Gay sex is demonic
Youn...@sbcglobal.net
beautiful thing, that glorifies God. When two men have sex, it is
only demonic lust, and glorifies self, not God. This is why gay
sex is wrong.
Lars Eighner
<Xns94F12B6277F5Yo...@151.164.30.93>,
the lovely and talented Youn...@sbcglobal.net
broadcast on alt.politics.homosexuality:
There is no god. That is one of many reasons that you are wrong.
--
Lars Eighner -finger for geek code- eig...@io.com http://www.io.com/~eighner/
"With a heavy dose of fear and violence, and a lot of money for projects,
I think we can convince these people that we are here to help them"
-- Lt. Col. Nathan Sassaman
Brent Norman
> When a man and a woman come together in sexual relations, it is a
> beautiful thing,
Honestly, is it, really? If so, then why don't they perform it in
public?
So *any* man and *any woman?
> that glorifies God.
Depends on the circumstances, it is more than the people involved, it
is the intentions that surround it that are important to Him.
> When two men have sex, it is
> only demonic lust, and glorifies self, not God.
Not any more than *any* man and *any woman having sex.
> This is why gay
> sex is wrong.
Depends on the circumstances and intentions surrounding it.
Dalton Dietz
LOUISVILLE, Ky. (BP)--With the movement toward same-sex “marriage” and the
normalization of homosexuality gaining momentum, some churches are running for
cover. Yet, our Christian responsibility is clear -- we are to tell the truth
about what God has revealed concerning human sexuality, gender and marriage.
No one said it was going to be easy.
The confessing and believing church, at every point, runs counter to the
cultural tidal wave. Even to raise the issue of gender is to offend those who
wish to eradicate any gender distinctions, arguing that these are merely
"socially constructed realities" and vestiges of an ancient past.
Scripture will not allow this attempt to deny the structures of creation.
Romans 1 must be read in light of Genesis 1 and 2. As Genesis 1:27 makes
apparent, God intended from the beginning to create human beings in two
genders or sexes -- "male and female He created them." Both man and woman were
created in the image of God. They were and are distinct and, yet, inseparably
linked by God's design. The genders really are different, and the distinction
goes far beyond mere physical differences, but the man recognized the woman as
"bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh."
The bond between man and woman is marriage, which is not an historical
accident or the result of socialization and cultural evolution. To the
contrary, marriage and the establishment of the heterosexual covenant union is
central to God's intention -- before and after the fall in the Garden of Eden.
Immediately following the creation of man and woman come the instructive
words: "For this cause a man shall leave his father and his mother, and shall
cleave to his wife; and they shall become one flesh. And the man and his wife
were both naked and were not ashamed."
Evangelical Christians have often failed to present this biblical truth
straightforwardly, and thus many of our churches and members are unarmed for
the ideological, political and cultural conflicts which mark the modern
landscape. The fundamental axiom upon which evangelical Christians must base
any response to homosexuality is this: God alone is sovereign, and He has
created the universe and all within by His own design and to His own good
pleasure.
Furthermore, He has revealed to us His creative intention through Holy
Scripture -- and that intention was clearly to create and establish two
distinct but complementary genders or sexes. The Genesis narratives
demonstrate that this distinction of genders is neither accidental nor
inconsequential to the divine design. "It is not good that the man should be
alone; I will make for him a helper suitable for him," determined God. And God
created woman.
God's creative intention is further revealed in the cleaving of man to the
woman ["his wife"] and their new identity as "one flesh." This biblical
assertion -- which no contorted interpretation can escape -- clearly places
marriage and sexual relations within God's creative act and design.
The sexual union of a man and a woman united in covenant marriage is thus not
only allowed but is commanded as God's intention and decree. Sexual expression
is limited to this heterosexual covenant, which in its clearest biblical
expression is one man and one woman united for as long as they both shall
live.
Therefore, any sexual expression outside of that heterosexual marriage
relationship is illicit, immoral and outlawed by God's explicit command and
law. That fundamental truth runs counter not only to the homosexual agenda but
to the rampant sexual immorality of the age. Indeed, the Bible has much more
to say about illicit heterosexual activity than about homosexual acts.
Adultery, rape, bestiality, pornography and fornication, for example, are
expressly forbidden.
As E. Michael Jones argues, most modern ideologies are, at base, efforts to
rationalize sexual behavior. In fact, he identifies modernity itself as
"rationalized lust." We should expect the secular world, which is at war with
God's truth, to be eager in its efforts to rationalize lust and to seek
legitimacy and social sanction for its sexual sins. We should be shocked,
however, that many within the church now seek to accomplish the same purpose
and to join in common cause with those openly at war with God's truth.
The Apostle Paul's classic statement in Romans 1 sets the issues squarely
before us. Homosexuality is linked directly to idolatry, for it is on the
basis of their idolatry that God gave them up to their own lusts. Their hearts
were committed to impurity and they were degrading their own bodies by their
illicit lusts.
Their idolatry -- exchanging the truth of God for a lie and worshiping the
creature rather than the Creator -- led God to give them over to their
degrading passions. From here, those given over to their degraded passions
exchanged the natural use of sexual intercourse for that which God declared to
be unnatural (literally, against nature). At this point Paul explicitly deals
with female homosexuality or lesbianism as well as male homosexuality. This is
one of the very few references in all ancient literature to female
homosexuality, and Paul's message is clear: All forms of homosexual eroticism
and sexual behavior fall short of God's glory, violate God's revealed law and
are inherently unnatural.
But the women involved in lesbianism were not and are not alone. Men, too,
have given up natural intercourse with women and have been consumed with
passion for other men. The acts they commit, they commit without shame. As a
result, they have received within their own bodies the penalty of their error.
Beyond this, God has given them up to their own depraved minds, and they do
those things which are not proper. The message could not be more candid and
clear, but there are those who seek to deny the obvious. Some have claimed
that Paul is here dealing only with those heterosexual persons who commit
homosexual acts. The imaginative folly of this approach is undone by
Scripture, which allows no understanding that any human beings are born
anything other than heterosexual. The modern -- and highly political -- notion
of homosexual "orientation" as a natural human condition cannot be squared
with the Bible. The only orientation indicated by Scripture is the universal
human orientation to sin.
In other letters, Paul indicates that homosexuals -- along with those who
persist in other sins -- will not inherit the Kingdom of God. The word Paul
uses in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 and 1 Timothy 1:10 is “arsenokoites,” a word with
a graphic etymology. Some modern revisionists have attempted to suggest that
this refers only to homosexual rapists or child abusers. This argument will
not stand even the slightest scholarly consideration. The word does not appear
in any Greek literature of the period. As New Testament scholar David Wright
has demonstrated, the word was taken by Paul directly from Leviticus 18:22 and
20:13, and its meaning is homosexuality itself.
The biblical witness is clear: Homosexuality is a grievous sin against God and
is a direct rejection of God's intention and command in creation. All sin is a
matter of eternal consequence, and the only hope for any sinner is the
redemption accomplished by Jesus Christ, who on the cross paid the price for
our sin, serving as the substitute for the redeemed.
Our response to persons involved in homosexuality must be marked by genuine
compassion. But a central task of genuine compassion is telling the truth, and
the Bible reveals a true message we must convey. Those seeking to contort and
subvert the Bible's message are not responding to homosexuals with compassion.
To lie is never compassionate -- and their lie leads unto death.
In the end, the church will either declare the truth of God's Word or find a
way to run away from it. It really comes down to trust. Do we trust the Bible
to tell us truthfully what God desires and commands about our sexuality? If
so, we really do know where we stand and we really do know what to say. If
not, let's just admit to the world that we really haven't a clue.
--30--
R. Albert Mohler, Jr. is president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in
Louisville, Ky. For more articles and resources, and for information on his
daily weblog on Crosswalk.com and “The Albert Mohler Program” daily radio
program on the Salem Radio Network, go to www.albertmohler.com.
Dennis Kemmerer
Grow a brain.
[plonk]
Dennis Kemmerer
news:dULrc.19736$CA....@newssvr31.news.prodigy.com...
This is a political discussion group. Take the bible babble elsewhere.
[snip religious drooling]
Peacenik
I see. It's wrong because YOU say it's wrong.
--
Peacenik
GOOD RIDDANCE on Nov. 2nd to Dishonest Warmonger-in-Thief G.W. Bush!
"Demonic." ROTFLMAO!!!!!!
What mindless BULLCRAP!
BTW -- **millions** of men and women "come together in sexual
relations" every day who are NOT married... simply enjoying CASUAL
sex. But no sweat, because that "is a beautiful thing, that glorifies
God," right?
If NOT, then you're BOTH an idiot AND a *hypocrite*, whining as
you are about gays having sex.
(The "IDIOCY" comes from your having insufficient intelligence
to *recognize* that people's *personal* and *private* sex lives are
absolutely NONE of your business.)
Were you BORN retarded, or did you have to go to a special
school for that? Such as one of the private ones that the RRR
cult runs?
-- Craig Chilton <xana...@mchsi.com>
(REAL name and e-mail address, lest any bigot wrongly
think I'm hiding behind an a alias. The "alias," above,
is designed to be a visible MESSAGE, each time I post.)
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
INSIGHT on our Warmonger-in-Thief ---
http://homepage.mac.com/webmasterkai/kaicurry/gwbush/dishonestdubya.html
AND...
http://www.blackboxvoting.com/
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
Dionisio
>LOUISVILLE, Ky. (BP)--With the movement toward same-sex “marriage” and the
>normalization of homosexuality gaining momentum, some churches are running for
>cover. Yet, our Christian responsibility is clear -- we are to tell the truth
>about what God has revealed concerning human sexuality, gender and marriage.
>
>
Why start now? Why that's a breaking of tradition! And traditions are
meant to be upheld don't ya know. Heck, they're such powerful forces
that it took 400 years for the Catholics to realize Earth isn't the
center of the universe. This sudden change smacks of liberalism most
foul... To say nothing of situational ethics... ("Situation's changed,
we need to start telling the truth or folks might leave." Oh, oops,
they've been leaving for decades.)
What made these folks change their minds? Could it be the work of a
group in Cincinnati and the subsequent Plague of Locusts? (Well,
cicadas. Don't have many locusts handy in Ohio.)
Ah, well. It's not like the man did a very good job of speaking the
truth anyway. I mean, really, trumpeting woman as "helper." Let's see,
she "helped" him to eat the forbidden fruit and doomed the species to
eternal suffering and pain. *Really* helpful. (Well, if you're a masochist.)
There was a reason why man was created first. He was better. The actions
of the woman proved her inferiority and unsuitableness to the task. God
made a big mistake creating her. The human race has been paying for His
oopsie ever since.
As yourself one question: If male-male fidelity is so bad, why does God
"live" with two other males, one of whom is his son? They've been
together for centuries untold. At first there were just the two, God and
the Holy Ghost/Spirit; then along came His son, and *still* there's been
nary a fight, a "chill in the air," or moment of "I'm not speaking to
you." No thrown crockery, heated arguments, or even suggestions that one
or more parties "Go to Hell." Coincidence? Not likely.
--
The danger for what the press derisively calls the 'Religious Right' is that they are making the same mistakes the religious left made. To solve the moral problems of the nation they are looking to government rather than the Creator of their faith and His strategies.
Dore
<xana...@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:40d1c173...@netnews.mchsi.com...
> On Sat, 22 May 2004 05:15:56 GMT,
> "YoungRep" <Youn...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>
> > When a man and a woman come together in sexual relations, it
> > is a beautiful thing, that glorifies God. When two men have sex, it
> > is only demonic lust, and glorifies self, not God. This is why gay
> > sex is wrong.
