
>> And yet I have the Spirit of God within me.
> Your eisegetical views are perfectly understandable, as it removes
> any and all pressure on you to actually live your faith.
As mentioned before, we walk by FAITH, not by pressure.
> Your god *always* says precisely what you want him (in your
> selfishness and greed) to say. [...]
Already covered. You're repeating yourself.
>> (He who has ears to hear, let him hear.)
> Now, the portly fool thinks he's friggin' Jesus!
No, I'm not Jesus. But I am His follower.
[...]
>>>> You can go ahead and receive Christ as your Lord and Saviour, Ken.
>>>> Us Christians won't think any less of you.
>>> Been there, done that,
>> I don't think so.
> And what do you know?
I know Jesus.
>>> got the PremiseKeepers' T-shirt.
>> One doesn't become right with the Lord by putting on a T-shirt.
> Nor by merely professing that he is a Christian. If you don't live
> it, you can't legitimately claim it.
And, of course, God is the Final Arbiter of that.
>>> Based on your own theology, I don't have to do anything -- and I'm
>>> also covered by the Cream Gravy of the Kit'n Grrrrl. So, there! :)
>> Only believe.
> I *BELIEVE* in the Cream Gravy of the Kit'n Grrrl!!!!
But that won't get you saved.
> OTOH, Jesus betrayed my trust.
No He didn't.
> But that doesn't matter, because once saved, always saved ... :)
That's not what that means.
>>>>> ... as long as you don't hit on us.
>>>> You can rest easy Ken. (But you must nevertheless be reminded
>>>> that you will one day stand before God, and wil have to answer to
>>>> Him at the Final Judgment.)
>>> And Al'lah the Most Merciful will be quite displeased with you,
>>> Ted.
>> allah is demon spirit posing as a god, who will be banished to the
>> pit of hell.
> And so is your false god, Ted. [...]
My God is the One True Living God -- the God of the Bible.
[...]
>>>>> if he did exist, he would have to answer to me first for his
>>>>> failure to hold up his end of the bargain.
>>>> Oh, but He HAS held up His end of the "bargain".
>>> No, he hasn't.
>> Yes He has -- by DEFINITION. God CANNOT lie.
> But he can fail to live up to his representations.
No He CANNOT. Otherwise, He wouldn't Be God.
>>> James 4:17.
>> Do you know what it is to do good, Ken?
> Yes.
Do you? And do you know that the Bible says that our righteousness is
as filthy rags before God. And do you know what kind of rags the
original language refers to? Yes, THOSE kinds of rags.
> I reject utterly the notion that might makes right and the ends
> justify the means,
As does the Bible. Because God IS Right, by definition -- He doesn't
need His might to make it so. And His means ARE justified, as are His
ends, again by definition.
> and further maintain that if God cannot get done what he wants done
> by scrupulously ethical means,
Whatever He does IS ethical, by definition. He cannot Be anything BUT
Ethical, and Justified, and Right.
> he is not a god worthy of the name.
God IS Worthy.
> See, Jas. 4:17.
See Jas. 4:12.
>>>> And God need not answer to any man.
>>> Then your god is a cosmic Stalin, and morality is an illusion.
>> You know NOT God. God MAY of His Own choice answer a given man, but
>> then again, God knows what is in every man's heart.
> Do you even know what justice is?
Yes. Do you?
>>>>>>> because I know Ole, and how his people work.
>>>>>> Ole' Ole needs to know a little more about what the Bible has to
>>>>>> say about this sort of thing (or at least to follow it).
>>>>> According to you, policing corrupt televangelists is a
>>>>> Christian's job
>>>> Indeed it is -- but I don't read anywhere in the Bible where we
>>>> are to expose them to the world. Perhaps you can help me -- where
>>>> in God's Word does it say to do this?
>>> Ezek. 33:1-6,
>> This passage has NOTHING to do with this. What it means is, if I
>> can see that you are at peril of harm to your eternal soul, and I
>> fail to warn you, God will require your blood at my hand.
> [repetition of same nonsense said numerous times before elided]
>> Ken, you are at peril of losing your eternal soul. You need to
>> receive Christ as your Lord and Saviour.
Please, Ken, read the Word of God, for it contains Words of Life, and
salvation is to be found there.
>>> and Eph. 5:11 come immediately to mind,
>> Not exactly. This speaks more so of not associating with
>> unregenerate men who practise sinful acts. We are rather to REPROVE
>> them, and/or to "expose" their sinfulness TO THEM so that they might
>> repent and come to God.
> [...]
> Do not participate in the unfruitful deeds of darkness, but instead
> even expose them; for it is disgraceful even to speak of the things
> which are done by them
[unregenerate men]
> in secret. But all things become visible when they are exposed by
> the light, for everything that becomes visible is light.
> - Eph. 5:11-13, NASB
> The NASB is the most literal translation, and uses the best text.
I have problems with the NASB because it is based on Codex Sinaiticus
and Codex Vaticanus -- which leave out numerous verses.
>> But when a brother is "overtaken in sin", the Bible says [in Gal.
>> 6:1] that we who are spiritual are to restore such a one -- in a
>> spirit of meekness, and considering ourselves lest we also be
>> tempted, and fall after the same example of disobedience.
> [...] If even you don't believe it,
I believe it.
> why should we?
Because God said it.
>>> interpreted as they were by people with far better qualifications
>>> to 'rightly divide the Word' than you.
>> And just exactly what are these "qualifications"?
> They are as saved as you are, and have book learning to boot.
The book learning is inconsequential, generally, unless it is received
in light of (and subject to) the Scripure. And even then it is of
questionable value, as the things of the Spirit cannot be comprehended
with the human mind.
>> It certainly isn't "book learning" -- the Word of God is Spirit, and
>> is to be SPIRITUALLY discerned.
> And what is to say that you are more spiritual than they are? [...]
It is witnessed by God's Spirit. If you have not, or resist His Spirit
you will NOT know.
>> We interpret the Bible in light of the Bible (because the
>> Bible doesn't contrdict Itself), with the help of God's Holy Spirit,
>> Whom He has sent to us to guide us into all Truth and Righteousness.
> Actually, it does
Actually, it does NOT. If you think it does, you are misunderstanding
it.
> ... but as a general rule of interpretation, you do need to try to
> interpret it as if it were a coherent whole.
But it IS a coherent whole.
>>> You remember Dr. Ron Black, don't you?
>> Nope. Never met the bloke. Was he someone who used to post
>> regularly? Why should I be impressed with what he says?
> It's that Ph.D. from divinity school.
And?
>>> And Fred Wheeler
>> Vaguely.
>>> (who was an ABD divinity student)?
>> Why should this impress me?
> Because they have the book learning AND the same spiritual
> credentials you invariably try to lord over others.
The book learning is inconsequential. And I don't "lord" anything over
anyone.
> You seem to think that yours is the last word on what Holy Writ means
> [...]
The Bible says what it says. But you need God's Spirit to be able to
understand it.
[...]
>>>>> (As Ole is doing what you don't have the requisite Christian
>>>>> courage and personal character to do because you obviously
>>>>> *aren't* doing it,
>>>> I dunno ... what I see Ole doing here is something that is
>>>> CONTRARY to what the Scripture teaches.
>>> Cite chapter and verse, Ted. [...]
>> Gal. 6:1.
> Doesn't say anything about whether the public should or should not be
> informed.
That's not the standard.
> Ezekiel 33 does.
Ezekiel 33 says something else entirely.
>>>>> you don't have standing to bitch.)
>>>> Nor am I doing so. I'm just pointing out that it doesn't seem to
>>>> be consistent with what the Scripture says.
>>> In your tendentious opinion. I've learned from dealing with you
>>> over the years that your god always says what you need him to say,
>>> as opposed to what a dispassionate reading of Writ reveals.
>> The Bible is there for you to read it for yourself.
> Which is why I am saying what I do.
And which I encourage you to keep on doing.
>> (Though until you get your heart right with the Lord, you will not
>> have an understanding of it.)
> [...]
> [...] You have a "This does not apply to Ted" caveat in virtually
> EVERY significant passage.
The Bible applies to EVERY man -- myself included -- as well as you.
>>>>> Practice what you preach, Teddums. Remove the beam from thine
>>>>> own eye ... :)
>>>> Ken, you STILL need to get your heart right with the Lord.
>>> Hey, I'm saved already
>> So you confess Jesus Christ as your Lord and Saviour, right?
> I did at one time.
What about today?
> And once saved, always saved, right?
Or never saved, not saved.
[...]
>>>> So please avail yourself of this time of grace, and receive Christ
>>>> as your Lord and Saviour, that you not perish into everlasting
>>>> torment.
>>> If your Holey Babble means anything, I'm already saved. [...]
>> If you confess that you are saved, I am going to agree with you.
>> This means that you confess Christ as your Lord and Saviour.
> I did at one time, [...]
What about today?
Theodore A. Kaldis
> Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
>> Ken Smith wrote:
>>> [blah, blah, blah ...]
>> Ken, you need to get your heart right with the Lord (as does Ole
>> Anthony).
> Hello Mr Kaldis
Hello.
> how are you doing?
Fine. Do I know you?
> Do you have anger in your heart towards Ken?
Not really. I've met Ken, and he's quite an affable and agreeable
chap. But it seems that Ken has anger in his heart against Jesus and
God.
Susan L
"Theodore A. Kaldis" <kal...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:4425F18...@worldnet.att.net...
> pleasedontsueme wrote:
>
> > Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
SNIP
> Hello.
>
> > how are you doing?
>
> Fine. Do I know you?
>
> > Do you have anger in your heart towards Ken?
>
> Not really. I've met Ken, and he's quite an affable and agreeable
> chap. But it seems that Ken has anger in his heart against Jesus and
> God.
Ted Kaldis dosnt differentiate well between Paul Crouch and Jesus, and God.
He is to be pitied, and more importantly, ignored.
bob young
Ken Smith wrote:
> pleasedontsueme wrote:
> > Ken Smith wrote:
> >>Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
> >>>Ken Smith wrote:
>
> [snip]
Can anywone confirm to me or not whether Benny Hinn is a charlatan?
Bob
bob young
"Theodore A. Kaldis" wrote:
'Biblical Order' !!!! ?????
ROFL
Bob
humanist Brit.
Hong Kong
You believe in a book that has talking animals, wizards, witches, demons,
sticks turning into snakes, food falling from the sky, people walking on
water, and all sorts of magical, absurd and primitive stories, and you say
that we are the ones that need help?
[with acknowledgements to Jon Stol]
> thing to Stellan Skarsgεrd's character in _Amistad_, and he responds
Susan L
"bob young" <alasp...@netvigator.com> wrote in message
news:442604AB...@netvigator.com...
>
SNIP
> Can anywone confirm to me or not whether Benny Hinn is a charlatan?
>
> Bob
HahwwahHAAHH HaaH!
Susan L
Benny Hinn is certainly NOT a charlatan, Bob.
"How can you tell?", you may ask.
Thats easy , Bob.
Just look at the hair.
That is no natural earthly coif.
That stuff atop Benny Hinns head is a force of nature unto itself.
In an earlier age (pre-monotheistic), that hair of Benny Hinn's would have
been immediatly recognized as having a supernatural effect all on it's own.
The hair of Hinn is not ruled by mundane physical laws like gravity. The
hair of Hinn is dictated to by No one, be he God , or physical force.
The hair of Hinn is, in itself, a diety, although, perhaps a minor one.
That and the fact that Benny Hinn blows.