People having sex does NOT GLORIFY GOD! Sex is an earthly thing that GOD
takes NO pleasure in. It always involves LUST and LUST is ALWAYS SIN, no
matter who is engaging in the act.
--
Dore
"GOOD RIDDANCE on Nov. 2nd to Dishonest Warmonger-in-Thief G.W. Bush!"
<xana...@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:40d1c173...@netnews.mchsi.com...
Citizen
Youn...@sbcglobal.net wrote:
--------------------
Tell the truth. You're a gay person who is going down the list of myths
about gays, right?
Citizen
One thing that churches do is offer opposition to cultural tidal waves.
That is true. That is not really a bad thing either, it helps bring some
prudence to changes that have occurred in our society.
Articles such as this probably reflect the fact that gays have been
catapulted into the front pages. We live in a large country, social
changes - this effects a very small percentage of the population and as
such is hardly something that impacts daily life for many - have not
come easily. An example of this is putting an end to slavery - it took
an actual war on that one, this one does not remove the work force of a
good segment of the population fortunately. Other changes, such as
sufferage for woman, and the civil rights movement did not happen easily
nor without ripples of dissent.
Something this article does not take into account though is that
homosexuality has always been normal for a percentage of the population
as has the existence of homosexuals. In some they have been mistreated,
in others they did not raise any particular interest or receive much
attention.
I think the "normalization of homosexuality" is the part designed to get
people upset though and has no real place. You can't normalize something
that is normal already to a percent of the population, and just not
normal to the rest. It is unfortunate that people who are homosexual are
perceived as a threat. Does the "normalization of homosexuality" mean
that they fear that there is some kind of tidal wave of homosexuals who
aren't because the churches are telling them not to be doing that? ??
Citizen
Juanjo
Neill
<xana...@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:40d1c173...@netnews.mchsi.com...
> "YoungRep" <Youn...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>
> > When a man and a woman come together in sexual relations, it
> > is a beautiful thing, that glorifies God. When two men have sex, it
> > is only demonic lust, and glorifies self, not God. This is why gay
> > sex is wrong.
>
> "Demonic." ROTFLMAO!!!!!!
>
> What mindless BULLCRAP!
>
> BTW -- **millions** of men and women "come together in sexual
> relations" every day who are NOT married... simply enjoying CASUAL
> sex. But no sweat, because that "is a beautiful thing, that glorifies
> God," right?
You miss the point, it's the lust part, jackass.
Neill
GOOD RIDDANCE on Nov. 2nd to Dishonest Warmonger-in-Thief G.W. Bush!
"Dore" <dorewil...@verizon.net> wrote:
> Craig Chilton <xana...@mchsi.com> ("GOOD RIDDANCE on
>> "YoungRep" <Youn...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>> When a man and a woman come together in sexual relations, it
>>> is a beautiful thing, that glorifies God. When two men have sex, it
>>> is only demonic lust, and glorifies self, not God. This is why gay
>>> sex is wrong.
>> "Demonic." ROTFLMAO!!!!!!
>>
>> What mindless BULLCRAP!
>>
>> BTW -- **millions** of men and women "come together in sexual
>> relations" every day who are NOT married... simply enjoying CASUAL
>> sex. But no sweat, because that "is a beautiful thing, that glorifies
>> God," right?
>>
>> If NOT, then you're BOTH an idiot AND a *hypocrite*, whining as
>> you are about gays having sex.
>>
>> (The "IDIOCY" comes from your having insufficient intelligence
>> to *recognize* that people's *personal* and *private* sex lives are
>> absolutely NONE of your business.)
>>
>> Were you BORN retarded, or did you have to go to a special
>> school for that? Such as one of the private ones that the RRR
>> cult runs?
> People having sex does NOT GLORIFY GOD! Sex is an earthly
> thing that GOD takes NO pleasure in. It always involves LUST and
> LUST is ALWAYS SIN, no matter who is engaging in the act.
ROTFL!!!!!!!!!! Just because you probably resemble the Wicked
Witch of the West (and thus aren't "getting" any, and you thereby
engage constanly in speweing sour grapes) doesn't mean you have
to ACT like her. Get a life, Dore! Meanwhile, you're still one of
Usenet's biggest laughingstocks.
-- Craig Chilton <xana...@mchsi.com>
(REAL name and e-mail address, lest any bigot wrongly
think I'm hiding behind an a alias. The "alias," above,
is designed to be a visible MESSAGE, each time I post.)
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
INSIGHT on our Warmonger-in-Thief ---
http://homepage.mac.com/webmasterkai/kaicurry/gwbush/dishonestdubya.html
AND...
http://www.blackboxvoting.com/
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
ALSO worth a look:
Here's what happens to people like you & me:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/05/21/antiwar.soldier.ap/index.html
However, the same rules don't apply to the "Elite:"
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
GOOD RIDDANCE on Nov. 2nd to Dishonest Warmonger-in-Thief G.W. Bush!
"Neill" <nmla...@SPAMhotmail.com> wrote:
> Craig Chilton <xana...@mchsi.com> ("GOOD RIDDANCE on
>> "YoungRep" <Youn...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>> When a man and a woman come together in sexual relations, it
>>> is a beautiful thing, that glorifies God. When two men have sex, it
>>> is only demonic lust, and glorifies self, not God. This is why gay
>>> sex is wrong.
>> "Demonic." ROTFLMAO!!!!!!
>>
>> What mindless BULLCRAP!
>>
>> BTW -- **millions** of men and women "come together in sexual
>> relations" every day who are NOT married... simply enjoying CASUAL
>> sex. But no sweat, because that "is a beautiful thing, that glorifies
>> God," right?
> You miss the point, it's the lust part, jackass.
No. YOU are being the jackass for not perceiving (or
acknowledging) that I was calling him on his hypocrisy. As I
pointed out immediately AFTER that paragraph, in the portion
of my post that you so "conveniently" OMITTED. (Now
**restored**, immediately below. [I love watching you clueless
losers making such fools of themselves, and actually thinking
they'll get away with it! LOL!!!] ) ---
>> If NOT, then you're BOTH an idiot AND a *hypocrite*, whining
>> as you are about gays having sex.
>>
>> (The "IDIOCY" comes from your having insufficient intelligence
>> to *recognize* that people's *personal* and *private* sex lives are
>> absolutely NONE of your business.)
>>
>> Were you BORN retarded, or did you have to go to a special
>> school for that? Such as one of the private ones that the RRR
>> cult runs?
-- Craig Chilton <xana...@mchsi.com>
(REAL name and e-mail address, lest any bigot wrongly
think I'm hiding behind an a alias. The "alias," above,
is designed to be a visible MESSAGE, each time I post.)
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
INSIGHT on our Warmonger-in-Thief ---
http://homepage.mac.com/webmasterkai/kaicurry/gwbush/dishonestdubya.html
AND...
http://www.blackboxvoting.com/
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
ALSO worth a look:
Paul Hume
And when a troll and the internet come together it is not only dmeonic
but downright Satanic, and glorifies the self above the very throne of
God.
Go to hell, you bad boy.
Dore
news:40c2d138...@netnews.mchsi.com...
> ROTFL!!!!!!!!!! Just because you probably resemble the Wicked
> Witch of the West (and thus aren't "getting" any, and you thereby
> engage constanly in speweing sour grapes) doesn't mean you have
> to ACT like her. Get a life, Dore! Meanwhile, you're still one of
> Usenet's biggest laughingstocks.
>
No I am NOT "getting any" thankfully, since that kind of defilement is
disgusting, and neither do I WANT to "get any". And since I assume you are
"getting some", I hope you enjoy it, because you will be spending your time
in hell, DOING NOTHING ELSE, and you will be so sick of it, you wish you
never have.
--
Dore
"GOOD RIDDANCE on Nov. 2nd to Dishonest Warmonger-in-Thief G.W. Bush!"
<xana...@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:40c2d138...@netnews.mchsi.com...
Dionisio
>People having sex does NOT GLORIFY GOD! Sex is an earthly thing that GOD
>takes NO pleasure in. It always involves LUST and LUST is ALWAYS SIN, no
>matter who is engaging in the act.
>
>
Oh my, you've read the Bible. Careful, the "Christians" will now try to
crucify you.
GOOD RIDDANCE on Nov. 2nd to Dishonest Warmonger-in-Thief G.W. Bush!
> Craig Chilton <xana...@mchsi.com> ("GOOD RIDDANCE
> on Nov. 2nd to Dishonest Warmonger-in-Thief G.W. Bush!") wrote:
>> ROTFL!!!!!!!!!! Just because you probably resemble the Wicked
>> Witch of the West (and thus aren't "getting" any, and you thereby
>> engage constanly in speweing sour grapes) doesn't mean you have
>> to ACT like her. Get a life, Dore! Meanwhile, you're still one of
>> Usenet's biggest laughingstocks.
> No I am NOT "getting any."
ROTFL!!!! Yep. Figures!! No man in his right mind would be
attracted to you any more than he would be to the creature in the
movie, "Alien." No matter WHAT you look like. Because you have
NO mind.
> And since I assume you are "getting some", I hope you enjoy it,
Thanks. Very much!! Every chance I get!! With REAL, sensible,
intelligent, and attractive females... NOT with fetid and sociopathic
losers like you.
GOOD RIDDANCE on Nov. 2nd to Dishonest Warmonger-in-Thief G.W. Bush!
Paul Hume <paul...@comcast.net> wrote:
> "YoungRep" <Youn...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> When a man and a woman come together in sexual relations, it is a
>> beautiful thing, that glorifies God. When two men have sex, it is
>> only demonic lust, and glorifies self, not God. This is why gay
>> sex is wrong.
> And when a troll and the internet come together it is not only demonic
> but downright Satanic, and glorifies the self above the very throne of
> God.
>
> Go to hell, you bad boy.
LOL!!!
And along the way, "YoungRep," don't pass "Go," and don't
collect $200.
bob young
Dore wrote:
> "GOOD RIDDANCE on Nov. 2nd to Dishonest Warmonger-in-Thief G.W. Bush!"
> <xana...@mchsi.com> wrote in message
> news:40c2d138...@netnews.mchsi.com...
>
> > ROTFL!!!!!!!!!! Just because you probably resemble the Wicked
> > Witch of the West (and thus aren't "getting" any, and you thereby
> > engage constanly in speweing sour grapes) doesn't mean you have
> > to ACT like her. Get a life, Dore! Meanwhile, you're still one of
> > Usenet's biggest laughingstocks.
> >
>
> No I am NOT "getting any" thankfully, since that kind of defilement is
> disgusting, and neither do I WANT to "get any". And since I assume you are
> "getting some", I hope you enjoy it, because you will be spending your time
> in hell, DOING NOTHING ELSE, and you will be so sick of it, you wish you
> never have.
>
> --
> Dore
"I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or has a
will of the type of which we are conscious in ourselves. An individual who
should survive his
physical death is also beyond my comprehension; such notions are for the fears
or absurd egoism of feeble souls."
[Albert Einstein]
If watching people being tortured for all eternity is one of the 'delights' of
heaven, I want no part of it or any religion that teaches it.
[John Hachmann]
Dore
news:40B2E3EE...@netvigator.com...
>
> "I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or has
a
> will of the type of which we are conscious in ourselves. An individual who
> should survive his
> physical death is also beyond my comprehension; such notions are for the
fears
> or absurd egoism of feeble souls."
> [Albert Einstein]
>
> If watching people being tortured for all eternity is one of the
'delights' of
> heaven, I want no part of it or any religion that teaches it.
> [John Hachmann]
They are not tortured for eternity, they only receive the exact and perfect
justification of their choice of evil and sins in PERFECT JUSTICE.
I suppose you would like all criminals to go free and not suffer any
punishment whatsoever. I guess all of those child rapers and murderers,
don't deserve any punishment? Those behind 911 are innocent and don't
deserve any justice for their actions? A man who rapes and murders your 3 yr
old daughter, I suppose you would invite to live under your roof and provide
all of his needs freely, and have no complaints?
Unless you agree to the previous statements and questions, then who are you
to JUDGE GOD on HIS justice for what is EVIL against HIM?
--
Dore
"bob young" <alasp...@netvigator.com> wrote in message
news:40B2E3EE...@netvigator.com...
bob young
Dore wrote:
> "bob young" <alasp...@netvigator.com> wrote in message
> news:40B2E3EE...@netvigator.com...
> >
> > "I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or has
> a
> > will of the type of which we are conscious in ourselves. An individual who
> > should survive his
> > physical death is also beyond my comprehension; such notions are for the
> fears
> > or absurd egoism of feeble souls."
> > [Albert Einstein]
> >
> > If watching people being tortured for all eternity is one of the
> 'delights' of
> > heaven, I want no part of it or any religion that teaches it.
> > [John Hachmann]
>
> They are not tortured for eternity, they only receive the exact and perfect
> justification of their choice of evil and sins in PERFECT JUSTICE...
...and of ourse you have that of good authoirity I suppose?
>
> I suppose you would like all criminals to go free and not suffer any
> punishment whatsoever. I guess all of those child rapers and murderers,
> don't deserve any punishment? Those behind 911 are innocent and don't
> deserve any justice for their actions?
What are you 'a loony' have you never heard of 'Common Law' Common law sets
out all the parameters and then amends them in tune with changing
circumstances. If the world were left with just the Ten Commandmends' we would
have utter chaos!
> A man who rapes and murders your 3 yr
> old daughter, I suppose you would invite to live under your roof and provide
> all of his needs freely, and have no complaints?
> Unless you agree to the previous statements and questions, then who are you
> to JUDGE GOD on HIS justice for what is EVIL against HIM?
See above [pathetic individial that you are]
Here's a genius:
"I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or has a
will of the type of which we are conscious in ourselves. An individual who
should survive his
physical death is also beyond my comprehension; such notions are for the fears
or absurd egoism of feeble souls."
[Albert Einstein]
It would seem that men always need some idiotic fiction in the name of which
they can hate one another. Once it was religion. Now it is the State.
[Albert Einstein]
"The difference between stupidity and genius is
that genius has its limits."
[Albert Einstein]
No One
> "bob young" <alasp...@netvigator.com> wrote in message
> news:40B2E3EE...@netvigator.com...
> > If watching people being tortured for all eternity is one of the
> 'delights' of
> > heaven, I want no part of it or any religion that teaches it.
> > [John Hachmann]
>
> They are not tortured for eternity, they only receive the exact and perfect
> justification of their choice of evil and sins in PERFECT JUSTICE.
The point being raised was not the alledged punishment, but a hypothetical
diety that sets up viewing areas so you can see them suffer. That sounds
pretty sadistic to me. Did the Americans who tortured Iraqis in Bush's
Bastile act like Christians for videotaping it so others could watch?
Is that what you are saying?
> I suppose you would like all criminals to go free and not suffer any
> punishment whatsoever. I guess all of those child rapers and murderers,
> don't deserve any punishment? Those behind 911 are innocent and don't
> deserve any justice for their actions? A man who rapes and murders your 3 yr
> old daughter, I suppose you would invite to live under your roof and provide
> all of his needs freely, and have no complaints?
> Unless you agree to the previous statements and questions, then who are you
> to JUDGE GOD on HIS justice for what is EVIL against HIM?
You mean your deity would punish Nazis for the Holocaust after not
lifting a finger to stop it? Not even a small ligtening bolt frying
der Führer's ass?
Henry Etta
"No One" <no...@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:m3hdu31...@nospam.pacbell.net...
Dore is the Deity!
Henry
Texoklee
news:Xns94F12B6277F5Yo...@151.164.30.93:
> When a man and a woman come together in sexual relations, it is a
> beautiful thing, that glorifies God. When two men have sex, it is
> only demonic lust, and glorifies self, not God. This is why gay
> sex is wrong.
>
If the poeple and their legislatures have no right to determine what is
acceptable marriage and HOMOsexual marriage is now acceptable after over
200 years of making it Criminal Activity, the RESTORE POLYGIMY; ALSO
RESTORE RIGHT OF 14 AND 15 YEAR OLDS THE RIGHT TO MARRY AS THEY DID IN
THE EARLY 1900'S.
What right did States and US have to criminalize polyigimist marriages in
Utah? If government has no right to interfere with what women and men do
in their bedrooms then ALLOW WOMEN TO HAVE 4 HUSBANDS SLEEPIING IN THEIR
BED and ALLOW MEN TO HAVE 4 WIFES IN THEIR BEDROOMS.
If it is no business of Governemnt about what one does in their bedrooms
then how can a State make illegal a Husband and his Wives allowing their
children from infancy through teenage years to sleep in the same bed and
observe what the sexual and family tastes Married Polyismts from infancy
to teenage. Parents can then their their children what their values are
regarding sex.
How Sick, Illogical and ridiculous for MASS. SUPREME COURT to rule in
advance of a vote by the State Legislature for submission to the voters
of Mass. whether they want to approve of HOMOsexual marriages. The court
ordered the State Legilature and voters to Approve of HOMOsexual
Marraiges before they could though the usual voting processes determine
what marriage laws Mass wanted to approve.
MASS. SUPREME COURT IS A VERY BIZARE AND ABERENT COURT WHICH SHOULD BE
QUICKLY OVERTURNED BY THE US SUPREME COURT AND VOTED OUT OF OFFICE BY
MASS. VOTERS.
Esa Perkio
: "Youn...@sbcglobal.net" <Youn...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
: news:Xns94F12B6277F5Yo...@151.164.30.93:
:> When a man and a woman come together in sexual relations, it is a
:> beautiful thing, that glorifies God. When two men have sex, it is
:> only demonic lust, and glorifies self, not God. This is why gay
:> sex is wrong.
The above argument has an interesting implicit message. If, as one
presumes the above poster thinks, gay sex is morally "worse" than
heterosexual adultery, it must therefore be physically far better. It
wouldn't inspire "demonic lust" otherwise, now would it? In fact, in order
to be a temptation from Satan, it must be downright glorious, in order to
compete with the far less persecuted practise of extra-marital
heterosexual sex.
This of course raises several interesting problems:
1) Is Satan better at creating physical pleasure?
2) The theory doesn't explain monogamous, committed gay relationships.
3) According to the theory and combined with most of the world being
"unsaved", most males should be homosexual, and if they aren't, it's
only because they haven't gotten around to trying it yet. This does
not seem to be the case.
Conclusion: The theory "homosexuality, as opposed to heterosexuality,
is caused by demonic lust" does not fit the facts and raises a
questionable theological concern.
Finland has had a form of gay marriage for a little over two years ago.
(I find it embarrassing we got onto the train so late.) The reign of the
antichrist hasn't begun.
--
Esa Perkiö
John Norris
> beautiful thing, that glorifies God.
What about fornication? What about Job and his daughters?
When two men have sex, it is
> only demonic lust, and glorifies self, not God. This is why gay
> sex is wrong.
Gay sex is demonic only when its done right.
JohnN
Dennis Kemmerer
news:oiYsc.512$kW4...@newssvr23.news.prodigy.com...
Wow! Our little titties are really in a twist! You morons are so cute when
you get hysterical like that. Here's a nice handful of get-over-it pills.
BTW, the MA Supreme Court, like most judiciaries, is appointed, not elected.
[plonk]
Dore
> What are you 'a loony' have you never heard of 'Common Law' Common law
sets
> out all the parameters and then amends them in tune with changing
> circumstances. If the world were left with just the Ten Commandmends' we
would
> have utter chaos!
There is more to living under the laws and commands of God, than just the
ten commandments. If man would honor and respect their Creator, as they are
supposed to, there wouldn't be any need for law.
cont
> Here's a genius:
>
> "I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or has
a
> will of the type of which we are conscious in ourselves. An individual who
> should survive his
> physical death is also beyond my comprehension; such notions are for the
fears
> or absurd egoism of feeble souls."
> [Albert Einstein]
>
> It would seem that men always need some idiotic fiction in the name of
which
> they can hate one another. Once it was religion. Now it is the State.
> [Albert Einstein]
>
> "The difference between stupidity and genius is
> that genius has its limits."
> [Albert Einstein]
Oh an Albert Einstein fan. Agreeing with you cannot conceive of a God who
rewards or punishes His children, thus you must think that you were never
given FREE WILL and choice by God, therefore pretend that you are not
responsible for your actions, and that you nothing more than a mindless
robot who has no free will and choice, so you cannot be blamed, found guilty
or choosing evil of any kind, DESERVING punishment? Fact and REALITY is,
sweetie pie, that good and evil exists and evil DESERVES punishment and good
deserves rewards, whether Einstein likes it or not. Evil deserves to be
hated, and evil acts deserves exactly what it gets.
All common law does it determine what MAN thinks is right and wrong and
obviously, with abortion and pornography being legal and smoking pot and not
wearing seatbelts, illegal, man is TOO STUPID to make his own laws,
therefore in need of a greater intellect to do it for him.
--
Dore
"bob young" <alasp...@netvigator.com> wrote in message
news:40B43494...@netvigator.com...
Dore
news:m3hdu31...@nospam.pacbell.net...
> The point being raised was not the alledged punishment, but a hypothetical
> diety that sets up viewing areas so you can see them suffer. That sounds
> pretty sadistic to me. Did the Americans who tortured Iraqis in Bush's
> Bastile act like Christians for videotaping it so others could watch?
> Is that what you are saying?
There is NO such place, where God watches the wicked suffer the consequences
of their choices in hell, they are all alone and God doesn't, nor any of the
hosts of heaven, sit and watch them.
cont
> You mean your deity would punish Nazis for the Holocaust after not
> lifting a finger to stop it? Not even a small ligtening bolt frying
> der Führer's ass?
God gave man FREE WILL and choice, and thus mankind suffers the consequences
of the leaders that they ALLOW to rule over them.
The American government is NOW walking verbatim in the steps of Hitler and
the Nazi's, except they want to control the world with the same concepts,
what are YOU doing to stop it?
-
Dore
"No One" <no...@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:m3hdu31...@nospam.pacbell.net...
No One
> "No One" <no...@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote in message
> news:m3hdu31...@nospam.pacbell.net...
>
> > The point being raised was not the alledged punishment, but a hypothetical
> > diety that sets up viewing areas so you can see them suffer. That sounds
> > pretty sadistic to me. Did the Americans who tortured Iraqis in Bush's
> > Bastile act like Christians for videotaping it so others could watch?
> > Is that what you are saying?
>
> There is NO such place, where God watches the wicked suffer the consequences
> of their choices in hell, they are all alone and God doesn't, nor any of the
> hosts of heaven, sit and watch them.
Gee, then you shouldn't have replied the way you did to the following
statement.
> > > > If watching people being tortured for all eternity is one of
> > > > the 'delights' of heaven, I want no part of it or any religion
> > > > that teaches it. [John Hachmann]
>
> > You mean your deity would punish Nazis for the Holocaust after not
> > lifting a finger to stop it? Not even a small ligtening bolt frying
> > der Führer's ass?
>
> God gave man FREE WILL and choice, and thus mankind suffers the consequences
> of the leaders that they ALLOW to rule over them.
Jews voted for Hitler and allowed him to rule over them???
Face, it if God wouldn't do anything to stop Hilter and Stalin from
murdering millions, why would consensual sex between adults be on the
heavenly radar screen? Your theology just doesn't make sense.
bob young
No One wrote:
> "Dore" <dorewil...@verizon.net> writes:
>
> > "No One" <no...@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote in message
> > news:m3hdu31...@nospam.pacbell.net...