He blows. Yes. Right there in front of hundreds of people. The guy blows.
For a hundred bucks, and a photo-op,Benny Hinn would blow your own Aunt
Fanny.
And then there was that heroin scandal.
"bob young" <alasp...@netvigator.com> wrote in message
news:442604AB...@netvigator.com...
>
>
Ken Smith
> Ken Smith wrote:
>>pleasedontsueme wrote:
>>>Ken Smith wrote:
>>>>Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
>>>>>Ken Smith wrote:
>>>>
>> [snip]
>
> Can anywone confirm to me or not whether Benny Hinn is a charlatan?
Ask the folks who know best: http://www.trinityfi.org.
Ken Smith
> Ken Smith wrote:
>>Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
>>>Ken Smith wrote:
>>
> [...]
>
>>>>And why do you insist upon calling Lonnie Ford's description of his
>>>>alleged sexual encounter hearsay, when it clearly isn't?
>>>
>>>I'm not addressing Ford's assertions. I'm addressing the [alleged]
>>>comments made by Benny Hinn.
>>
>>They are admissions against interest, which are outside the Rule.
>>The affiant's claims are admissible testimony.
>
> And this ain't a courtroom.
Then, the distinction is pointless. So, why draw it?
>
>>>>Why MUST you lie for Paul Crouch,
>>>
>>>I'm not "lying" for Paul Crouch (or for anyone else, for that
>>>matter). I don't know what Crouch did or didn't do. But I know
>>>that one day, Paul Crouch must answer to God -- as must we all,
>>>including you.
>>
>>>>of all people?
>>>
>>>What sort of problem do you have with Paul Crouch?
>>
>>I have a problem with con artists and frauds. [...]
>
> And I'm not convinced that he's a "con artist" and a "fraud".
LOL! Whatever happened to your trademark "discernment?"
> Anyway,
> he isn't exactly a favourite of mine, and I don't pay all that much
> attention to him. But he is God's servant, and it's not my place to
> judge him.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAA!!!!!!! You judge everyone else.
>>>>>And even if I do, TBN is still not discredited. (Because we know
>>>>>that men have their failings.)
>>>>
>>>>TBN has been discredited for many reasons
>>>
>>>Chief among them, in your mind, I would think, is because they
>>>proclaim the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
>>
>>Try telling *that* one to Fred Wheeler. :)
>
> Why should I? It isn't much of a concern to me what Fred Wheeler
> thinks.
I don't know what your gospel is, but I do know what it *isn't*:
biblically-based.
>>>>-- the "blab it and grab it" gospel comes immediately to mind.
>>>
>>>"Blab it and grab it" is a pejorative term for the misapplication of
>>>a Biblical principle (misapplied primarily by those who have the
>>>same mindset as those whom James was addressing in Ja. 4:3). You
>>>need to learn what the Bible REALLY says about these principles --
>>>but first, you need to get your heart right with the Lord, else I
>>>could tell you forthrightly, and you would never understand it (as
>>>Ole Anthony seems also to fail to understand it).
>>
>>So, you are a proponent of "blab it and grab it,"
>
> No, I told you that it refers to a MISapplication of Scripture.
You sound like you're still a defender of "blab it and grab it."
>>largely because it meshes with your overwhelming greed and
>>selfishness. [...]
>
> The Bible says that God gives us the power to gain wealth so that He
> might establish His Covenant. It does NOT say that God establishes His
> Covenant so that He might give us the power to gain wealth. Let's put
> things in Biblical order here.
As I said, you're a defender of the "blab it and grab it" gospel.
>>>>This is merely cumulative, confirming the Sodom-like corporate
>>>>culture over at The Blasphemy Network.
>>>
>>>If you are intent on finding fault, you will CERTAINLY find fault
>>>with ANY [Christian] organisation. Because men are fallible.
>>
>>And some men are more fallible than others -- such as yourself.
>
> This is true.
>
>>As for me, I tend to give high marks for those who are at least
>>trying, as Ole and his people are. [...]
>
> But what is it exactly that he is trying to do? From what it looks
> like to me it is NOT consistent with Scripture.
And why should anyone care what Ted Kaldis thinks?
>>>>>>>>>>[blah, blah, blah ...]
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Ken, you need to get your heart right with the Lord (as does
>>>>>>>>>Ole Anthony).
>>>>>>>>
>
>>>>>>>>We just can't believe *ANYONE* who testifies under oath, now
>>>>>>>>can we, Ted? Oh, that's right -- it's only those who testify
>>>>>>>>to something that doesn't comport with Ted's immaculate
>>>>>>>>preconceptions.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Ken, you still need to get your heart right with the Lord.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>You first, Ted.
>>>>>
>>>>>Already have.
>>>>
>>>>Can't see it from your life, Ted.
>>>
>>>That's okay. You're not the one who matters.
>>
>>If we can't see it from your life, how do you know that my heart
>>isn't right with the God of the Universe?
>
> If you say that your heart is right with the God of the universe, I
> won't disagree with you. Because there is only ONE God -- the God of
> the Bible, Who created the "universe" that we perceive.
You are entitled to your opinion, no matter how bizarre.
> And (to rephrase "blab it & grab it") you can have what you say.
I have no idea what you are trying to say here.
>>>(Anyway, there is no such thing as the "'gospel' of the changed
>>>life".)
>>
>>Your eisegetical views are perfectly understandable, as it removes
>>any and all pressure on you to actually live your faith.
>
> This particular view is true.
You're getting as bad as Uncle Queen Yosemite Sam....
>
>>as it removes any and all pressure on you to actually live your
>>faith.
>
> We walk by FAITH, not by "pressure" (or sight, according to the Bible).
You basically do whatever you damn well feel like, without even the
slightest concern for anyone else.
>>Your god *always* says precisely what you want him (in your
>>selfishness and greed) to say. [...]
>
> No, God has already spoken, and His Word is recorded in the Bible. And
> I cannot change it.
But you can (and often do!) ignore it. You only hear what you want
to hear, and disregard the rest....
From that same song:
"On the USENET squats the Kaldis; he's a liar by his trade,
Google carries the reminders
Of every word that laid him down
Or cut him 'til he cried out -- in his anger and his shame --
'I am leaving, I AM leaving [and disconnecting Port 119]'
But the Kaldis still remains....
Lie, lie, lie!
Lie, lie, lie, lie! Lie, lie, lie!
Lie, lie, lie!
Lie, lie, lie, lie! Lie, lie, lie!
Lalalala LIE!"
>>>>>Now it's your turn.
>>>>
>>>>Why? Seeing what it has done to you doesn't make it an attractive
>>>>or sensible move, as I've observed before:
>>>
>>>[elided]
>>
>>>If you're looking at me, you're looking in the wrong place.
>>
>>[...]
>
>>>Jesus is our example,
>>
>>He failed, too.
>
> No sir, He did NOT. (Matthew McConaughey's character says the same
> thing to Stellan Skarsgård's character in _Amistad_, and he responds
> with exactly the same words.)
In a fictional world, you might be able to say that.
>
>>Miserably.
>
> He succeeded beyond our wildest dreams.
He failed. Miserably.
>
>>Jas. 4:17.
>
> Why don't you also look at 4:12 while you're at it?
Because it simply isn't relevant.
>>>>>>*You* are the one who keeps spewing that drivel; I'd think that
>>>>>>your best endorsement of the practice would be to actually do it,
>>>>>>and impress the hell out of us by showing what a nice and
>>>>>>thoroughly agreeable person you suddenly become.
>>>>>
>>>>>The Gospel is to be found in the pages of the Bible. There is no
>>>>>such thing as the "'gospel' of the changed life". We are born
>>>>>again not of corruptible seed, but or incorruptible, by the Word
>>>>>of God.
>>>>
>>>>Au contraire!
>>>
>>>Rather, FACT!
>>
>>Ted, I am not interested in your eisegesis.
>
> You shouldn't be interested in what anyone says that the Bible says,
> but rather in what the Bible ACTUALLY SAYS. And I am merely quoting
> Scripture here. How is that "eisegesis"?
When you are tendentiously misinterpreting it, it's eisegesis.
>>The Bible talks about the 'new man in Christ.' If the new man is the
>>same as the old, the passage makes no sense by definition.
>
> There, as we know that the Bible is the Word of God, and that God
> CANNOT lie, we are FORCED to conclude that the New Man in Christ is NOT
> the same as the old man -- REGARDLESS of how things may appear. For we
> walk by FAITH, not by sight.
When you are tendentiously misinterpreting it, it's eisegesis.
>
>>>The last sentence is a quote from the Bible.
>
>>That's nice. Problem is, it isn't relevant to this discussion.
>
> Sure it is.
Only if you happen to be having an acid flashback.
>
>>>And the Bible is the Word of God, and ABSOLUTELY true.
>>
>>I don't believe that nonsense.
>
> Keep reading it. You'll come around. For God's Words have Life in
> them.
The language is dead, and many of the ideas are worse than risible.
>>It is a book written and edited by men.
>
> The Bible was written by men inspired by God's Holy Spirit. And any
> trusted and reliable Bible (such as the King James) has NOT been
> "edited".
Christ on a crutch! The KJV is a piece of shit. Better to go to the
original language using an interlinear, and to rely on the earliest and
most reliable manuscripts.
>>>>The Bible speaks of the "new man in Christ," of which there is
>>>>precisely no evidence in your life.
>>>
>>>You're not the Final Arbiter of that.
>>
>>But I am a legitimate arbiter of it, according to the Bible.
>
> Cite? I'm not so sure.
Asked and answered, Ted. I Timothy comes to mind.
>
>>>>>>>>I am confident that the Times has the goods on Paul Crouch,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Maybe yes, maybe no.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Knowing Ole, you can pretty much take it to the bank.
>>>>>
>>>>>But that would be inconsistent with Scripture.
>>>>
>>>>Nonsense.
>>>
>>>You know not the Scripture.
>>
>>I can quote it every bit as well as you and Duh-g,
>
> But do you understand it? If not, please ask God for understanding,
> and He will give it to you.
I understand it just fine ... and based on some of the drivel you
have been spewing, it appears beyond cavil that I understand it one hell
of a lot better than you do.
>>although my study of that useless book of babble has waned over the
>>years.
>
> You should devote more time to it. It will do you good.
It has served no useful purpose to this point in my life, and has
only wasted my time. And unless Jesus can pull himself away from his
regular schedule of sexually molesting young boys on the golf course
(or, being dead), I am not interested in wasting any more of my time on it.
>>>>>>I know how they work over at Trinity, because I've worked with
>>>>>>them before.
>>>>>
>>>>>Which speaks loads about Trinity.
>>>>
>>>>They know that they can't count on or work with you.
>>>
>>>And yet I have the Spirit of God within me.
>>
>>Your eisegetical views are perfectly understandable, as it removes
>>any and all pressure on you to actually live your faith.
>
> As mentioned before, we walk by FAITH, not by pressure.
Your life speaks otherwise.
>>Your god *always* says precisely what you want him (in your
>>selfishness and greed) to say. At the end of the day, you have
>>invented your own god, calling him Jesus for sake of convenience.
>
> Already covered.
But not ANSWERED.
> You're repeating yourself.
Yes, I am. Until you get it through that thick skull.
>>>(He who has ears to hear, let him hear.)
>>
>>Now, the portly fool thinks he's friggin' Jesus!
>
> No, I'm not Jesus. But I am His follower.
No evidence of *that* from your life and conduct.
> [...]
>
>>>>>You can go ahead and receive Christ as your Lord and Saviour, Ken.
>>>>>Us Christians won't think any less of you.
>>>>
>>>>Been there, done that,
>>>
>>>I don't think so.
>>
>>And what do you know?
>
> I know Jesus.
Having sex down at the glory hole at your local gay bookstore with
some illegal alien named Jesus does not count.
>
>>>>got the PremiseKeepers' T-shirt.
>>>
>>>One doesn't become right with the Lord by putting on a T-shirt.
>>
>>Nor by merely professing that he is a Christian. If you don't live
>>it, you can't legitimately claim it.
>
> And, of course, God is the Final Arbiter of that.
But we can see the telltales of baseness in your life.
>>>>Based on your own theology, I don't have to do anything -- and I'm
>>>>also covered by the Cream Gravy of the Kit'n Grrrrl. So, there! :)
>>>
>>>Only believe.
>>
>>I *BELIEVE* in the Cream Gravy of the Kit'n Grrrl!!!!
>
> But that won't get you saved.
I don't need salvation. It's supposed to already be in the bag.
>
>>OTOH, Jesus betrayed my trust.
>
> No He didn't.
Yes, he did.
>
>>But that doesn't matter, because once saved, always saved ... :)
>
> That's not what that means.
When you are tendentiously misinterpreting it, it's eisegesis.
>>>>>>... as long as you don't hit on us.
>>>>>
>>>>>You can rest easy Ken. (But you must nevertheless be reminded
>>>>>that you will one day stand before God, and wil have to answer to
>>>>>Him at the Final Judgment.)
>>>>
>>>>And Al'lah the Most Merciful will be quite displeased with you,
>>>>Ted.
>>>
>>>allah is demon spirit posing as a god, who will be banished to the
>>>pit of hell.
>>
>>And so is your false god, Ted. [...]
>
> My God is the One True Living God -- the God of the Bible.
Your god *always* says precisely what you want him (in your selfishness
and greed) to say. At the end of the day, you have invented your own
god, calling him Jesus for sake of convenience.
>
> [...]
>
>>>>>>if he did exist, he would have to answer to me first for his
>>>>>>failure to hold up his end of the bargain.
>>>>>
>>>>>Oh, but He HAS held up His end of the "bargain".
>>>>
>>>>No, he hasn't.
>>>
>>>Yes He has -- by DEFINITION. God CANNOT lie.
>>
>>But he can fail to live up to his representations.
>
> No He CANNOT. Otherwise, He wouldn't Be God.
Petitio principii. Simply put, your god isn't God, because he failed
to live up to his representations. QED.
>>>>James 4:17.
>>>
>>>Do you know what it is to do good, Ken?
>>
>>Yes.
>
> Do you? And do you know that the Bible says that our righteousness is
> as filthy rags before God. And do you know what kind of rags the
> original language refers to? Yes, THOSE kinds of rags.
IOW, there is no good or evil, by definition.
>>I reject utterly the notion that might makes right and the ends
>>justify the means,
>
> As does the Bible. Because God IS Right, by definition
But only in Ted Kaldis' Thoroughly-Fucked Dictionary.
> -- He doesn't
> need His might to make it so. And His means ARE justified, as are His
> ends, again by definition.
Again, you have so thoroughly sodomized those words that you can't
even communicate with those of us who speak English.
>>and further maintain that if God cannot get done what he wants done
>>by scrupulously ethical means,
>
> Whatever He does IS ethical, by definition. He cannot Be anything BUT
> Ethical, and Justified, and Right.
Again, you have so thoroughly sodomized those words that you can't
even communicate with those of us who speak English. It's like trying
to reason with a JW.
>
>>he is not a god worthy of the name.
>
> God IS Worthy.
Again, you have so thoroughly sodomized that word that you can't even
communicate with those of us who speak English. It's like trying to
reason with a JW.
>>See, Jas. 4:17.
>
> See Jas. 4:12.
I did. It is not relevant.
>
>>>>>And God need not answer to any man.
>>>>
>>>>Then your god is a cosmic Stalin, and morality is an illusion.
>>>
>>>You know NOT God. God MAY of His Own choice answer a given man, but
>>>then again, God knows what is in every man's heart.
>>
>>Do you even know what justice is?
>
> Yes. Do you?
Please define it, then. You have a peculiar definition for every key
word, which makes it impossible for the rest of us to carry on a normal
and relatively sane conversation with you.
>>>>>>>>because I know Ole, and how his people work.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Ole' Ole needs to know a little more about what the Bible has to
>>>>>>>say about this sort of thing (or at least to follow it).
>>>>>>
>>>>>>According to you, policing corrupt televangelists is a
>>>>>>Christian's job
>>>>>
>>>>>Indeed it is -- but I don't read anywhere in the Bible where we
>>>>>are to expose them to the world. Perhaps you can help me -- where
>>>>>in God's Word does it say to do this?
>>>>
>>>>Ezek. 33:1-6,
>>>
>>>This passage has NOTHING to do with this. What it means is, if I
>>>can see that you are at peril of harm to your eternal soul, and I
>>>fail to warn you, God will require your blood at my hand.
>>
Your eisegetical views are perfectly understandable, as it removes
any and all pressure on you to actually live your faith. Your god
*always* says precisely what you want him (in your selfishness and
greed) to say. At the end of the day, you have invented your own god,
calling him Jesus for sake of convenience.
>
>>>Ken, you are at peril of losing your eternal soul. You need to
>>>receive Christ as your Lord and Saviour.
>>
> Please, Ken, read the Word of God, for it contains Words of Life, and
> salvation is to be found there.
It is a useless piece of fiction, and truly unworthy of any more of
my time.
>
>>>>and Eph. 5:11 come immediately to mind,
>>>
>>>Not exactly. This speaks more so of not associating with
>>>unregenerate men who practise sinful acts. We are rather to REPROVE
>>>them, and/or to "expose" their sinfulness TO THEM so that they might
>>>repent and come to God.
>>
Your eisegetical views are perfectly understandable, as it removes
any and all pressure on you to actually live your faith. Your god
*always* says precisely what you want him (in your selfishness and
greed) to say. At the end of the day, you have invented your own god,
calling him Jesus for sake of convenience.
>
>>Do not participate in the unfruitful deeds of darkness, but instead
>>even expose them; for it is disgraceful even to speak of the things
>>which are done by them
>
> [unregenerate men]
Your eisegetical views are perfectly understandable, as it removes
any and all pressure on you to actually live your faith. Your god
*always* says precisely what you want him (in your selfishness and
greed) to say. At the end of the day, you have invented your own god,
calling him Jesus for sake of convenience.
>>in secret. But all things become visible when they are exposed by
>>the light, for everything that becomes visible is light.
>> - Eph. 5:11-13, NASB
>
>>The NASB is the most literal translation, and uses the best text.
>
> I have problems with the NASB because it is based on Codex Sinaiticus
> and Codex Vaticanus -- which leave out numerous verses.
>
>>>But when a brother is "overtaken in sin", the Bible says [in Gal.
>>>6:1] that we who are spiritual are to restore such a one -- in a
>>>spirit of meekness, and considering ourselves lest we also be
>>>tempted, and fall after the same example of disobedience.
>>
>>[...] If even you don't believe it,
>
> I believe it.
>
>>why should we?
>
> Because God said it.
Says who? YOU?!? Again, who gives a shit as to what you believe?
You don't give a shit about what anyone else does.
>>>>interpreted as they were by people with far better qualifications
>>>>to 'rightly divide the Word' than you.
>>>
>>>And just exactly what are these "qualifications"?
>>
>>They are as saved as you are, and have book learning to boot.
>
> The book learning is inconsequential, generally, unless it is received
> in light of (and subject to) the Scripure. And even then it is of
> questionable value, as the things of the Spirit cannot be comprehended
> with the human mind.
You are entitled to your bizarre views, Ted. I could give a flying
fuck what you think, since I already know what you think:
>>>It certainly isn't "book learning" -- the Word of God is Spirit, and
>>>is to be SPIRITUALLY discerned.
>>
>>And what is to say that you are more spiritual than they are? Judging
>>by your LIFE and CONDUCT, I'd bet on them over you any day of the
>>week, and twice on Sunday.
>
> It is witnessed by God's Spirit. If you have not, or resist His Spirit
> you will NOT know.
Again, your god is one of your own invention.
>>>We interpret the Bible in light of the Bible (because the
>>>Bible doesn't contrdict Itself), with the help of God's Holy Spirit,
>>>Whom He has sent to us to guide us into all Truth and Righteousness.
>
>>Actually, it does
>
> Actually, it does NOT. If you think it does, you are misunderstanding
> it.
Did Aaron accompany the Israelite hordes on their visit to Mount Hor?
Either way you answer, the Bible is wrong.
>>... but as a general rule of interpretation, you do need to try to
>>interpret it as if it were a coherent whole.
>
> But it IS a coherent whole.
Not unless you are having one of your acid flashbacks.
>
>>>>You remember Dr. Ron Black, don't you?
>>>
>>>Nope. Never met the bloke. Was he someone who used to post
>>>regularly? Why should I be impressed with what he says?
>>
>>It's that Ph.D. from divinity school.
>
> And?
You actually *learn* things in grad school, Teddums. You should try
it sometime.
>>>>And Fred Wheeler
>>>
>>>Vaguely.
>>
>>>>(who was an ABD divinity student)?
>>>
>>>Why should this impress me?
>>
>>Because they have the book learning AND the same spiritual
>>credentials you invariably try to lord over others.
>
> The book learning is inconsequential. And I don't "lord" anything over
> anyone.
You seem to think that you are an expert in virtually every field,
including theology.
>
>>You seem to think that yours is the last word on what Holy Writ means
>>[...]
>
> The Bible says what it says. But you need God's Spirit to be able to
> understand it.
And you obviously don't have it, as evidenced by your life.
What use is it, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but he
has no works? Can that faith save him? If a brother or sister is
without clothing and in need of daily food, and one of you says to
them, "Go in peace, be warmed and be filled," and yet you do not
give them what is necessary for {their} body, what use is that?
Even so faith, if it has no works, is dead, {being} by itself.
But someone may {well} say, "You have faith and I have works; show
me your faith without the works, and I will show you my faith by
my works." You believe that God is one. You do well; the demons
also believe, and shudder. But are you willing to recognize, you
foolish fellow, that faith without works is useless?
-- Jas. 2:14-20
>
> [...]
>
>>>>>>(As Ole is doing what you don't have the requisite Christian
>>>>>>courage and personal character to do because you obviously
>>>>>>*aren't* doing it,
>>>>>
>>>>>I dunno ... what I see Ole doing here is something that is
>>>>>CONTRARY to what the Scripture teaches.
>>>>
>>>>Cite chapter and verse, Ted. [...]
>>>
>>>Gal. 6:1.
>>
>>Doesn't say anything about whether the public should or should not be
>>informed.
>
> That's not the standard.
In your absurd opinion.
>
>>Ezekiel 33 does.
>
> Ezekiel 33 says something else entirely.
In your absurd opinion.
>
>>>>>>you don't have standing to bitch.)
>>>>>
>>>>>Nor am I doing so. I'm just pointing out that it doesn't seem to
>>>>>be consistent with what the Scripture says.
>>>>
>>>>In your tendentious opinion. I've learned from dealing with you
>>>>over the years that your god always says what you need him to say,
>>>>as opposed to what a dispassionate reading of Writ reveals.