> >
> > > The point being raised was not the alledged punishment, but a hypothetical
> > > diety that sets up viewing areas so you can see them suffer. That sounds
> > > pretty sadistic to me. Did the Americans who tortured Iraqis in Bush's
> > > Bastile act like Christians for videotaping it so others could watch?
> > > Is that what you are saying?
> >
> > There is NO such place, where God watches the wicked suffer the consequences
> > of their choices in hell, they are all alone and God doesn't, nor any of the
> > hosts of heaven, sit and watch them.
>
> Gee, then you shouldn't have replied the way you did to the following
> statement.
> > > > > If watching people being tortured for all eternity is one of
> > > > > the 'delights' of heaven, I want no part of it or any religion
> > > > > that teaches it. [John Hachmann]
>
> >
> > > You mean your deity would punish Nazis for the Holocaust after not
> > > lifting a finger to stop it? Not even a small ligtening bolt frying
> > > der FÃ*hrer's ass?
> >
> > God gave man FREE WILL and choice, and thus mankind suffers the consequences
> > of the leaders that they ALLOW to rule over them.
>
> Jews voted for Hitler and allowed him to rule over them???
>
> Face, it if God wouldn't do anything to stop Hilter and Stalin from
> murdering millions, why would consensual sex between adults be on the
> heavenly radar screen? Your theology just doesn't make sense....
Theology will never make sense as it is a myth trying to pose as intelligence.
It never works and never will no matter how hard the theists try. It is a
hopeless task
DogWag
> What right did States and US have to criminalize polyigimist marriages in
> Utah? If government has no right to interfere with what women and men do
> in their bedrooms then ALLOW WOMEN TO HAVE 4 HUSBANDS SLEEPIING IN THEIR
> BED and ALLOW MEN TO HAVE 4 WIFES IN THEIR BEDROOMS.
>
If legislatures and judiciaries decided that Mormon polygamy was
OK, Mormons would still hate the closeted gays within their ranks
and would still condemn same-sex marriage.
Light Templar
news:Xns94F69F6BA2...@216.168.3.44,
<esm...@aol.com> he or she gave us all a good laugh with the following...
Fortunately we don't live in a Theocracy, so what the Mormons condemn is not
particularly relevant.
--
"How do I know that? How can I say that? Let me give you a closer look.
Look at the image on the left. On the left is a close-up of one of the
four chemical bunkers. The two arrows indicate the presence of sure
signs that the bunkers are storing chemical munitions."
Remarks to the United Nations Security Council, United Nations
(2/5/2003).
Dore
> Jews voted for Hitler and allowed him to rule over them???
What did they do to STOP him? What do YOU do to stop your leaders?
cont
> Face, it if God wouldn't do anything to stop Hilter and Stalin from
> murdering millions, why would consensual sex between adults be on the
> heavenly radar screen? Your theology just doesn't make sense.
God doesn't stop anyone from having sex either, nor murder, sex, theft,
lies, deceit, violence, greed, covetousness, ill-mannerly, oppression,
perversions, profanity, pornography, or any matter of evil, MAN ALLOWS these
things and CHOOSES them of his own accord. God simply punishes those who
choose evil in the next life. All I am doing is warning you of the
consequences of sin and evil.
--
Dore
"No One" <no...@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:m3d64qp...@nospam.pacbell.net...
Dore
> Theology will never make sense as it is a myth trying to pose as
intelligence.
> It never works and never will no matter how hard the theists try. It is a
> hopeless task
You're right, theology doesn't make sense to the evil and wicked. It is to
far beyond them and over their heads. That is why God gave the prophets the
warning that all evil and wicked will be DESTROYED off the face of the earth
as in the days of Noah, and will give the earth as an inheritance to the
righteous. See ya!
--
Dore
"bob young" <alasp...@netvigator.com> wrote in message
news:40B5D123...@netvigator.com...
bob young
Dore wrote:
> "bob young" <alasp...@netvigator.com> wrote in message
> news:40B5D123...@netvigator.com...
>
> > Theology will never make sense as it is a myth trying to pose as
> intelligence.
> > It never works and never will no matter how hard the theists try. It is a
> > hopeless task
>
> You're right, theology doesn't make sense to the evil and wicked. It is to
> far beyond them and over their heads. That is why God gave the prophets the
> warning that all evil and wicked will be DESTROYED off the face of the earth
> as in the days of Noah, and will give the earth as an inheritance to the
> righteous. See ya!
...and that silly fairy story about 'the animals two by two! There is as much
truth in that silly fable as there is in your distorted logic on the goodness
of human beings. There are good and bad in every community, the proportion
always being roughly the same *regardless* of any imaginary gods that happen to
be around! Any trained psychiatrist will demonstrate it to you, if you care to
take the time.
Bob
A Brit.
Hoong Kong
Brent Norman
"Dore" <dorewil...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:q4wtc.25180$rb.2...@nwrdny03.gnilink.net...
> "bob young" <alasp...@netvigator.com> wrote in message
> news:40B5D123...@netvigator.com...
>
>
> > Theology will never make sense as it is a myth trying to pose as
> intelligence.
> > It never works and never will no matter how hard the theists try. It is
a
> > hopeless task
>
>
> You're right, theology doesn't make sense to the evil and wicked. It is to
> far beyond them and over their heads. That is why God gave the prophets
the
> warning that all evil and wicked will be DESTROYED off the face of the
earth
> as in the days of Noah,
Other available historical accounts from ancient sources (from other parts
of the world not
covered by the biblical accounts),
don't seem to have any mention of any great flood - which would mean that
the flood
was not worldwide as it says.
Michael Pollard
>
> Other available historical accounts from ancient sources (from other
> parts of the world not
> covered by the biblical accounts),
> don't seem to have any mention of any great flood - which would mean
> that the flood
> was not worldwide as it says.
>
>
>
Read carefully Genesis 6-9. God CLEARLY indicates a great global
flood. As proof of the global flood, God promised never to send another
flood like Noah's Flood (9:11, 15), and SINCE THAT TIME there have
been no other global floods.
Also, if Noah's Flood was only a local flood, then God lied to us.
Likewise, there was no need for Noah to build an ark for survival as he had
many years' warning, and simply could have moved.
Brent Norman
news:i9Ntc.1423$IJ....@newssvr24.news.prodigy.com...
Perhaps the flood was very large, but not global?
Biblical accounts put the flood around 2250 B.C.
The Egyptians, and other civilizations that had written records stretching
back to way before the flood,
seem to have no accounts or interruptions that would suggest a global flood.
And that's just the beginning.
Bill Baker
wrote in message news:<i9Ntc.1423$IJ....@newssvr24.news.prodigy.com>:
There is not, nor has there ever been, enough water to cover the entire
face of the Earth. The story of Noah's ark is an exaggeration at best.
--
Lurlean Lie #18:
He's a closet Hindu that's infiltrated the Lutheran Church with all his Satanic
doctrines in order to pull it down.
news:7908c278.04040...@posting.google.com
L. Neff
Michael Pollard wrote:
[snip]
> Also, if Noah's Flood was only a local flood, then God lied to us.
> Likewise, there was no need for Noah to build an ark for survival as he had
> many years' warning, and simply could have moved.
It is recorded in Genesis that God said to Adam and Eve that on the day
that they ate of the tree of life they would die. They ate, and they
did *not* die on that day.
That account thus shows quite indisputably that God lied (and,
coincidentally, committed the first or "original sin") long before the
Flood. Therefore, it is quite reasonable to expect that God, or the
Bible, is guilty of *other* lies.
--
Ezekiel 20:25 Moreover also I gave them statutes that were not good,
and ordinances in which they should not live. (World English Bible)
bob young
Poster Boy wrote:
> On Fri, 28 May 2004 00:53:42 GMT, "Dore" <dorewil...@verizon.net>
> wrote:
>
> >"bob young" <alasp...@netvigator.com> wrote in message
> >news:40B5D123...@netvigator.com...
> >
> >
> >> Theology will never make sense as it is a myth trying to pose as
> >intelligence.
> >> It never works and never will no matter how hard the theists try. It is a
> >> hopeless task
> >
> >
> >You're right, theology doesn't make sense to the evil and wicked. It is to
> >far beyond them and over their heads. That is why God gave the prophets the
> >warning that all evil and wicked will be DESTROYED off the face of the earth
> >as in the days of Noah, and will give the earth as an inheritance to the
> >righteous. See ya!
>
> Theology makes sense to those suffering from schizophrenia (those
> being able to hold onto two or more contradictory assertions
> simultaneously, as you have exhibited.)
>
> The purpose of theology is to invest power in an oligarchy of
> theocrats and so-called prophets (or should I say profits?) so that
> they may control their "flocks" (an appropriate term for a bunch of
> sheep.) They do this by threatening them with future unverifiable
> rewards for compliance and punishments for noncompliance.
>
> The only way this can work is through continual brainwashing (through,
> for example, the mindless regurgitation of chants and slogans,) and
> the discouragement/disparagement of education. Indeed, education is
> the worst enemy of those whose wealth and power rely on mindless faith
> in unproved and improvable claims. Ignorance is the life blood of the
> theology business.
Three paragraphs of 'to the point clarity, common sense and conciseness'
Thanks.
Hope you do not mind if I use it myself sometime, with the author, 'Poster Boy'
shown of course.
Bob
A Brit.
hong kong
It has taken many eons for evolution to bring mankind to this point. I am not
angry at believers, I once thought the same as they do now. It is only through
education that science is able to shine its light on the mind of man and the fog
slowly lifts as it does when the sun burns it up in the morning.
[anon]
bob young
Brent Norman wrote:
only a simple fool will accept that fairy tale of a boat with every living
thing placed on board.
Five minutes cogent thought shows how idiotic it is, desgined for the simple
folk of the time. now it is 2004!
bob young
Michael Pollard wrote:
Or theory number three -
god does not exist but portrayors of fairy tales do
Bill Yates
>only a simple fool will accept that fairy tale of a boat with every living
>thing placed on board.
>
>Five minutes cogent thought shows how idiotic it is, desgined for the simple
>folk of the time. now it is 2004!
>
You do remember that in the 1960s, one of our spy
satellites photographed Noah's Ark below the permanent
ice cap of Mt. Arrarat. This was verified by mountain climbers featured in the
documentary "In Search of Noah's Ark"
One of the exporers brought back a sliver
of wood he'd cut from the "big boat" and if I'm
not misinformed it was turned over for carbon-
dating. It was exactly as the Bible record shows.
Interestingly, a scale-model pool (with wave machine) and
a built -to-scale "ark" was put to the test. Guess what?
It not only floated, it performed supurbly under the rigorous
conditions the biblical ark would've faced.
What is true today is disproved tomorrow.
Those who hold to their faith need no explanation.
Those who doubt will never be convinced. But this is a fact--
every year more discoveries are made which CONFIRM
previously poo-pooed facts from the Bible.
Why is the world so rebellious? God gave us every answer to how He created the
world
and how we are to behave. Yet man believes
it could not possibly be true...that man
can find better explanations than from God,
our Creator, Himself.
-----------
Bill Yates Rare Coins
Check my ebay listings
http://cgi6.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewListedItems&userid=*by
Bill Baker
in message news:<20040529005516...@mb-m25.aol.com>:
>>From: bob young
>
>>only a simple fool will accept that fairy tale of a boat with every living
>>thing placed on board.
>>
>>Five minutes cogent thought shows how idiotic it is, desgined for the simple
>>folk of the time. now it is 2004!
>>
>
> You do remember that in the 1960s, one of our spy
> satellites photographed Noah's Ark below the permanent
> ice cap of Mt. Arrarat.