>>>
>>>The Bible is there for you to read it for yourself.
>>
>>Which is why I am saying what I do.
>
> And which I encourage you to keep on doing.
Why bother? I already know it better than you, and it obviously
isn't helping you overmuch.
>>>(Though until you get your heart right with the Lord, you will not
>>>have an understanding of it.)
>>
>>[...]
>
>>[...] You have a "This does not apply to Ted" caveat in virtually
>>EVERY significant passage.
>
> The Bible applies to EVERY man -- myself included -- as well as you.
That's not what your life says, Ted.
>
>>>>>>Practice what you preach, Teddums. Remove the beam from thine
>>>>>>own eye ... :)
>>>>>
>>>>>Ken, you STILL need to get your heart right with the Lord.
>>>>
>>>>Hey, I'm saved already
>>>
>>>So you confess Jesus Christ as your Lord and Saviour, right?
>>
>>I did at one time.
>
> What about today?
The evidence is conclusive: Jesus is dead ... or worse.
>>And once saved, always saved, right?
>
> Or never saved, not saved.
Which appears to be more your problem than mine.
>
> [...]
>
>>>>>So please avail yourself of this time of grace, and receive Christ
>>>>>as your Lord and Saviour, that you not perish into everlasting
>>>>>torment.
>>>>
>>>>If your Holey Babble means anything, I'm already saved. [...]
>>>
>>>If you confess that you are saved, I am going to agree with you.
>>>This means that you confess Christ as your Lord and Saviour.
>>
>>I did at one time, [...]
>
> What about today?
Jesus doesn't deserve the title.
Wayne Delia
> Ken Smith wrote:
>
>
>>[blah, blah, blah ...]
>
>
> Ken, you need to get your heart right with the Lord (as does Ole
> Anthony).
Translation: "You need to accept the crazy-ass shit which I believe, so
that I can feel better about believing it."
WMD
Wayne Delia
> Ken Smith wrote:
>>I really don't expect to have to answer to your god;
>
> That doesn't matter. One day, you WILL have to answer to Him when you
> stand before Him at the Final Judgment. And you can't escape it.
"Is there any version of Christianity which doesn't reduce to 'Worship
my invisible sky-daddy, or He'll kick your ass?' "
(John Hattan)
WMD
Wayne Delia
> Ken Smith wrote:
>>They know that they can't count on or work with you.
>
> And yet I have the Spirit of God within me. (He who has ears to hear,
> let him hear.)
Sounds like bullshit, as usual.
WMD
Wayne Delia
> Ken Smith wrote:
>
>>Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
>>
>>>Ken Smith wrote:
>>>>if he did exist, he would have to answer to me first for his
>>>>failure to hold up his end of the bargain.
>
>>>Oh, but He HAS held up His end of the "bargain".
>
>>No, he hasn't.
>
>Yes He has - by DEFINITION. God CANNOT lie.
Jeremiah 20:7, KJV. Either God was lying, or Jeremiah was. (If Jeremiah
lied, then the Bible contains lies.) Which was it?
WMD
Wayne Delia
> Ken Smith wrote:
>>The Bible talks about the 'new man in Christ.' If the new man is the
>>same as the old, the passage makes no sense by definition.
>
> There, as we know that the Bible is the Word of God, and that God
> CANNOT lie, we are FORCED to conclude
that Jeremiah lied in Jeremiah 20:7 - which means the Bible contains
lies, which means any arbitrary verse in the Bible isn't necessarily
true by virtue of it being included in the Bible, which directly implies
that any verse asserting "God CANNOT lie" could possibly be a lie itself.
You've really got to stop trying to defend the Bible, Turd - you aren't
nearly smart enough.
WMD
Ken Smith
> Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
>> Ken Smith wrote:
>
>
>>> The Bible talks about the 'new man in Christ.' If the new man is the
>>> same as the old, the passage makes no sense by definition.
>>
>> There, as we know that the Bible is the Word of God, and that God
>> CANNOT lie, we are FORCED to conclude
>
> that Jeremiah lied in Jeremiah 20:7 - which means the Bible contains
> lies, which means any arbitrary verse in the Bible isn't necessarily
> true by virtue of it being included in the Bible, which directly implies
> that any verse asserting "God CANNOT lie" could possibly be a lie itself.
Either the god of the Bible lies and deceives, the Bible itself lies
and deceives, or both. Law of Non-Contradiction. No other option.
> You've really got to stop trying to defend the Bible, Turd - you aren't
> nearly smart enough.
For that matter, neither is anyone else. The REALLY smart ones gave
up a long time ago.
Ken Smith
And that's what it's really all about. Ted doesn't believe the Bible
in his "heart," and he knows that he doesn't believe it, which is why he
is so discomfited when people with "keen insight and a sharp intellect"
dismiss it as patently ridiculous. It shakes his faith, in which he has
so much invested in that he can't let go of it.
Perhaps if Cam is finally convicted....
Ken Smith
In a word, no.
Theodore A. Kaldis
> Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
>> The Bible was written by men inspired by God's Holy Spirit. And any
>> trusted and reliable Bible (such as the King James) has NOT been
>> "edited".
> The KJV is one of the more inaccurate translations available.
In fact, the King James is one of the most ACCURATE versions available.
> It adds verses not found in the oldest texts. Style was more
> important than accuracy to the translators.
You are incorrect about this. The oldest texts are Codex Sinaiticus
and Codex Vaticanus. Even a cursory examination of them reveals that
they are EXTREMELY corrupted. They disagree significantly with each
other in several hundred places. But there are few differences in the
other 5400+ manuscripts (which are trusted), and none of them are
significant.
The idea that given a manuscript should be trusted as more accurate
simply because it is older is just plain ludicrous.
> That being pointed out, I do like the poetic nature of the KJV.
> However, I keep other, more accurate, translations around.
You can pretty much throw out (and I would suggest that you burn) any
translation based on the Westcott/Hort and/or the Nestle/Aland & UBS
Greek text. This includes the ASV, RSV, Amplified, the Jerusalem
Bible, New English Bible, NASB, J.B. Phillips' NT, Good News Bible,
NIV, and NKJV, among MANY others.
Ken Smith
> Kent Wills wrote:
>>Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
>
>
>>>The Bible was written by men inspired by God's Holy Spirit. And any
>>>trusted and reliable Bible (such as the King James) has NOT been
>>>"edited".
>>
>>The KJV is one of the more inaccurate translations available.
>
> In fact, the King James is one of the most ACCURATE versions available.
The NT was originally written in koine Greek, which as you know, is
in certain key respects different from its modern counterpart. The KJV
was a translation from a dead language no one knew, and there were
limits to what they could do. As more *non-biblical* manuscripts were
uncovered, scholars' understanding of the mechanics of that language
increased, and these insights translated into better translations.
Another related problem with the KJV is that it is effectively
written in another language. Pre-Elizabethan English is to modern
English what koine is to modern Greek -- and the 1611 KJV had to be
updated 150 years later. The meaning of words often change over the
generations ("gay" is one that comes immediately to mind), and apart
from the awkward pronouns we can simply muddle through, it is not always
certain that we know what they meant.
>>It adds verses not found in the oldest texts. Style was more
>>important than accuracy to the translators.
That is frequently true in modern texts, as well. The stark reality
is that a lot of addition (and arguably, some substraction) went on as
the NT was translated and passed on through the generations.
> You are incorrect about this. The oldest texts are Codex Sinaiticus
> and Codex Vaticanus. Even a cursory examination of them reveals that
> they are EXTREMELY corrupted. They disagree significantly with each
> other in several hundred places. But there are few differences in the
> other 5400+ manuscripts (which are trusted), and none of them are
> significant.
They are available on-line at
http://www.biblefacts.org/church/pdf/sin-vat.htm. Feel free to prove
your claims.
As it has been explained to me, scholars view the NT as a tree, with
variants branching out and multiplying exponentially over the centuries
since it was written. In order to reconstruct the textus receptus, you
examine the variants, and attempt to trace them back to the (hopefully)
common source.
> The idea that given a manuscript should be trusted as more accurate
> simply because it is older is just plain ludicrous.
There is a sane and sensible process for reconstructing the text, and
I'm not prepared to concede that we should accept the untutored opinion
of a mere glorified telephone repairman over that of those who do it for
a living. I'm satisfied with the process, realizing that we would have
to presume the proposition we now have reasonable confidence in: that we
know what the original Gospel authors wrote.
>>That being pointed out, I do like the poetic nature of the KJV.
>>However, I keep other, more accurate, translations around.
>
> You can pretty much throw out (and I would suggest that you burn) any
> translation based on the Westcott/Hort and/or the Nestle/Aland & UBS
> Greek text. This includes the ASV, RSV, Amplified, the Jerusalem
> Bible, New English Bible, NASB, J.B. Phillips' NT, Good News Bible,
> NIV, and NKJV, among MANY others.
You could probably do this with any Bible and be better off for it,
though I wouldn't recommend book-burning under any circumstance.
Wayne Delia
> Kent Wills wrote:
>
>>Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
>
>>>The Bible was written by men inspired by God's Holy Spirit. And any
>>>trusted and reliable Bible (such as the King James) has NOT been
>>>"edited".
>
>>The KJV is one of the more inaccurate translations available.
>
> In fact, the King James is one of the most ACCURATE versions available.
Jeremiah 20:7, King James Version:
O LORD, thou hast deceived me, and I was deceived; thou art stronger
than I, and hast prevailed: I am in derision daily, every one mocketh me.
WMD
Eric Brze
wrote:
That's quite understandable if you realize that the OT lord with the
name Jehovah is actually the devil in disguise. Not only it can
deceive people, it can prevail over all people except Jesus Christ
alone.
Theodore A. Kaldis
> The NASB is the most accurate translation available. At least well
> credentialed theologians say it is, [...]
Just goes to show what "credentialed theologians" know.
Ken Smith
> Kent Wills wrote:
>
>
>>The NASB is the most accurate translation available. At least well
>>credentialed theologians say it is, [...]
>
> Just goes to show what "credentialed theologians" know.
I'm not prepared to concede that we should accept the untutored opinion
Eric Brze
wrote:
>On Sun, 26 Mar 2006 19:58:50 -0500, Eric Brze <br...@no.spam.mail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 26 Mar 2006 22:27:55 GMT, Wayne Delia <w...@deliafamily.net>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
>>>> Kent Wills wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>The Bible was written by men inspired by God's Holy Spirit. And any
>>>>>>trusted and reliable Bible (such as the King James) has NOT been
>>>>>>"edited".
>>>>
>>>>>The KJV is one of the more inaccurate translations available.
>>>>
>>>> In fact, the King James is one of the most ACCURATE versions available.
>>>
>>>Jeremiah 20:7, King James Version:
>>>O LORD, thou hast deceived me, and I was deceived; thou art stronger
>>>than I, and hast prevailed: I am in derision daily, every one mocketh me.
>>>
>>>WMD
>>
>>That's quite understandable if you realize that the OT lord with the
>>name Jehovah is actually the devil in disguise.
>
> Where did you come up with that?
Common sense. Only a devil in disguise would do evil in the name of
God. Anyone who reads the OT will see that is exactly what Jehovah
does.
>
>>Not only it can
>>deceive people, it can prevail over all people except Jesus Christ
>>alone.
>
> So Satan is more powerful than God (The dad of Jesus)?
Satan is more powerful than anybody except God.
Susan L
"Wayne Delia" <w...@deliafamily.net> wrote in message
news:LExVf.453$st.426@trndny05...
Nah. But close. Its, " You have to accept the crazy-assed shit , or not.
Whatever. When I am loathed by nearly everyone I prostheletize to, I can
blame it on my mission. Everyone hates me because I'm a faithful servant of
God, and not because I'm rude, crude, boorish and I suck.
Yosemite Sam
forevernitefan
me. The guy admits " an apology is in order" from him to me but as
usual, has YET yo post one. Worse still, the guy tried to convert me to
his rubber doll version of Jesus even when I told him that hr dirties
the bible in my eyes, considering what he actually proves himself to be
here.
>From what I understand, this "new man in jesus" bit means the person
has CHANGED drastically. Kaldis is hardly a godly man. In fact his
alleged Christian faith is convienent for him, particulalrly when he
ignores the bible passages against fornication. By his own admittance,
he would screw any female willing to bed him. He claims to be a "babe
magnet" but he's a fat, ugly guy who is a racist, a sexist and a
homophobe.
Thusly anything Kaldis says regarding his "convienent" faith should be
seen in context to his crappy life. He hides behind his edited Bible
and even once posted that in his "sabbatical" if anyone dissed him that
his god will enact revenge. Pathetic.
Moe
Eternal FOREVER KNIGHT fan
" A vampire cop? REALLY?"
forevernitefan
threat Kaldis resorts to when he can't refute a point. I've seen it
many times in other born again Christians I talk to when they find out
I am Pagan. Since I firmly believe that G-d is not limited to one
religion or one form and that the god of the bible is more of a tyrant
than the real Deity, hell and judgent day throne threats have no effect
on me. If this god of theirs was indeed just, good people of ALL faiths
would be in heaven while bad people ( including Chirstians) would spend
some time in helll ( not an eternity). Ass kissing a deity to avoid a
sadistic endless tornment makes G-d look like a bastard.
The KJV is hardly a credible, accurate translation of the Bible. Most
bible scholars agree on this. For Kaldis to praise that shows his
ignorance of his own religion's scriptural accuracy. Kalsid claiming he
doesn't judge is bull, he judges us all the time , Ken in particular.
In a nutshell, Kaldis doesn't have a leg to stand on regarding actual
Christianity, seeing as he mouths it but never LIVES it.
Oh,and as for Jesus, where the hell was thsi great glorious savior
during the Holocaust? A do nothing deity/savior might as well not
exist.
forevernitefan
a demonic, evil being, in the NT Jesus refers to his father as Jehovahm
the same god the jews worshipped. Therefore, by your claim, eric, Jesus
was the son of Satan.
I hope this doesnt turn into a bashing the Jews thing.
Eric Brze
wrote:
>Whiule I do think that the god depicted in the OT acts pretty much like
>a demonic, evil being, in the NT Jesus refers to his father as Jehovahm
>the same god the jews worshipped. Therefore, by your claim, eric, Jesus
>was the son of Satan.
Not at all. The reason Jesus was killed is because he taught against
the OT law and the OT god. When he was viewed by many including his
followers as someone who came to abolish the OT law, he said he did
not come to abolish the law but came to end(fulfill) it. Many people
misunderstood what he truly meant. They thought that was his
confirmation of the OT law, when in fact what he truly meant was that
the OT laws were never affirmed by God of the heaven in the first
place, therefore it's never qualified to be abolished. The fact Jesus
always taught his message in direct confrontation with the OT law
shows he never considered the OT laws were legitimate. He even
personally led by example to break the OT laws. If you truly know
Jesus and his teaching, you know he is not the son of evil Jehovah.
That notion was a misunderstanding by the early Christians.
>
>I hope this doesnt turn into a bashing the Jews thing.
In searching of the spiritual truth of God, I can careless about
political correctness. I laugh at the stubbornness and arrogance of
the Jews who worship the devil as their god.
Ken Smith
>>wrote:
>>>Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
>>>>Kent Wills wrote:
>>>>>Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>The Bible was written by men inspired by God's Holy Spirit. And any
>>>>>>trusted and reliable Bible (such as the King James) has NOT been
>>>>>>"edited".
>>>>>
>>>>>The KJV is one of the more inaccurate translations available.
>>>>
>>>>In fact, the King James is one of the most ACCURATE versions available.
>>>
>>>Jeremiah 20:7, King James Version:
>>>O LORD, thou hast deceived me, and I was deceived; thou art stronger
>>>than I, and hast prevailed: I am in derision daily, every one mocketh me.
>>>
>>>WMD
>>
>>That's quite understandable if you realize that the OT lord with the
>>name Jehovah is actually the devil in disguise.
>
An Elvis Presley song. Play it backwards on a 45, and you'll hear
the word "Jehovah" seven times. :)
>>Not only it can
>>deceive people, it can prevail over all people except Jesus Christ
>>alone.
>
> So Satan is more powerful than God (The dad of Jesus)?
Why, of course! Remember, we ARE posting in alt.fan.bob-larson.... :)
>
Ken Smith
> On 27 Mar 2006 02:11:18 -0800, "forevernitefan" <fvr...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>>Whiule I do think that the god depicted in the OT acts pretty much like
>>a demonic, evil being, in the NT Jesus refers to his father as Jehovahm
>>the same god the jews worshipped. Therefore, by your claim, eric, Jesus
>>was the son of Satan.
>
> Not at all. The reason Jesus was killed is because he taught against
> the OT law and the OT god. When he was viewed by many including his
> followers as someone who came to abolish the OT law, he said he did
> not come to abolish the law but came to end(fulfill) it. Many people
> misunderstood what he truly meant. They thought that was his
> confirmation of the OT law, when in fact what he truly meant was that
> the OT laws were never affirmed by God of the heaven in the first
> place, therefore it's never qualified to be abolished.
With all respect, Eric, while it certanily is creative -- and would
be supported by most mainstream Jews, who view Christianity as rank
heresy! -- that theory doesn't comport with the recorded teachings of
Jesus, and it is fairly well-established that his teachings were largely
Essenic in character (see, the Dead Sea Scrolls).
Many scholars think that a lot of the philosophy attributed to Jesus
was invented by his followers. By way of example, consider the notion
that a wife could divorce her husband, nonsensical under Jewish law at
the time. Similarly, the idea that Satan couldn't or wouldn't cast out
one of his own demons (uhh, that's "demonds," to you Branch Larsonians!)
is patently ludicrous on its face to anyone who has played chess (e.g.,
I'd give up a pawn to get a queen every day of the week).
> The fact Jesus
> always taught his message in direct confrontation with the OT law
> shows he never considered the OT laws were legitimate.
Huh?!? I think it was more a question of Pharasaic interpretation of
the Law, which was often patently ludicrous. Jesus' arguments could be
seen as a form of modern legal advocacy, urging that people follow the
*spirit* of the Law, as opposed to the letter. This is echoed in Rabbi
Hillel's exposition of the Torah: "Whatever is hateful to you, do not do
to your fellowman. This is the Torah. All else is interpretation."
> He even
> personally led by example to break the OT laws. If you truly know
> Jesus and his teaching, you know he is not the son of evil Jehovah.
You may be the first person I've ever seen who argued that the Jews
followed a demon god. Seriously.
> That notion was a misunderstanding by the early Christians.
>
>>I hope this doesnt turn into a bashing the Jews thing.
>
> In searching of the spiritual truth of God, I can careless about
> political correctness. I laugh at the stubbornness and arrogance of
> the Jews who worship the devil as their god.
So, Jesus is son of the devil. I suppose I can buy that one. :)
Ken Smith
> Maybe teh Unitatrians, Wayne, But its the same old "judgement day hell"
> threat Kaldis resorts to when he can't refute a point. I've seen it
> many times in other born again Christians I talk to when they find out
> I am Pagan. Since I firmly believe that G-d is not limited to one
> religion or one form and that the god of the bible is more of a tyrant
> than the real Deity, hell and judgent day throne threats have no effect
> on me. If this god of theirs was indeed just, good people of ALL faiths
> would be in heaven while bad people ( including Chirstians) would spend
> some time in helll ( not an eternity). Ass kissing a deity to avoid a
> sadistic endless tornment makes G-d look like a bastard.
From http://www.jhuger.com/kisshank.mv:
___________________________________________________
This morning there was a knock at my door. When I answered the door I
found a well groomed, nicely dressed couple. The man spoke first:
John: "Hi! I'm John, and this is Mary."
Mary: "Hi! We're here to invite you to come kiss Hank's ass with us."
Me: "Pardon me?! What are you talking about? Who's Hank, and why would I
want to kiss His ass?"
John: "If you kiss Hank's ass, He'll give you a million dollars; and if
you don't, He'll kick the shit out of you."
Me: "What? Is this some sort of bizarre mob shake-down?"
John: "Hank is a billionaire philanthropist. Hank built this town. Hank
owns this town. He can do whatever He wants, and what He wants is to
give you a million dollars, but He can't until you kiss His ass."
____________________________________________________
To the Christians out there, I ask: Why should I kiss Jesus' ass, but
not Hank's?
> The KJV is hardly a credible, accurate translation of the Bible. Most
> bible scholars agree on this. For Kaldis to praise that shows his
> ignorance of his own religion's scriptural accuracy.
There are some radical right-wing Christians who insist that the KJV
and ONLY the KJV is divinely-dictated ... as if the rest of the world is
stuck with a dangerously diluted, third-rate version of the message. It
is at obvious odds with the established facts -- but then again, whoever
said that Christianity is rational? Even Paul wouldn't!
> Kaldis claiming he
> doesn't judge is bull, he judges us all the time , Ken in particular.
In effect, Kaldis says: "The Bible teaches X, but you don't have to
follow it, as long as you are a Christian." Well, if that is the case,
then why bother writing the Bible in the first place?
>
> In a nutshell, Kaldis doesn't have a leg to stand on regarding actual
> Christianity, seeing as he mouths it but never LIVES it.
When I met Ted, he claimed that "[he wasn't] your typical Christian."
On this point, I must disagree: He is, unfortunately, *VERY* much like
most of the Christians I know. The Word is for preaching, not keeping.
> Oh,and as for Jesus, where the hell was thsi great glorious savior
> during the Holocaust?
Why, persecuting those stiff-necked Christ-killers, like a good
little Nazi! Ask Martin Luther....
> A do nothing deity/savior might as well not exist.
Which is the point of http://www.jhuger.com/kisshank.php.
Ken Smith
> Wayner = shit.
Just 'cause you're his bitch, Sam....
Susan L
Like the Romans could care less about how the old testament God was
worshipped.
Hey Eric, do you use the term , "mud people" at your "church"?
"Eric Brze" <br...@no.spam.mail.com> wrote in message
news:01ff22t1v5t51hf0m...@4ax.com...
Susan L
"Ken Smith" <for...@it.com> wrote in message news:4427D0B9...@it.com...
para...@technicianheaven.com
bit of stuff:
you posted in alt.religion.christian.pentecostal :
>Kent Wills wrote:
>
>> Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
>
>>> The Bible was written by men inspired by God's Holy Spirit. And any
>>> trusted and reliable Bible (such as the King James) has NOT been
>>> "edited".
>
>> The KJV is one of the more inaccurate translations available.
>
>In fact, the King James is one of the most ACCURATE versions available.
The Truth is that the kjv is neither of the above. It is pretty
accurate, just as the NASB, NIV, NKJV, and NLB are. There is no
scriptural reason to believe in any "perfect translation" and there is
no reason in the history of the texts to believe in any "inspiration"
of the translators, certainly not the king james translators.