You might want to get your "facts" straight here. The supposed photo of
Noah's ark was taken in 1973, but was much too big to have been Noah's
ark. An object of the expected size of the ark would have only taken one
pixel of the image.
> This was verified by mountain climbers featured in the
> documentary "In Search of Noah's Ark"
If you're talking about Ed Behling, this was probably a hoax. He has
refused to talk about his claims since the mid-1980s after Ark researchers
questioned him about many inconsistencies in his story.
> One of the exporers brought back a sliver
> of wood he'd cut from the "big boat" and if I'm
> not misinformed it was turned over for carbon-
> dating. It was exactly as the Bible record shows.
You are misinformed. No sliver of wood could have survived that long in
the open elements.
--
Funny Sister Lurlean quote #173:
"But I don't hate nobody you faggot!" --Lurlean causes everyone's irony meter
to simultaneously explode.
Pastor Dave
<wba...@postini.spamcon.org> posted thusly:
>> One of the exporers brought back a sliver
>> of wood he'd cut from the "big boat" and if I'm
>> not misinformed it was turned over for carbon-
>> dating. It was exactly as the Bible record shows.
>
>You are misinformed. No sliver of wood could have survived that long in
>the open elements.
Not true. It wouldn't be, "open elements". Why would
you say such a thing?
--
ą Pastor Dave Raymond ą
"As for me, I have not hastened from being a pastor
to follow thee: neither have I desired the woeful day;
thou knowest: that which came out of my lips was right
before thee." - Jeremiah 17:16
"And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of
the Spirit, which is the word of God:" - Ephesians 6:17
/}
@#######{]::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::>
\}
"If you don't want to reap the fruits of sin,
stay out of the devil's orchard."
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
Pangur Ban
> On Sat, 29 May 2004 12:12:01 GMT, Bill Baker
> <wba...@postini.spamcon.org> posted thusly:
>
>
>
>>>One of the exporers brought back a sliver
>>>of wood he'd cut from the "big boat" and if I'm
>>>not misinformed it was turned over for carbon-
>>>dating. It was exactly as the Bible record shows.
>>
>>You are misinformed. No sliver of wood could have survived that long in
>>the open elements.
>
>
> Not true. It wouldn't be, "open elements". Why would
> you say such a thing?
>
>
periods of thawing and freezing. This would cause
disintegration of the wood - much more rapidly
than it causes the crumbling of the mountains
themselves.
Pastor Dave
<wba...@postini.spamcon.org> posted thusly:
>> One of the exporers brought back a sliver
>> of wood he'd cut from the "big boat" and if I'm
>> not misinformed it was turned over for carbon-
>> dating. It was exactly as the Bible record shows.
>
>You are misinformed. No sliver of wood could have survived that long in
>the open elements.
Not true. It wouldn't be, "open elements". Why would
you say such a thing?
"...we have a prior commitment, a commitment to lies and deceit to prove
that evolution is not a science but a religion and that creationism is
science but not driven by religous zeal."
Creationist's Creed
--
ą Pastor Dave ą
"As for me, I have not hastened from being a pastor to follow thee: neither
have I desired the woeful day; thou knowest: that which came out of my lips
was right before thee." - Jeremiah 17:16
"And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is
the word of God:" - Ephesians 6:17
/}
@#####{]::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::>
\}
Pastor Dave
<wba...@postini.spamcon.org> posted thusly:
>> One of the exporers brought back a sliver
>> of wood he'd cut from the "big boat" and if I'm
>> not misinformed it was turned over for carbon-
>> dating. It was exactly as the Bible record shows.
>
>You are misinformed. No sliver of wood could have survived that long in
>the open elements.
Not true. It wouldn't be, "91 elements". Why would
Bill Baker
<nospam*-*pastor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:<8h5hb0dc0lme828kb...@4ax.com>:
> On Sat, 29 May 2004 12:12:01 GMT, Bill Baker
> <wba...@postini.spamcon.org> posted thusly:
>
>
>>> One of the exporers brought back a sliver
>>> of wood he'd cut from the "big boat" and if I'm
>>> not misinformed it was turned over for carbon-
>>> dating. It was exactly as the Bible record shows.
>>
>>You are misinformed. No sliver of wood could have survived that long in
>>the open elements.
>
> Not true.
Very true.
> It wouldn't be, "open elements". Why would you say such a thing?
"Open elements" means outside and unprotected. So it most certainly would
be.
--
Lurlean lie #1:
He goes to one [orgy] every day I hear
news:7908c278.03101...@posting.google.com
Pornstar
fears and accept it.I don't belive in GOd,but from what I understand of the
christian God it loves all and forgives all and wouldn't demonize
homosexuals.news:uwOsc.18833$4%3.7...@nwrdny01.gnilink.net...> news:40B2E3EE...@netvigator.com...
> >
> > "I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or
has
> a
> > will of the type of which we are conscious in ourselves. An individual
who
> > should survive his
> > physical death is also beyond my comprehension; such notions are for the
> fears
> > or absurd egoism of feeble souls."
> > [Albert Einstein]
> >
> > If watching people being tortured for all eternity is one of the
> 'delights' of
> > heaven, I want no part of it or any religion that teaches it.
> > [John Hachmann]
>
perfect
> justification of their choice of evil and sins in PERFECT JUSTICE.
>
> punishment whatsoever. I guess all of those child rapers and murderers,
> don't deserve any punishment? Those behind 911 are innocent and don't
> deserve any justice for their actions? A man who rapes and murders your 3
yr
> old daughter, I suppose you would invite to live under your roof and
provide
> all of his needs freely, and have no complaints?
> Unless you agree to the previous statements and questions, then who are
you
> to JUDGE GOD on HIS justice for what is EVIL against HIM?
> Dore
>
> www.dorewilliamson.com> news:40B2E3EE...@netvigator.com...
> >
> >
> > Dore wrote:
> >
> > > "GOOD RIDDANCE on Nov. 2nd to Dishonest Warmonger-in-Thief G.W. Bush!"
> > > <xana...@mchsi.com> wrote in message
> > > news:40c2d138...@netnews.mchsi.com...
> > >
> > > > ROTFL!!!!!!!!!! Just because you probably resemble the Wicked
> > > > Witch of the West (and thus aren't "getting" any, and you thereby
> > > > engage constanly in speweing sour grapes) doesn't mean you have
> > > > to ACT like her. Get a life, Dore! Meanwhile, you're still one of
> > > > Usenet's biggest laughingstocks.
> > > >
> > >
> > > No I am NOT "getting any" thankfully, since that kind of defilement is
> > > disgusting, and neither do I WANT to "get any". And since I assume you
> are
> > > "getting some", I hope you enjoy it, because you will be spending your
> time
> > > in hell, DOING NOTHING ELSE, and you will be so sick of it, you wish
you
> > > never have.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Dore
> >
> > "I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or
has
> a
> > will of the type of which we are conscious in ourselves. An individual
who
> > should survive his
> > physical death is also beyond my comprehension; such notions are for the
> fears
> > or absurd egoism of feeble souls."
> > [Albert Einstein]
> >
> > If watching people being tortured for all eternity is one of the
> 'delights' of
> > heaven, I want no part of it or any religion that teaches it.
> > [John Hachmann]
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > "GOOD RIDDANCE on Nov. 2nd to Dishonest Warmonger-in-Thief G.W. Bush!"
> > > <xana...@mchsi.com> wrote in message
> > > news:40c2d138...@netnews.mchsi.com...
> > > > On Sun, 23 May 2004 01:36:45 GMT,
> > > > "Dore" <dorewil...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > > > > Craig Chilton <xana...@mchsi.com> ("GOOD RIDDANCE on
> > > > > Nov. 2nd to Dishonest Warmonger-in-Thief G.W. Bush!") wrote:
> > > > >> "YoungRep" <Youn...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >>> When a man and a woman come together in sexual relations, it
> > > > >>> is a beautiful thing, that glorifies God. When two men have
sex,
> it
> > > > >>> is only demonic lust, and glorifies self, not God. This is why
> gay
> > > > >>> sex is wrong.
> > > >
> > > > >> "Demonic." ROTFLMAO!!!!!!
> > > > >>
> > > > >> What mindless BULLCRAP!
> > > > >>
> > > > >> BTW -- **millions** of men and women "come together in
sexual
> > > > >> relations" every day who are NOT married... simply enjoying
CASUAL
> > > > >> sex. But no sweat, because that "is a beautiful thing, that
> glorifies
> > > > >> God," right?
> > > > >>
> > > > >> If NOT, then you're BOTH an idiot AND a *hypocrite*, whining
as
> > > > >> you are about gays having sex.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> (The "IDIOCY" comes from your having insufficient intelligence
> > > > >> to *recognize* that people's *personal* and *private* sex lives
are
> > > > >> absolutely NONE of your business.)
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Were you BORN retarded, or did you have to go to a special
> > > > >> school for that? Such as one of the private ones that the RRR
> > > > >> cult runs?
> > > >
> > > > > People having sex does NOT GLORIFY GOD! Sex is an earthly
> > > > > thing that GOD takes NO pleasure in. It always involves LUST and
> > > > > LUST is ALWAYS SIN, no matter who is engaging in the act.
> > > >
> > > > ROTFL!!!!!!!!!! Just because you probably resemble the Wicked
> > > > Witch of the West (and thus aren't "getting" any, and you thereby
> > > > engage constanly in speweing sour grapes) doesn't mean you have
> > > > to ACT like her. Get a life, Dore! Meanwhile, you're still one of
> > > > Usenet's biggest laughingstocks.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > -- Craig Chilton <xana...@mchsi.com>
> > > >
> > > > (REAL name and e-mail address, lest any bigot wrongly
> > > > think I'm hiding behind an a alias. The "alias," above,
> > > > is designed to be a visible MESSAGE, each time I post.)
> > > >
> > > >
> ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
> > > >
> > > > INSIGHT on our Warmonger-in-Thief ---
> > > >
> > > >
> http://homepage.mac.com/webmasterkai/kaicurry/gwbush/dishonestdubya.html
> > > >
> > > > AND...
> > > >
> > > > http://www.blackboxvoting.com/
> > > >
> > > >
> ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
> > > >
> > > > ALSO worth a look:
> > > >
> > > > Here's what happens to people like you & me:
> > > >
> > > > http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/05/21/antiwar.soldier.ap/index.html
> > > >
> > > > However, the same rules don't apply to the "Elite:"
> > > >
> > > > www.awolbush.com
> > > >
> > > >
> ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
> >
>
>
Rob Mitchell
"Dore" <dorewil...@verizon.net> wrote:
> "No One" <no...@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote in message
> news:m3d64qp...@nospam.pacbell.net...
>
>
> > Jews voted for Hitler and allowed him to rule over them???
>
> What did they do to STOP him?
Oh dear...
That question betrays a profound ignorance of how the Third Reich came
to be, & how its government was able to get away with the things it did.
There was of course (as anyone even mildly familiar with this bit of
history knows) some underground resistance, by various factions, but
there really wasn't all that much the Jews *could* do. I recommend you
start with "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich" by William Shirer.
> What do YOU do to stop your leaders?
Vote 'em out of office when they act like idiots. Of course, the
majority of us have to do that for it to work.
> > Face, it if God wouldn't do anything to stop Hilter and Stalin from
> > murdering millions, why would consensual sex between adults be on the
> > heavenly radar screen? Your theology just doesn't make sense.
>
> God doesn't stop anyone from having sex either,
Which in itself isn't a "sin" under certain circumstances.
> nor murder,
Murder is distinctly & obviously harmful, to put it mildly. You're
comparing apples & oranges, as murder is nothing at all like consensual
sex between adults. Only if such sex is promiscuous can it be harmful.
If it is monogamous, however, it doesn't cause harm to even a single
human on earth.