>
>> It adds verses not found in the oldest texts. Style was more
>> important than accuracy to the translators.
>
>You are incorrect about this. The oldest texts are Codex Sinaiticus
>and Codex Vaticanus. Even a cursory examination of them reveals that
>they are EXTREMELY corrupted. They disagree significantly with each
>other in several hundred places. But there are few differences in the
>other 5400+ manuscripts (which are trusted), and none of them are
>significant.
I doubt that you have ever even LOOKED at either of these two texts,
let alone are capable of reading either. You are only parroting what
other kjv-onliers have said, with no basis in reality.
>
>The idea that given a manuscript should be trusted as more accurate
>simply because it is older is just plain ludicrous.
>
>
>> That being pointed out, I do like the poetic nature of the KJV.
>> However, I keep other, more accurate, translations around.
>
>You can pretty much throw out (and I would suggest that you burn) any
>translation based on the Westcott/Hort and/or the Nestle/Aland & UBS
>Greek text. This includes the ASV, RSV, Amplified, the Jerusalem
>Bible, New English Bible, NASB, J.B. Phillips' NT, Good News Bible,
>NIV, and NKJV, among MANY others.
You may believe in book-burning and you obviously don't like many of
the newer and better translations than the kjv, but none of us have
any reason to burn our Bibles. Until you can SHOW (not just claim,
but give VALID REASONS to believe) that the kjv is "better," I will
continue to use my NKJV, NIV, and NASB.
YOU have certainly given me no reason to change.
parakaleo
para...@technicianheaven.com
bit of stuff:
you posted in alt.religion.christian.pentecostal :
>
>> The NASB is the most accurate translation available. At least well
>> credentialed theologians say it is, [...]
>
>Just goes to show what "credentialed theologians" know.
Generally people with educations know more than people who are
ignorant.
parakaleo
Ken Smith
> "Theodore A. Kaldis" <kal...@worldnet.att.net>, posted this little
> bit of stuff:
> you posted in alt.religion.christian.pentecostal :
>>Kent Wills wrote:
>>>Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
>>
>>>>The Bible was written by men inspired by God's Holy Spirit. And any
>>>>trusted and reliable Bible (such as the King James) has NOT been
>>>>"edited".
>>>
>>>The KJV is one of the more inaccurate translations available.
>>
>>In fact, the King James is one of the most ACCURATE versions available.
>
> The Truth is that the kjv is neither of the above. It is pretty
> accurate, just as the NASB, NIV, NKJV, and NLB are. There is no
> scriptural reason to believe in any "perfect translation" and there is
> no reason in the history of the texts to believe in any "inspiration"
> of the translators, certainly not the king james translators.
Better information should make for a better translation, but there is
a marked tendency for Bible translators to write and/or opine under the
guise of legitimate interpretation. It is always better to go right to
the source, if you can.
>>>It adds verses not found in the oldest texts. Style was more
>>>important than accuracy to the translators.
>>
>>You are incorrect about this. The oldest texts are Codex Sinaiticus
>>and Codex Vaticanus. Even a cursory examination of them reveals that
>>they are EXTREMELY corrupted. They disagree significantly with each
>>other in several hundred places. But there are few differences in the
>>other 5400+ manuscripts (which are trusted), and none of them are
>>significant.
>
> I doubt that you have ever even LOOKED at either of these two texts,
> let alone are capable of reading either. You are only parroting what
> other kjv-onliers have said, with no basis in reality.
As Ted is Greek, it is quite possible that he could read them, but as
he is also a lazy bastard who routinely speaks regarding subjects that
he knows next to nothing about (e.g., psychiatry, law, theology), it's a
safe bet that he's never even looked at them.
I learned the rudiments of koine Greek to better understand the Bible
(and still have a Interlinear NIV), but I relied heavily on commentaries
for explanations of complex points. Still, the Bible is a useless book,
which hasn't warranted my serious attention for well more than a decade.
Jesus is dead, and the religion purporting to follow him probably
should join him....
>>The idea that given a manuscript should be trusted as more accurate
>>simply because it is older is just plain ludicrous.
>>
>>>That being pointed out, I do like the poetic nature of the KJV.
>>>However, I keep other, more accurate, translations around.
>>
>>You can pretty much throw out (and I would suggest that you burn) any
>>translation based on the Westcott/Hort and/or the Nestle/Aland & UBS
>>Greek text. This includes the ASV, RSV, Amplified, the Jerusalem
>>Bible, New English Bible, NASB, J.B. Phillips' NT, Good News Bible,
>>NIV, and NKJV, among MANY others.
>
> You may believe in book-burning and you obviously don't like many of
> the newer and better translations than the kjv, but none of us have
> any reason to burn our Bibles. Until you can SHOW (not just claim,
> but give VALID REASONS to believe) that the kjv is "better," I will
> continue to use my NKJV, NIV, and NASB.
>
> YOU have certainly given me no reason to change.
Ted expects you to believe him because God purportedly speaks to him
whilst sitting on the shitter. Only Ted *truly* knows what God meant,
and the rest of us rabble have to accept his word for it. :)
--A. Heathen
Ken Smith
It wouldn't be so bad if he would actually take the time to master
the rudiments of those subjects upon which he opines.
> parakaleo
Eric Brze
>Eric Brze wrote:
>> On 27 Mar 2006 02:11:18 -0800, "forevernitefan" <fvr...@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Whiule I do think that the god depicted in the OT acts pretty much like
>>>a demonic, evil being, in the NT Jesus refers to his father as Jehovahm
>>>the same god the jews worshipped. Therefore, by your claim, eric, Jesus
>>>was the son of Satan.
>>
>> Not at all. The reason Jesus was killed is because he taught against
>> the OT law and the OT god. When he was viewed by many including his
>> followers as someone who came to abolish the OT law, he said he did
>> not come to abolish the law but came to end(fulfill) it. Many people
>> misunderstood what he truly meant. They thought that was his
>> confirmation of the OT law, when in fact what he truly meant was that
>> the OT laws were never affirmed by God of the heaven in the first
>> place, therefore it's never qualified to be abolished.
>
> With all respect, Eric, while it certanily is creative -- and would
>be supported by most mainstream Jews, who view Christianity as rank
>heresy!
The feeling is certainly mutual, but the fact shows Jehovah is evil.
-- that theory doesn't comport with the recorded teachings of
>Jesus, and it is fairly well-established that his teachings were largely
>Essenic in character (see, the Dead Sea Scrolls).
No one said essenism is evil.
>
> Many scholars think that a lot of the philosophy attributed to Jesus
>was invented by his followers. By way of example, consider the notion
>that a wife could divorce her husband, nonsensical under Jewish law at
>the time. Similarly, the idea that Satan couldn't or wouldn't cast out
>one of his own demons (uhh, that's "demonds," to you Branch Larsonians!)
>is patently ludicrous on its face to anyone who has played chess (e.g.,
>I'd give up a pawn to get a queen every day of the week).
Pure speculations.
>
> > The fact Jesus
>> always taught his message in direct confrontation with the OT law
>> shows he never considered the OT laws were legitimate.
>
> Huh?!? I think it was more a question of Pharasaic interpretation of
>the Law, which was often patently ludicrous. Jesus' arguments could be
>seen as a form of modern legal advocacy, urging that people follow the
>*spirit* of the Law, as opposed to the letter. This is echoed in Rabbi
>Hillel's exposition of the Torah: "Whatever is hateful to you, do not do
>to your fellowman. This is the Torah. All else is interpretation."
If the letter of the law is evil, its spirit can't be good either.
What you thought is wrong.
>
> > He even
>> personally led by example to break the OT laws. If you truly know
>> Jesus and his teaching, you know he is not the son of evil Jehovah.
>
> You may be the first person I've ever seen who argued that the Jews
>followed a demon god. Seriously.
Thank you. I feel honoured and privileged.
>
>> That notion was a misunderstanding by the early Christians.
>>
>>>I hope this doesnt turn into a bashing the Jews thing.
>>
>> In searching of the spiritual truth of God, I can careless about
>> political correctness. I laugh at the stubbornness and arrogance of
>> the Jews who worship the devil as their god.
>
> So, Jesus is son of the devil. I suppose I can buy that one. :)
No, Jesus is the Son of God. Jehovah is the devil who is the father of
all lies and deceptions. Pretending to be God is just one of its
deceptions.
Ken Smith
Yet, they worshipped the same YHWH you denounce here.
>> Many scholars think that a lot of the philosophy attributed to Jesus
>>was invented by his followers. By way of example, consider the notion
>>that a wife could divorce her husband, nonsensical under Jewish law at
>>the time. Similarly, the idea that Satan couldn't or wouldn't cast out
>>one of his own demons (uhh, that's "demonds," to you Branch Larsonians!)
>>is patently ludicrous on its face to anyone who has played chess (e.g.,
>>I'd give up a pawn to get a queen every day of the week).
>
> Pure speculations.
They are quite well-founded. Jesus is reported to have said what the
NT says he said. You can either believe it or not, and if you believe
it, you have to concede the absurdity of at least one glaring aspect of
his teachings.
>>>The fact Jesus
>>>always taught his message in direct confrontation with the OT law
>>>shows he never considered the OT laws were legitimate.
>>
>> Huh?!? I think it was more a question of Pharasaic interpretation of
>>the Law, which was often patently ludicrous. Jesus' arguments could be
>>seen as a form of modern legal advocacy, urging that people follow the
>>*spirit* of the Law, as opposed to the letter. This is echoed in Rabbi
>>Hillel's exposition of the Torah: "Whatever is hateful to you, do not do
>>to your fellowman. This is the Torah. All else is interpretation."
>
> If the letter of the law is evil, its spirit can't be good either.
Not necessarily. Laws don't always achieve what they intend. Even
our Constitution has certain latent defects, which became apparent to
Thomas Jefferson around the time he took office.
> What you thought is wrong.
I respectfully disagree.
>
>>>He even
>>>personally led by example to break the OT laws. If you truly know
>>>Jesus and his teaching, you know he is not the son of evil Jehovah.
>>
>> You may be the first person I've ever seen who argued that the Jews
>>followed a demon god. Seriously.
>
> Thank you. I feel honoured and privileged.
>
>>>That notion was a misunderstanding by the early Christians.
>>>
>>>
>>>>I hope this doesnt turn into a bashing the Jews thing.
>>>
>>>In searching of the spiritual truth of God, I can careless about
>>>political correctness. I laugh at the stubbornness and arrogance of
>>>the Jews who worship the devil as their god.
>>
>> So, Jesus is son of the devil. I suppose I can buy that one. :)
>
> No, Jesus is the Son of God.
Prove it.
> Jehovah is the devil who is the father of
> all lies and deceptions. Pretending to be God is just one of its
> deceptions.
Prove it.
As far as I am concerned, this is an internecine squabble between the
followers of two psychotic ancient tribal sky-daddies. I don't really
have a dog in this hunt.
Yosemite Sam
>Yosemite Sam wrote:
>> Wayner = shit.
>
> Just 'cause you're his tormentor!
LOL.
Yosemite Sam
<sheep...@nospam.yahoo.com> wrote:
>Dont poke the troll.
Don't shag the sheep.
Yosemite Sam
wrote:
>He claims to be a "babe magnet"
Yer hot for him Moe-ron, fess up.
Yosemite Sam
wrote:
>Ass kissing a deity to avoid a
>sadistic endless tornment makes G-d look like a bastard.
Moe-ron ponders how to get right with God while still being a
fuckwit...
Yosemite Sam
wrote:
>I hope this doesnt turn into a bashing the Jews thing.
Does that mean you actually have _some_ moral standards?
Yosemite Sam
> So, Jesus is son of the devil. I suppose I can buy that one. :)
But what perversion wouldn't you buy?
Ken Smith
So, *THAT* is what being Wayne's "bitch" means? Why, I had no idea!
ROTFLMAO!!!
Ken Smith
Christianity. It's an AMC Pacer-class lemon.
Ken Smith
> On Mon, 27 Mar 2006 11:48:38 GMT, Ken Smith <for...@it.com> wrote:
>
>>>>That's quite understandable if you realize that the OT lord with the
>>>>name Jehovah is actually the devil in disguise.
>>>
>>> Where did you come up with that?
>>
>> An Elvis Presley song. Play it backwards on a 45, and you'll hear
>>the word "Jehovah" seven times. :)
>
> Well, that's one mystery solved :-)
>
>>>>Not only it can
>>>>deceive people, it can prevail over all people except Jesus Christ
>>>>alone.
>>>
>>> So Satan is more powerful than God (The dad of Jesus)?
>>
>> Why, of course! Remember, we ARE posting in alt.fan.bob-larson.... :)
>
> Actually, I'm in misc.legal right now. I'll probably remove
> it from the list on any future replies of mine. It's so far off-topic
> that there is no way to justify keeping it.
The original post was, as Paul Crouch's attorneys didn't shred their
notes and documents. Negligence, on a shocking scale.
But you know how USENET threads drift.... :)
Ken Smith
> On Mon, 27 Mar 2006 11:48:54 GMT, Ken Smith <for...@it.com> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>> Huh?!? I think it was more a question of Pharasaic interpretation of
>>the Law, which was often patently ludicrous. Jesus' arguments could be
>
> look pious to others, but did nothing as far as following the law.
A fair call. The more laws you have, the more scofflaws you end up with.
>>seen as a form of modern legal advocacy, urging that people follow the
>>*spirit* of the Law, as opposed to the letter. This is echoed in Rabbi
>>Hillel's exposition of the Torah: "Whatever is hateful to you, do not do
>>to your fellowman. This is the Torah. All else is interpretation."
>
> Truly sage advice.
Classical Judaism is remarkably rational as religions go, but this is
a central tenet of all of what C. S. Lewis called "clear" religions. It
is the Wiccan Rede, and is encompassed in the Eight-Fold Path. It's the
logical path dictated by the Law of Karma, and is presupposed by Taoism.
And of course, it is expressed just as succinctly in Matt. 7:12.
I won't speak for Islam here, as it is the only world religion I
admit to little or no familiarity with.
>>>He even
>>>personally led by example to break the OT laws. If you truly know
>>>Jesus and his teaching, you know he is not the son of evil Jehovah.
>>
>> You may be the first person I've ever seen who argued that the Jews
>>followed a demon god. Seriously.
>
> Many of the Christian Identity groups state this. They use it
> to justify their hatered of the Jewish people.
I'll also admit to not being familiar with CI.
Yosemite Sam
> So, *THAT* is what being Wayne's "bitch" means?
You'd have to ask his wife about that.
Yosemite Sam
>Yosemite Sam wrote:
>> On Mon, 27 Mar 2006 11:48:54 GMT, Ken Smith <for...@it.com> wrote:
>>
>>> So, Jesus is son of the devil. I suppose I can buy that one. :)
>>
>> But what perversion wouldn't you buy?
>
> Christianity.
I want Bob's take on that please!
Bob???
U still here???
Eric Brze
No, they didn't if they were real followers of Christ. They might not
know Jehovah was the devil consciously, but they must not worship evil
god if they follow Christ. The teaching of Jesus effectively
eliminates that possibility.
>
>>> Many scholars think that a lot of the philosophy attributed to Jesus
>>>was invented by his followers. By way of example, consider the notion
>>>that a wife could divorce her husband, nonsensical under Jewish law at
>>>the time. Similarly, the idea that Satan couldn't or wouldn't cast out
>>>one of his own demons (uhh, that's "demonds," to you Branch Larsonians!)
>>>is patently ludicrous on its face to anyone who has played chess (e.g.,
>>>I'd give up a pawn to get a queen every day of the week).
>>
>> Pure speculations.
>
> They are quite well-founded. Jesus is reported to have said what the
>NT says he said. You can either believe it or not, and if you believe
>it, you have to concede the absurdity of at least one glaring aspect of
>his teachings.
There is no such thing as absurdity in Jesus' teaching. It's all your
misunderstanding.
>
>>>>The fact Jesus
>>>>always taught his message in direct confrontation with the OT law
>>>>shows he never considered the OT laws were legitimate.
>>>
>>> Huh?!? I think it was more a question of Pharasaic interpretation of
>>>the Law, which was often patently ludicrous. Jesus' arguments could be
>>>seen as a form of modern legal advocacy, urging that people follow the
>>>*spirit* of the Law, as opposed to the letter. This is echoed in Rabbi
>>>Hillel's exposition of the Torah: "Whatever is hateful to you, do not do
>>>to your fellowman. This is the Torah. All else is interpretation."
>>
>> If the letter of the law is evil, its spirit can't be good either.
>
> Not necessarily.
False. Letters are neither good nor evil. The reason the letter of the
law is evil is because the spirit of the law is evil. Evil does not
come from letters. Evil comes from the evil spirit.
I'm not interested in organized religions. They can all go to hell for
all I care. I'm just a follower of the truth.
Eric Brze
wrote:
>On Mon, 27 Mar 2006 05:37:36 -0500, Eric Brze <br...@no.spam.mail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On 27 Mar 2006 02:11:18 -0800, "forevernitefan" <fvr...@yahoo.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>Whiule I do think that the god depicted in the OT acts pretty much like
>>>a demonic, evil being, in the NT Jesus refers to his father as Jehovahm
>>>the same god the jews worshipped. Therefore, by your claim, eric, Jesus
>>>was the son of Satan.
>>
>>Not at all. The reason Jesus was killed is because he taught against
>>the OT law and the OT god. When he was viewed by many including his
>>followers as someone who came to abolish the OT law, he said he did
>>not come to abolish the law but came to end(fulfill) it. Many people
>>misunderstood what he truly meant. They thought that was his
>>confirmation of the OT law, when in fact what he truly meant was that
>>the OT laws were never affirmed by God of the heaven in the first
>>place, therefore it's never qualified to be abolished.
>
> Huh? God had and has a convenient with the Jews.
After careful investigation, I found out that it was actually a pact
with the devil.
>
>>The fact Jesus
>>always taught his message in direct confrontation with the OT law
>>shows he never considered the OT laws were legitimate. He even
>>personally led by example to break the OT laws.
>
> Jesus followed the law. He didn't follow the additional rules
>enacted by the Pharisees, et al.
He openly confronted the law and encouraged his followers to break the
law. It's all written in the Bible as fact.
>
>>If you truly know
>>Jesus and his teaching, you know he is not the son of evil Jehovah.
>>That notion was a misunderstanding by the early Christians.
>
> So who then is Jesus' Father? He refereed to Jehovah as His
>Father.
False. He only refereed to God of the heaven as his father and he
claimed that no one but he himself had seen the father. Jehovah had
appeared to Abraham, Moses, and many others in the OT. It's the proof
that Jesus was not referring to Jehovah when he talked about his
Father.
>
>>
>>>
>>>I hope this doesnt turn into a bashing the Jews thing.
>>
>>In searching of the spiritual truth of God, I can careless about
>>political correctness. I laugh at the stubbornness and arrogance of
>>the Jews who worship the devil as their god.
>>
>
> Are you a follower of Christian Identity?
I'm not a member of organized religion. I'm a follower of Jesus
Christ.
bob young
Ken Smith wrote:
> bob young wrote:
> > Ken Smith wrote:
> >>pleasedontsueme wrote:
> >>>Ken Smith wrote:
> >>>>Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
> >>>>>Ken Smith wrote:
> >>>>
> >> [snip]
> >
> > Can anywone confirm to me or not whether Benny Hinn is a charlatan?
>
> Ask the folks who know best: http://www.trinityfi.org.
Thanks
Ken Smith
The Essenes were a Jewish sect -- some would call them a cult today
-- which predated the time of Jesus. Their teachings and beliefs were
well within the umbrella of Judaism, and Jesus appears to be associated
with them. (It has been suggested by scholars with record support that
Jesus wasn't from Nazareth but rather, that he was a nazorean.)
>>>> Many scholars think that a lot of the philosophy attributed to Jesus
>>>>was invented by his followers. By way of example, consider the notion
>>>>that a wife could divorce her husband, nonsensical under Jewish law at
>>>>the time. Similarly, the idea that Satan couldn't or wouldn't cast out
>>>>one of his own demons (uhh, that's "demonds," to you Branch Larsonians!)
>>>>is patently ludicrous on its face to anyone who has played chess (e.g.,
>>>>I'd give up a pawn to get a queen every day of the week).
>>>
>>>Pure speculations.
>>
>> They are quite well-founded. Jesus is reported to have said what the
>>NT says he said. You can either believe it or not, and if you believe
>>it, you have to concede the absurdity of at least one glaring aspect of
>>his teachings.
>
> There is no such thing as absurdity in Jesus' teaching. It's all your
> misunderstanding.
Looks like you've caught the Kaldis' petitio principii disorder. If
you play chess with that attitude, I'll beat you ten times out of ten. :)
>>>>>The fact Jesus
>>>>>always taught his message in direct confrontation with the OT law
>>>>>shows he never considered the OT laws were legitimate.
>>>>
>>>> Huh?!? I think it was more a question of Pharasaic interpretation of
>>>>the Law, which was often patently ludicrous. Jesus' arguments could be
>>>>seen as a form of modern legal advocacy, urging that people follow the
>>>>*spirit* of the Law, as opposed to the letter. This is echoed in Rabbi
>>>>Hillel's exposition of the Torah: "Whatever is hateful to you, do not do
>>>>to your fellowman. This is the Torah. All else is interpretation."
>>>
>>>If the letter of the law is evil, its spirit can't be good either.
>>
>> Not necessarily.
>
> False. Letters are neither good nor evil. The reason the letter of the
> law is evil is because the spirit of the law is evil. Evil does not
> come from letters. Evil comes from the evil spirit.
You're begging the question again. The spirit of the law is
expressed in Matt. 7:12: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto
you." The Hillel summation is substantively indistinguishable. Is that
formulation "evil?"
>> Laws don't always achieve what they intend. Even
>>our Constitution has certain latent defects, which became apparent to
>>Thomas Jefferson around the time he took office.
>>
>>>What you thought is wrong.
>>
>> I respectfully disagree.
>>
>>>>>He even
>>>>>personally led by example to break the OT laws. If you truly know
>>>>>Jesus and his teaching, you know he is not the son of evil Jehovah.
>>>>
>>>> You may be the first person I've ever seen who argued that the Jews
>>>>followed a demon god. Seriously.
>>>
>>>Thank you. I feel honoured and privileged.
>>>
>>>>>That notion was a misunderstanding by the early Christians.
>>>>>
>>>>>>I hope this doesnt turn into a bashing the Jews thing.
>>>>>
>>>>>In searching of the spiritual truth of God, I can careless about
>>>>>political correctness. I laugh at the stubbornness and arrogance of
>>>>>the Jews who worship the devil as their god.