> sex,
You repeated "sex." Fascinating. ;-)
> theft,
Theft is clearly harmful. Apples & oranges.
> lies, deceit, violence, greed, covetousness,
All of which are clearly harmful. You're not even approaching an
appropriate comparison with consensual sex between 2 adults,
particularly if it is monogamous.
> ill-mannerly,
"Ill-mannerly"? Somehow doesn't seem to go well with these others.
Perhaps you can explain further.
> oppression,
Clearly harmful. Still apples & oranges.
> perversions,
Depends on what you mean by "perversions." I'd certainly call child
molestation a "perversion," but that also is clearly harmful, & still
not an appropriate comparison to monogamous consensual adult sex.
> profanity,
Depending on the context, can be harmful. Still not an appropriate
comparison.
> pornography,
Depends on the nature of the pornography, I suppose.
> or any matter of evil,
Evil, yes. Things that are truly evil. Things that truly harm people.
Still waiting for the explanation of how monogamous adult relationships
fall in that category, or in fact come anywhere close, regardless of
gender.
> MAN ALLOWS these
> things and CHOOSES them of his own accord. God simply punishes those who
> choose evil in the next life.
He may, if what they are doing is truly evil. A number of things you
listed are truly evil.
But what you are inappropriately comparing them to is not.
> All I am doing is warning you of the
> consequences of sin and evil.
Oh, that isn't "all" you're doing. You're also comparing things that
are not at all analogous.
Rob Mitchell
"L. Neff" <ln...@udel.nospam.edu> wrote:
> [newsgroups trimmed]
>
> Michael Pollard wrote:
> [snip]
> > Also, if Noah's Flood was only a local flood, then God lied to us.
> > Likewise, there was no need for Noah to build an ark for survival as he had
> > many years' warning, and simply could have moved.
>
> It is recorded in Genesis that God said to Adam and Eve that on the day
> that they ate of the tree of life they would die. They ate, and they
> did *not* die on that day.
Erm, I think what was meant is that they would *eventually* die, & had
they not eaten the fruit, they might have been immortal.
> That account thus shows quite indisputably that God lied
I'm thinking probably it doesn't show that.
Rob Mitchell
"Dore" <dorewil...@verizon.net> wrote:
> "bob young" <alasp...@netvigator.com> wrote in message
> news:40B43494...@netvigator.com...
>
> > What are you 'a loony' have you never heard of 'Common Law' Common law
> sets
> > out all the parameters and then amends them in tune with changing
> > circumstances. If the world were left with just the Ten Commandmends' we
> would
> > have utter chaos!
>
> There is more to living under the laws and commands of God, than just the
> ten commandments. If man would honor and respect their Creator, as they are
> supposed to, there wouldn't be any need for law.
Hrmm, I'd rather disagree with that, given that there are many thousands
of issues which are not addressed at all by Scripture. Rather obviously
Christ did not intend us to live in a moral vacuum, totally unable to
determine right from wrong unless it is on an issue addressed in
Scripture.
> > Here's a genius:
> >
> > "I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or has
> a
> > will of the type of which we are conscious in ourselves. An individual who
> > should survive his
> > physical death is also beyond my comprehension; such notions are for the
> fears
> > or absurd egoism of feeble souls."
> > [Albert Einstein]
> >
> > It would seem that men always need some idiotic fiction in the name of
> which
> > they can hate one another. Once it was religion. Now it is the State.
> > [Albert Einstein]
> >
> > "The difference between stupidity and genius is
> > that genius has its limits."
> > [Albert Einstein]
>
> Oh an Albert Einstein fan. Agreeing with you cannot conceive of a God who
> rewards or punishes His children, thus you must think that you were never
> given FREE WILL and choice by God, therefore pretend that you are not
> responsible for your actions, and that you nothing more than a mindless
> robot who has no free will and choice, so you cannot be blamed, found guilty
> or choosing evil of any kind, DESERVING punishment?
Hmmm, that seems to me, rather, to be true of those who claim that
Scripture gives us all the guidance we need. We can see you above
plainly agreeing that we *are* given free will & choice by God. The
poster to whom you are responding here did not express any viewpoint
that we should live in a moral vacuum, as you seem to be suggesting he
did.
> Fact and REALITY is,
> sweetie pie, that good and evil exists
Indeed they do.
> and evil DESERVES punishment and good
> deserves rewards,
One could say that. I would substitute the word "justice" for
"punishment" in that phrase.
> whether Einstein likes it or not. Evil deserves to be
> hated, and evil acts deserves exactly what it gets.
True evil deserves to be despised, yes. True evil is, of course, that
which causes harm.
> All common law does it determine what MAN thinks is right and wrong and
> obviously, with abortion and pornography being legal and smoking pot and not
> wearing seatbelts, illegal, man is TOO STUPID to make his own laws,
Humans are imperfect, yes, & not all laws made by humans are good. Not
all of them are bad either.
> therefore in need of a greater intellect to do it for him.
To some extent, perhaps, although we aren't doing quite as badly as you
make out. Most things that are distinctly harmful have continuously
been illegal, in this country at least, practically since the country
was founded.
L. Neff
> In article <c98ij6$gr7$1...@scrotar.nss.udel.edu>,
> "L. Neff" <ln...@udel.nospam.edu> wrote:
>>It is recorded in Genesis that God said to Adam and Eve that on the day
>>that they ate of the tree of life they would die. They ate, and they
>>did *not* die on that day.
> Erm, I think what was meant is that they would *eventually* die, & had
> they not eaten the fruit, they might have been immortal.
Genesis 2:17 "but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, you
shall not eat of it: for in the day that you eat of it you will surely
die.” (World English Bible)
Nope, nothing about "eventually" there. "In the day that you eat" does
not mean "eventually after you eat," that is, unless "eventually" is
supposed to be taken to allow time to succumb to the poison, which would
still have to be within that day according to the verse. If a vague
"eventually" -- as in "after many years" -- is what God or, rather, the
writers of Genesis meant, they should have written it that way.
>>That account thus shows quite indisputably that God lied
> I'm thinking probably it doesn't show that.
So, lying about a time certain that something is supposed to happen is
not lying? Remind me not to let you make an appointment with me.
lkn
Dore
news:sorbus_rowan-6EF2...@individual.net...
> Hrmm, I'd rather disagree with that, given that there are many thousands
> of issues which are not addressed at all by Scripture. Rather obviously
> Christ did not intend us to live in a moral vacuum, totally unable to
> determine right from wrong unless it is on an issue addressed in
> Scripture.
>
Man who OBEY, lover, honor, respect and serve God are RIGHTEOUS, and they
become that way by OBEYING what is commanded, demanded and required in the
Word, thus their minds become one with God and they will ALWAYS make the
moral and righteous decisions on any subject, for the Holy Spirit dwells
within them.
cont
> Hmmm, that seems to me, rather, to be true of those who claim that
> Scripture gives us all the guidance we need. We can see you above
> plainly agreeing that we *are* given free will & choice by God. The
> poster to whom you are responding here did not express any viewpoint
> that we should live in a moral vacuum, as you seem to be suggesting he
> did.
Scripture does give you ALL you need. When you seek, obey, consider and walk
in the ways that scripture does outline, God gives you the Holy Spirit of
truth, that leads you into ALL truths, as well as wisdom, knowledge, truths,
righteousness, as well as the guidance of ministering angels, and the POWER
of GOD.
The poster said
"I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or has
> > a
> > > will of the type of which we are conscious in ourselves. An individual
who
> > > should survive his
> > > physical death is also beyond my comprehension; such notions are for
the
> > fears
> > > or absurd egoism of feeble souls."
Thus cannot conceive of GOD rewarding or punishing, but man is free to do
it? IS that the moral vacuum, you were suggesting?
cont
> Humans are imperfect, yes, & not all laws made by humans are good. Not
> all of them are bad either.
Any law that man makes is good, can only be because it reflects God law.
cont
> To some extent, perhaps, although we aren't doing quite as badly as you
> make out. Most things that are distinctly harmful have continuously
> been illegal, in this country at least, practically since the country
> was founded.
Most laws that man has made is either oppressive, unjust, unconstitutional,
controlling, catering to GREED, Capitalism, selfishness, MONEY, the
government and the rich, lacking FREEDOM in every sense of the word for the
rest of mankind.
--
Dore
"Rob Mitchell" <sorbus...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:sorbus_rowan-6EF2...@individual.net...
Dore
> ...and that silly fairy story about 'the animals two by two! There is as
much
> truth in that silly fable as there is in your distorted logic on the
goodness
> of human beings. There are good and bad in every community, the
proportion
> always being roughly the same *regardless* of any imaginary gods that
happen to
> be around! Any trained psychiatrist will demonstrate it to you, if you
care to
> take the time.
How would YOU know whether Noah gathered animals two by two, where you
there? Just because in your small and limited mind, thinking all things have
to be as they are today, you believe anything outside of what you think or
see cannot be reality. From God's point of view, even those people who THINK
they are good, you being one, I presume, are NOT, for in your choices,
actions and beliefs, affect everyone around you, whether you realize it or
not. Ever hear of the maddening crowd concept. What men believe, drives all
things. All men believe that you must have MONEY to live in this world, but
that is only because all men have put their faith in money and the system.
Men COULD, if they had morality, integrity and were GOOD, as you noted, live
WITHOUT money and simply work freely, giving and receiving freely as all men
have need, if they ALL believed in that system. You ungodly people cannot
conceive of anything outside of the life and system already in place by the
other evil ungodly and that is why you will never know of true FREEDOM.
-
Dore
"bob young" <alasp...@netvigator.com> wrote in message
news:40B71615...@netvigator.com...
Dore
news:tgkeb0t1ka8sj7lun...@4ax.com...
> Theology makes sense to those suffering from schizophrenia (those
> being able to hold onto two or more contradictory assertions
> simultaneously, as you have exhibited.)
>
> The purpose of theology is to invest power in an oligarchy of
> theocrats and so-called prophets (or should I say profits?) so that
> they may control their "flocks" (an appropriate term for a bunch of
> sheep.) They do this by threatening them with future unverifiable
> rewards for compliance and punishments for noncompliance.
>
> The only way this can work is through continual brainwashing (through,
> for example, the mindless regurgitation of chants and slogans,) and
> the discouragement/disparagement of education. Indeed, education is
> the worst enemy of those whose wealth and power rely on mindless faith
> in unproved and improvable claims. Ignorance is the life blood of the
> theology business.
And you who have been continually brainwashed through the capitalistic
system, for the PROFITS, power, control and luxuries of the wealthy and the
rich, controlling you to be slaves to their system, for the honor, glory and
power of mere men, who rule YOU, instead of GOD. Through their laws, YOU are
enslaved, manipulated and controlled, as you are sheep of the ungodly,
selfish, rich, liars, deceivers and controllers of the earth, but funny, you
don't complain about them, when all they do is for EVIL, selfish, personal
gain, punishing those who do not cower and submit and rewarding those who
kiss their feet and bow to their demands. But when GOD, who CREATED ALL does
it for righteousness, truth, true freedom and JUSTICE, you have a problem
with that. You seem to disregard the chants and slogans of "Freedom,
Liberty, Patriotism" etc bombarded to you every day by the media, who are
puppets of the government, while they murder, bomb, torture, imprison,
steal, enslave, invade other countries and gain great wealth for themselves
in their evil deeds. Obviously, IGNORANCE is the life blood of the UNGODLY,
who's business is MONEY and ONLY money, for which you have NO complaint.
--
Dore
"Poster Boy" <Post...@localhost.com> wrote in message
news:tgkeb0t1ka8sj7lun...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 28 May 2004 00:53:42 GMT, "Dore" <dorewil...@verizon.net>
> wrote:
>
> >"bob young" <alasp...@netvigator.com> wrote in message
> >news:40B5D123...@netvigator.com...