>>>>
>>>> So, Jesus is son of the devil. I suppose I can buy that one. :)
>>>
>>>No, Jesus is the Son of God.
>>
>> Prove it.
[crickets chirping wildly]
>>>Jehovah is the devil who is the father of
>>>all lies and deceptions. Pretending to be God is just one of its
>>>deceptions.
>>
>> Prove it.
[crickets chirping wildly]
>> As far as I am concerned, this is an internecine squabble between the
>>followers of two psychotic ancient tribal sky-daddies. I don't really
>>have a dog in this hunt.
>
> I'm not interested in organized religions. They can all go to hell for
> all I care. I'm just a follower of the truth.
Funny how everyone seems to claim to have "the truth," but so few
have any semblance of evidence with which to back it up.
Eric Brze
I'm talking about the followers of Christ. If they are not followers
of Christ, they have nothing to do with Christ.
-- some would call them a cult today
>-- which predated the time of Jesus. Their teachings and beliefs were
>well within the umbrella of Judaism, and Jesus appears to be associated
>with them. (It has been suggested by scholars with record support that
>Jesus wasn't from Nazareth but rather, that he was a nazorean.)
>
>
>>>>> Many scholars think that a lot of the philosophy attributed to Jesus
>>>>>was invented by his followers. By way of example, consider the notion
>>>>>that a wife could divorce her husband, nonsensical under Jewish law at
>>>>>the time. Similarly, the idea that Satan couldn't or wouldn't cast out
>>>>>one of his own demons (uhh, that's "demonds," to you Branch Larsonians!)
>>>>>is patently ludicrous on its face to anyone who has played chess (e.g.,
>>>>>I'd give up a pawn to get a queen every day of the week).
>>>>
>>>>Pure speculations.
>>>
>>> They are quite well-founded. Jesus is reported to have said what the
>>>NT says he said. You can either believe it or not, and if you believe
>>>it, you have to concede the absurdity of at least one glaring aspect of
>>>his teachings.
>>
>> There is no such thing as absurdity in Jesus' teaching. It's all your
>> misunderstanding.
>
> Looks like you've caught the Kaldis' petitio principii disorder. If
>you play chess with that attitude, I'll beat you ten times out of ten. :)
Your ignorance of the spiritual truth is noted, too bad I can't help
you much.
>
>>>>>>The fact Jesus
>>>>>>always taught his message in direct confrontation with the OT law
>>>>>>shows he never considered the OT laws were legitimate.
>>>>>
>>>>> Huh?!? I think it was more a question of Pharasaic interpretation of
>>>>>the Law, which was often patently ludicrous. Jesus' arguments could be
>>>>>seen as a form of modern legal advocacy, urging that people follow the
>>>>>*spirit* of the Law, as opposed to the letter. This is echoed in Rabbi
>>>>>Hillel's exposition of the Torah: "Whatever is hateful to you, do not do
>>>>>to your fellowman. This is the Torah. All else is interpretation."
>>>>
>>>>If the letter of the law is evil, its spirit can't be good either.
>>>
>>> Not necessarily.
>>
>> False. Letters are neither good nor evil. The reason the letter of the
>> law is evil is because the spirit of the law is evil. Evil does not
>> come from letters. Evil comes from the evil spirit.
>
> You're begging the question again. The spirit of the law is
>expressed in Matt. 7:12: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto
>you." The Hillel summation is substantively indistinguishable. Is that
>formulation "evil?"
There are broken pieces of good element in the OT law, but they are
never really practiced and largely misinterpreted. Those broken pieces
can not represent the real nature of the OT law. They are to the most
window dressings only.
I don't claim to have the truth. I only follow the truth. I don't have
to prove the truth. It's the truth that is going to prove my
understanding of the truth instead. As a follower of Christ, I don't
have to prove anything.
Wayne Delia
> On Tue, 28 Mar 2006 13:03:16 GMT, Ken Smith <for...@it.com> wrote:
>>Eric Brze wrote:
>>>There is no such thing as absurdity in Jesus' teaching. It's all your
>>>misunderstanding.
>>
>> Looks like you've caught the Kaldis' petitio principii disorder. If
>>you play chess with that attitude, I'll beat you ten times out of ten. :)
>
> Your ignorance of the spiritual truth is noted, too bad I can't help
> you much.
Since you can't help much (in fact, as I observe, you can't help at
all), then perhaps you have at least as much ignorance of the spiritual
truth, if not more ignorance? Mote, beam, eye, Breezy.
(snip)
>>>>>>So, Jesus is son of the devil. I suppose I can buy that one. :)
>>>>>
>>>>>No, Jesus is the Son of God.
>>>>
>>>> Prove it.
>>
>> [crickets chirping wildly]
>>
>>>>>Jehovah is the devil who is the father of
>>>>>all lies and deceptions. Pretending to be God is just one of its
>>>>>deceptions.
>>>>
>>>> Prove it.
>>
>> [crickets chirping wildly]
>>
>>>> As far as I am concerned, this is an internecine squabble between the
>>>>followers of two psychotic ancient tribal sky-daddies. I don't really
>>>>have a dog in this hunt.
>>>
>>>I'm not interested in organized religions. They can all go to hell for
>>>all I care. I'm just a follower of the truth.
>>
>> Funny how everyone seems to claim to have "the truth," but so few
>>have any semblance of evidence with which to back it up.
>
> I don't claim to have the truth. I only follow the truth.
Reminds me of a line from the Our Gang "Little Rascals" comedy shorts:
"We don't know where we're going, but we're on our way!"
> I don't have
> to prove the truth. It's the truth that is going to prove my
> understanding of the truth instead.
Preach it, Brother Breezy! I assert that you owe me $10,000, and that's
the truth. I don't have to prove the truth. It's the truth that you owe
me $10,000 that is going to prove my understanding of the truth that you
owe me $10,000 instead. If you don't pay up with a cashier's check made
out to the Joseph and Lisa Delia College Fund, then you're not a
follower of the truth. You're a follower of lies.
> As a follower of Christ, I don't have to prove anything.
As holding an account receivable from you for $10,000, I don't have to
prove anything.
Pay up, sucker.
WMD
Ken Smith
> As a follower of Christ, I don't have to prove anything.
That does seem to sum up Christianity -- the ultimate antithesis of
intellect and reason. "A book says it, I believe it, and that settles
it" is the sum total of their apologetics.
It is difficult to claim that even Muslims are less rational.
Wayne Delia
> On 27 Mar 2006 02:04:35 -0800, "forevernitefan" <fvr...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>>Maybe teh Unitatrians, Wayne, But its the same old "judgement day hell"
>>threat Kaldis resorts to when he can't refute a point. I've seen it
>>many times in other born again Christians I talk to when they find out
>>I am Pagan. Since I firmly believe that G-d is not limited to one
>>religion or one form and that the god of the bible is more of a tyrant
>>than the real Deity, hell and judgent day throne threats have no effect
>>on me. If this god of theirs was indeed just, good people of ALL faiths
>>would be in heaven while bad people ( including Chirstians) would spend
>>some time in helll ( not an eternity). Ass kissing a deity to avoid a
>>sadistic endless tornment makes G-d look like a bastard.
>>
>>The KJV is hardly a credible, accurate translation of the Bible. Most
>
> It is one of the more inaccurate translations.
One of the KJV editions apparently contained "Thou shalt commit
adultery" among the Ten Commandments.
WMD
Yosemite Sam
wrote:
>One of the KJV editions apparently contained "Thou shalt commit
>adultery" among the Ten Commandments.
Wayner looks for a way to rationalize his hooker habit...
Eric Brze
wrote:
>On Tue, 28 Mar 2006 16:04:56 GMT, Wayne Delia <w...@deliafamily.net>
>wrote:
>
>>> I don't have
>>> to prove the truth. It's the truth that is going to prove my
>>> understanding of the truth instead.
>>
>>Preach it, Brother Breezy! I assert that you owe me $10,000, and that's
>>the truth. I don't have to prove the truth. It's the truth that you owe
>>me $10,000 that is going to prove my understanding of the truth that you
>>owe me $10,000 instead. If you don't pay up with a cashier's check made
>>out to the Joseph and Lisa Delia College Fund, then you're not a
>>follower of the truth. You're a follower of lies.
>>
>>> As a follower of Christ, I don't have to prove anything.
>>
>>As holding an account receivable from you for $10,000, I don't have to
>>prove anything.
>>
>>Pay up, sucker.
>
> Using Eric's logic, he owes you the money.
Using my logic, whether I owe him the money depends on the truth that
can be recognized by everyone. It's not about what he says or what I
say. It's about what the truth says.
Eric Brze
wrote:
>Eric Brze wrote:
>> On Tue, 28 Mar 2006 13:03:16 GMT, Ken Smith <for...@it.com> wrote:
>
>>>Eric Brze wrote:
>
>>>>There is no such thing as absurdity in Jesus' teaching. It's all your
>>>>misunderstanding.
>>>
>>> Looks like you've caught the Kaldis' petitio principii disorder. If
>>>you play chess with that attitude, I'll beat you ten times out of ten. :)
>>
>> Your ignorance of the spiritual truth is noted, too bad I can't help
>> you much.
>
>Since you can't help much (in fact, as I observe, you can't help at
>all), then perhaps you have at least as much ignorance of the spiritual
>truth, if not more ignorance? Mote, beam, eye, Breezy.
The difference is I admit my ignorance.
>
>(snip)
>
>>>>>>>So, Jesus is son of the devil. I suppose I can buy that one. :)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>No, Jesus is the Son of God.
>>>>>
>>>>> Prove it.
>>>
>>> [crickets chirping wildly]
>>>
>>>>>>Jehovah is the devil who is the father of
>>>>>>all lies and deceptions. Pretending to be God is just one of its
>>>>>>deceptions.
>>>>>
>>>>> Prove it.
>>>
>>> [crickets chirping wildly]
>>>
>>>>> As far as I am concerned, this is an internecine squabble between the
>>>>>followers of two psychotic ancient tribal sky-daddies. I don't really
>>>>>have a dog in this hunt.
>>>>
>>>>I'm not interested in organized religions. They can all go to hell for
>>>>all I care. I'm just a follower of the truth.
>>>
>>> Funny how everyone seems to claim to have "the truth," but so few
>>>have any semblance of evidence with which to back it up.
>>
>> I don't claim to have the truth. I only follow the truth.
>
>Reminds me of a line from the Our Gang "Little Rascals" comedy shorts:
>"We don't know where we're going, but we're on our way!"
That is what it's called a journey of faith.
>
>> I don't have
>> to prove the truth. It's the truth that is going to prove my
>> understanding of the truth instead.
>
>Preach it, Brother Breezy! I assert that you owe me $10,000, and that's
>the truth. I don't have to prove the truth. It's the truth that you owe
>me $10,000 that is going to prove my understanding of the truth that you
>owe me $10,000 instead. If you don't pay up with a cashier's check made
>out to the Joseph and Lisa Delia College Fund, then you're not a
>follower of the truth. You're a follower of lies.
>
>> As a follower of Christ, I don't have to prove anything.
>
>As holding an account receivable from you for $10,000, I don't have to
>prove anything.
>
>Pay up, sucker.
In the spirit of truth and honesty, that is not a problem. Where do
you want the money sent?
:-)
>
>WMD
Eric Brze
The Christian faith is the fundamental belief that God will ultimately
prove himself to be real and true to all. That is why a believer has
no responsibility to justify his belief in God. God will take care of
that. It's very rational and logical thinking.