> >
> >
> >> Theology will never make sense as it is a myth trying to pose as
> >intelligence.
> >> It never works and never will no matter how hard the theists try. It
is a
> >> hopeless task
> >
> >
> >You're right, theology doesn't make sense to the evil and wicked. It is
to
> >far beyond them and over their heads. That is why God gave the prophets
the
> >warning that all evil and wicked will be DESTROYED off the face of the
earth
> >as in the days of Noah, and will give the earth as an inheritance to the
> >righteous. See ya!
>
Dore
news:z1Jtc.205912$0qd....@twister01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
> Other available historical accounts from ancient sources (from other parts
> of the world not
> covered by the biblical accounts),
> don't seem to have any mention of any great flood - which would mean that
> the flood
> was not worldwide as it says.
>
That is NOT true, there are countless religions and ancient texts stating a
great flood. In fact, the evil ones attempt to use these ancient accounts as
the basis to accuse the Biblical writers of stealing the story from them.
--
Dore
"Brent Norman" <nellig...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:z1Jtc.205912$0qd....@twister01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
Dore
> That question betrays a profound ignorance of how the Third Reich came
> to be, & how its government was able to get away with the things it did.
> There was of course (as anyone even mildly familiar with this bit of
> history knows) some underground resistance, by various factions, but
> there really wasn't all that much the Jews *could* do. I recommend you
> start with "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich" by William Shirer.
And so, the US government is DOING the exact same things, as the Nazi's and
Hitler did, and what, you don't see it?
cont
> Vote 'em out of office when they act like idiots. Of course, the
> majority of us have to do that for it to work.
How can you vote them out of office, when the only ones capable of running
for office are the rich, powerful who are their friends and cohorts? Look at
Ralph Nader right now. They are doing everything to stop him, and saying any
vote for Nader is a vote for Bush, and thus with their propaganda, politics,
brainwashing and manipulation, the people believe their lies and blindly
follow along. They are very intelligent people. They know exactly how to
brainwash and sway the mindset of the public, because they have worked very
hard on just that purpose. Did you ever see the movie, Primary Colors? It is
ALL about brainwashing, lies, deceit, propaganda and manipulation, which
they use with patriotism, romance, and theater. So how do you convince so
many mind controlled people that they are wrong and not to listen to their
lies, deceit and NAZI propaganda?
cont
> > God doesn't stop anyone from having sex either,
>
> Which in itself isn't a "sin" under certain circumstances.
>
Who are you to determine what is sin and what isn't under ANY circumstances?
cont
> Murder is distinctly & obviously harmful, to put it mildly. You're
> comparing apples & oranges, as murder is nothing at all like consensual
> sex between adults. Only if such sex is promiscuous can it be harmful.
> If it is monogamous, however, it doesn't cause harm to even a single
> human on earth.
From God's point of view, all evil acts are derived from evil sources and
all evil is the same in his eyes. Having sex empowers LUST demons, which
causes them to tempt and possess others, and that is why promiscuity and sex
is so prevalent on the earth. Go have sex and see if your dog doesn't try to
hump your leg afterwards? Your empowerment of lust demons affect all around
you, whether you are aware or not.
Your thinking because you LIKE lust and sex, make excuses that it is NOT
evil, but it is, whether consensual or not. Like I said, all actions,
thoughts, beliefs etc on the earth affect others around them and to GOD,
what is evil is evil, and does NOT have degrees of depravation, and YOUR
concepts of what you think is mild or severe are NOT what truly is. A person
engaging in sex, may become obsessed, leading to addiction, therefore
harmful. And in the spirit realm, it is empowering LUST demons who are just
as EVIL as murderous demons, in God's eyes.
--
Dore
"Rob Mitchell" <sorbus...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:sorbus_rowan-22D3...@individual.net...
Viii@bill.com 'enry VIII
> Rob Mitchell" <sorbus...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:sorbus_rowan-6EF2...@individual.net...
>
>> Hrmm, I'd rather disagree with that, given that there are many thousands
> Most laws that man has made is either oppressive, unjust,
> unconstitutional,
> controlling, catering to GREED, Capitalism, selfishness, MONEY, the
> government and the rich, lacking FREEDOM in every sense of the word for
> the
> rest of mankind.
Render unto Caesar...
Viii@bill.com 'enry VIII
> "Brent Norman" <nellig...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:z1Jtc.205912$0qd....@twister01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
>
>
>> Other available historical accounts from ancient sources (from other
>> parts
>> of the world not
>> covered by the biblical accounts),
>> don't seem to have any mention of any great flood - which would mean that
>> the flood
>> was not worldwide as it says.
>>
>
>
> That is NOT true, there are countless religions and ancient texts stating
> a
> great flood. In fact, the evil ones attempt to use these ancient accounts
> as
> the basis to accuse the Biblical writers of stealing the story from them.
> --
> Dore
Oh, could you tell us where to find these "countless religions and ancient
texts"?
'enry VIII
Rob Mitchell
"Dore" <dorewil...@verizon.net> wrote:
> Rob Mitchell" <sorbus...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:sorbus_rowan-6EF2...@individual.net...
>
> > Hmmm, that seems to me, rather, to be true of those who claim that
> > Scripture gives us all the guidance we need. We can see you above
> > plainly agreeing that we *are* given free will & choice by God. The
> > poster to whom you are responding here did not express any viewpoint
> > that we should live in a moral vacuum, as you seem to be suggesting he
> > did.
>
> Scripture does give you ALL you need. When you seek, obey, consider and walk
> in the ways that scripture does outline, God gives you the Holy Spirit of
> truth, that leads you into ALL truths, as well as wisdom, knowledge, truths,
> righteousness, as well as the guidance of ministering angels, and the POWER
> of GOD.
Well, with that I would agree, for the most part anyway, & additionally
say that one of those very truths which Scripture leads us to is that a
permanently monogamous lifelong relationship between 2 adults of the
same gender does not harm a single human on earth in the slightest way,
& thus cannot reasonably be considered to be at all "demonic."
> The poster said
> "I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or has
> > > a
> > > > will of the type of which we are conscious in ourselves. An individual
> who
> > > > should survive his
> > > > physical death is also beyond my comprehension; such notions are for
> the
> > > fears
> > > > or absurd egoism of feeble souls."
>
> Thus cannot conceive of GOD rewarding or punishing, but man is free to do
> it? IS that the moral vacuum, you were suggesting?
Nope. I already clearly explained the moral vacuum I was suggesting:
those people who are totally unable to distinguish right & wrong for
themselves, & instead rely on others to do it for them.
> cont
>
> > Humans are imperfect, yes, & not all laws made by humans are good. Not
> > all of them are bad either.
>
> Any law that man makes is good, can only be because it reflects God law.
Such as laws against murder, physical violence, theft, & so on. They
would still be equally "good" laws even if they were never mentioned in
Scripture, because they are laws against committing *harm*. Surely you
are perfectly capable of determining all by yourself whether or not
these activities are harmful without having to check Scripture first to
see if they are or not, correct?
> cont
> > To some extent, perhaps, although we aren't doing quite as badly as you
> > make out. Most things that are distinctly harmful have continuously
> > been illegal, in this country at least, practically since the country
> > was founded.
>
> Most laws that man has made is either oppressive, unjust, unconstitutional,
> controlling, catering to GREED, Capitalism, selfishness, MONEY, the
> government and the rich, lacking FREEDOM in every sense of the word for the
> rest of mankind.
Oh? Do the laws against murder, physical violence, rape, child
molestation, theft, etc., fall in that category? Those are some of the
very laws about which I said that such activities have pretty much
"continuously been illegal" in this country. These seem to all be laws
which go directly *against* the things you say. Laws against theft go
directly *against* greed & selfishness. Obviously. Laws against murder
go *against* oppression & selfishness; they certainly don't go against
freedom, since they are instead promoting the freedom of everyone to
live their lives & not have their lives ended against their will by a
murderer. Laws against child molestation rather obviously go directly
against oppression & selfishness, & such laws certainly aren't unjust or
unconstitutional. Laws against physical violence are obviously not
oppressive, unjust, or unconstitutional, nor do they cater to greed, or
capitalism, or selfishness, or money. And do explain to me how laws
against rape count as any of those things.
Let's go back to what I said: "Most things that are distinctly harmful
have continuously been illegal, in this country at least, practically
since the country was founded." I didn't say a thing about "most laws,"
I said "most things that are distinctly harmful" are also illegal.
Surely you are not claiming for a moment that the majority of harmful
activities humans commit aren't illegal? I've just named some of the
primary ones which have *always* been illegal. Oh yes, some of our laws
have loopholes in them which allow certain people to get away with
certain *other* harmful actions, but I'm guessing that the number of
harmful activities expressly allowed to anyone by law are smaller than
the number of harmful activities which aren't allowed to anyone by law.
Rob Mitchell
"L. Neff" <ln...@udel.nospam.edu> wrote:
> Rob Mitchell wrote:
>
> > In article <c98ij6$gr7$1...@scrotar.nss.udel.edu>,
> > "L. Neff" <ln...@udel.nospam.edu> wrote:
> >>It is recorded in Genesis that God said to Adam and Eve that on the day
> >>that they ate of the tree of life they would die. They ate, and they
> >>did *not* die on that day.
> > Erm, I think what was meant is that they would *eventually* die, & had
> > they not eaten the fruit, they might have been immortal.
>
> Genesis 2:17 "but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, you
> shall not eat of it: for in the day that you eat of it you will surely
> die.² (World English Bible)
>
> Nope, nothing about "eventually" there. "In the day that you eat" does
> not mean "eventually after you eat," that is, unless "eventually" is
> supposed to be taken to allow time to succumb to the poison, which would
> still have to be within that day according to the verse. If a vague
> "eventually" -- as in "after many years" -- is what God or, rather, the
> writers of Genesis meant, they should have written it that way.
Um, I realize that it doesn't say the word "eventually" there in that
translation, but it also doesn't specifically say that they would die
before that particular day was over. Only one of the 18 English
translations I'm looking at says that specifically. And "poison"?
Where are you getting that from? The fruit is never said to be
"poisoned" or anything like that. It is instead "the tree of knowledge
of good and evil," & if they eat of it, they will gain knowledge which
is forbidden, namely knowledge of evil. Rather obviously, in the full
context of everything else said of Adam & Eve, & their offspring, in
Genesis, what was meant here is that they would become *mortal* on the
very day in which they ate this fruit. I'm suspecting that meaning
would have been perfectly clear to Hebrew readers at the time.
> >>That account thus shows quite indisputably that God lied
>
> > I'm thinking probably it doesn't show that.
>
> So, lying about a time certain that something is supposed to happen is
> not lying?
If what was actually meant was that they would become *mortal* on that
day (& becoming mortal is indeed exactly the same thing as saying "you
will surely die"), then there was no "lying" about the "time," since
they did indeed become mortal on the exact day in which they ate this
fruit.
> Remind me not to let you make an appointment with me.
Remind me not to trust you when you quote a single verse of Scripture
entirely out of context, & fail to observe the quite obvious overall
meaning of it.
Rob Mitchell
"Dore" <dorewil...@verizon.net> wrote:
> "Rob Mitchell" <sorbus...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:sorbus_rowan-22D3...@individual.net...
>
> > That question betrays a profound ignorance of how the Third Reich came
> > to be, & how its government was able to get away with the things it did.
> > There was of course (as anyone even mildly familiar with this bit of
> > history knows) some underground resistance, by various factions, but
> > there really wasn't all that much the Jews *could* do. I recommend you
> > start with "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich" by William Shirer.
>
> And so, the US government is DOING the exact same things, as the Nazi's and
> Hitler did, and what, you don't see it?
No, honestly I don't. Perhaps that is because I have just finished
reading "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich," the very book I named
above, & thus this is all rather "fresh" in my memory as I post this
article. Hitler came to power at a time when Germany was in horrific
economic difficulty, far worse economic difficulty than the U.S. has
ever been in, even during the worst days of the Great Depression, with
the additional circumstance of many Germans feeling humiliated by the
conditions of the Versailles treaty at the end of WWI. Within just his
first year as Germany's head of state, Hitler was able to consolidate
power to such a vast degree that he essentially *became* the law, & no
law could be made without his own consent. The Jews were herded into
ghettos, & then many of them were sent off to concentration camps. You
ought to read about what happened with the Jews in the Warsaw ghetto
when the Germans finally decided to remove all of them to the camps.
The Jews did indeed mount armed resistance, but their weapons were so
inferior to those of the Germans that their resistance was, in the end,
totally futile. You specifically asked what the Jews did to try & stop
Hitler, & I'm telling you what they did, & how it made little
difference. There's not a whole lot you can do when your enemy has
vastly superior weapons.
No, sorry, there is not anything even remotely similar happening in the
U.S. Oh yes, Herr Bush has taken some steps to consolidate power into
his own hands, but they are extraordinarily meager compared to what
Hitler did, & I see no sign whatsoever that any U.S. president will be
able to come even close to attaining such absolute power. Nor do I see
any large group of people of a single race or religion being directly
herded by the government itself into ghettos, or into concentration
camps, & even the most disadvantaged person in our present-day ghettos
is not prevented by law from attaining the degree of education to obtain
job opportunities which get her/him right out of the ghettos, nor are
they prevented by law from moving out of the ghettos. In fact, we've
moved quite distinctly in the *opposite* direction over the past
half-century. Fifty years ago it was far more difficult for persons of
certain minorities (one minority in particular) to be registered to vote
& to be allowed educational & career opportunities than it is today.
If Herr Bush were anything like Herr Hitler, after his first year in
office we would already be utterly unable to criticize his government in
the slightest, & we would be far more severely restricted in our
freedoms than we are today, & ***ALL*** persons of certain races or
religions would have already had most of their rights taken away from
them BY LAW. But not even in the current post-9-11 anti-Muslim climate
do we see that anything even remotely close to ALL Muslims have had
anywhere close to ALL of their rights taken away from them, nor are the
majority of them being herded BY LAW into geographically distinct &
separate areas, nor are they being carted off BY LAW to concentration
camps. The closest thing we have to anyone of any particular race or
religion being put in concentration camps are those tiny minority of
Muslims who have been captured as "enemy combatants" overseas, or who
have been arrested on charges of aiding terrorism in some way. While
I'll instantly agree that the rights of some of those people have been
abominably violated, there's not even a shred of evidence that such a
thing will ever, ever, ever happen to anything more than a tiny minority
of people who belong to any given race or religion.
It was not a tiny minority of Jews who were herded into ghettos &
concentration camps in the Third Reich. It was instead the vast
majority of them who at the time resided in areas controlled by the
Reich.
Several million of them were killed in the concentration camps too, in
case you've forgotten. So were quite a few Slavs.
Slavs are a race, or a nationality, or a particular group of races or
nationalities, but not a religion, in case you didn't know.
No, I do not see anything even remotely like any of this happening in
the U.S. At most, I see only extremely tiny steps in that direction,
relatively speaking, which are already under intense public criticism, &
may very well doom this administration.
Remember, we can vote this administration out of office.
Hitler arranged things very quickly, long before the end of his first
year in office, so that he could not ever be voted out of office.
See the difference?
> cont
>
> > Vote 'em out of office when they act like idiots. Of course, the
> > majority of us have to do that for it to work.
>
> How can you vote them out of office, when the only ones capable of running
> for office are the rich, powerful who are their friends and cohorts?
That presumes that all persons rich & powerful enough to run for office
are all equally bad. In reality, as we've all known for years, plenty
of such people have tried to accomplish plenty of good things. Let's
look just at presidents to start with. JFK had many, many, many faults,
but he still tried to accomplish many good things too, & indeed did not
just try, but actually succeeded in accomplishing good things, even
though he was part of one of the richest, most powerful, & most corrupt
families this country has ever seen. He was instrumental in keeping us
out of nuclear war with the Soviet Union over the Berlin crisis, & later
over the Cuban missile crisis, & not merely because he was "soft" on
Communism, as some of his detractors at the time, & later, have claimed.
Now yes, some of his administration's policies regarding Cuba did lead
to the latter crisis in the first place, but once the crisis occurred,
he did a good deal to prevent it from being exacerbated to the point of
actual war; he understood, better than practically any president before
or since, how greater dialogue & diplomacy could be accomplished with
the Soviet Union. JFK also did a good deal for civil rights, even
though he was not as deeply committed to it as his public image made it
appear. LBJ did plenty of bad things (don't even get me started on
Vietnam) but he did good things too, such as getting the Civil Rights
Act of 1964 passed. Nixon was stupifyingly corrupt (& we didn't even
have to vote him out of office; public pressure alone got him out), but
he also did a lot to ease U.S. relations with Communist China. Carter
was a rather ineffective leader, but it would be untruthful to claim
that he never at least tried to accomplish anything good, & anyone who
has paid attention to him since can plainly see that many of his ideals
are fine indeed.
> Look at
> Ralph Nader right now. They are doing everything to stop him, and saying any
> vote for Nader is a vote for Bush, and thus with their propaganda, politics,
> brainwashing and manipulation, the people believe their lies and blindly
> follow along. They are very intelligent people. They know exactly how to
> brainwash and sway the mindset of the public, because they have worked very
> hard on just that purpose.
Whatever. We can still vote bad people out of office if we so chose, &
can even force them to resign without even having to vote them out if
the public pressure is intense enough, as has indeed happened on many,
many, many occasions, if we're talking about all elected political
offices, not just the presidency. Hitler made it impossible, within his
first year in office, to vote him out of office or to get him out of
office through public pressure. No such thing has yet occurred in this
country, or has even come anywhere remotely close.
> Did you ever see the movie, Primary Colors?
'Fraid I missed that one.
> It is
> ALL about brainwashing, lies, deceit, propaganda and manipulation, which
> they use with patriotism, romance, and theater.
Yes, "they" do, & as we all knew years ago, plenty of people refuse to
fall for it.
> So how do you convince so
> many mind controlled people that they are wrong and not to listen to their
> lies, deceit and NAZI propaganda?
By public dissent, of course, which we are guaranteed by the
Constitution, & has yet to be taken away from us to any significant
degree. We can still criticize the government pretty much as easily as
we always could. Oh yes, in the months immediately following 9-11, &
immediately following the initiation of the Iraq war, the administration
succeeded in pressuring *some* groups & individuals into stifling their
criticism through calls to "patriotism" & so forth, but that didn't work
for long, as today this administration is criticized more widely &
intensely than it ever has been before.
> cont
>
> > > God doesn't stop anyone from having sex either,
> >
> > Which in itself isn't a "sin" under certain circumstances.
>
> Who are you to determine what is sin and what isn't under ANY circumstances?
I could ask the same of you.
> cont
>
> > Murder is distinctly & obviously harmful, to put it mildly. You're
> > comparing apples & oranges, as murder is nothing at all like consensual
> > sex between adults. Only if such sex is promiscuous can it be harmful.
> > If it is monogamous, however, it doesn't cause harm to even a single
> > human on earth.
>
> From God's point of view, all evil acts are derived from evil sources and
> all evil is the same in his eyes. Having sex empowers LUST demons,
"Lust demons"? Fascinating. I take it you believe in the existence of
such "demons"?
> which
> causes them to tempt and possess others, and that is why promiscuity and sex
> is so prevalent on the earth.
Perhaps so. Of course, monogamy has nothing to do with promiscuity.
You're completely ignoring in this reply of yours this statement of
mine, which I made in the very article you're responding to here:
"You're not even approaching an appropriate comparison with consensual
sex between 2 adults, particularly if it is monogamous."
I'm still waiting for you to address a loving, committed, & permanently
monogamous lifelong union between 2 consenting adults of the same
gender. None of anything you've so far said in reply to me has any
bearing whatsoever on that type of relationship. Here you're talking
only about lust & promiscuity, which are totally different issues.
> Go have sex and see if your dog doesn't try to
> hump your leg afterwards?
Um, I'm curious as to how a dog counts as a "consenting adult." You're
again talking about apples & oranges. Please address the actual subject
being raised, not an entirely different subject.
> Your empowerment of lust demons affect all around
> you, whether you are aware or not.
Whatever. There's still not a single word of what you're saying which
comes within light-years of addressing a loving, committed, &
permanently monogamous lifelong union between 2 consenting adults of the
same gender. We all know that such lifelong unions, including those
between opposite genders, are hardly predicated on lust alone, or even
primarily so.
> Your thinking because you LIKE lust and sex, make excuses that it is NOT
> evil, but it is, whether consensual or not.
Sorry, that I myself "like" lust & sex is not in evidence. And you have
yet to establish that a loving, committed, & permanently monogamous
lifelong union between 2 consenting adults of the same gender is even
mildly "evil."
> Like I said, all actions,
> thoughts, beliefs etc on the earth affect others around them and to GOD,
> what is evil is evil, and does NOT have degrees of depravation, and YOUR
> concepts of what you think is mild or severe are NOT what truly is.
Neither are yours, as a matter of fact.
> A person
> engaging in sex, may become obsessed, leading to addiction, therefore
> harmful.
That can indeed be so. How does this address a loving, committed, &
permanently monogamous lifelong union between 2 consenting adults of the
same gender? We all know that such a relationship, & also the analogous
type of lifelong relationship between opposite genders, is usually not
based primarily on any sort of "addiction" or "obsession" with sex. And
using exactly your own argument, with no difference whatsoever, if such
a relationship does NOT include such an "addiction" or "obsession," the
"harmful" aspect of it is...what, exactly?
> And in the spirit realm, it is empowering LUST demons who are just
> as EVIL as murderous demons, in God's eyes.
I can quite easily see how promiscuity might "empower" such "demons,"
heterosexual promiscuity & homosexual promiscuity equally. I utterly
fail to see how monogamy does any such thing, whether it is between the
same gender or opposite genders. If I'm failing to see something
obvious, please demonstrate exactly how monogamy between adults,
regardless of gender, "is empowering LUST demons who are just as EVIL as
murderous demons." To be even remotely convincing in your argument, you
have to demonstrate how monogamy ITSELF does such a thing, & you
furthermore have to demonstrate how monogamy ITSELF does such a thing
either way, both between the same gender & between opposite genders
equally. If you concentrate only on same-gender monogamy, you are not
demonstrating how monogamy ITSELF encourages or empowers lust.
L. Neff
> In article <40BA102F...@udel.nospam.edu>,
> "L. Neff" <ln...@udel.nospam.edu> wrote:
> Um, I realize that it doesn't say the word "eventually" there in that
> translation, but it also doesn't specifically say that they would die
> before that particular day was over.
What part of "in the day" do you not understand? Is it supposed to be
one of those non-24-hour days that some biblical apologists use to
massage the scientifically impossible 6-day creation?
> Only one of the 18 English
> translations I'm looking at says that specifically. And "poison"?
> Where are you getting that from? The fruit is never said to be
> "poisoned" or anything like that.
I was simply trying to come up with the metaphysical or spiritual
mechanism involved with the word "die". Well, then, instead of poison,
how about "that which would kill the eater of the fruit"? In any case,
why should you have a problem with it? It was, after all, following
your example with your insertions of "eventually" and "mortal." Are the
rest of us not allowed to play with the text the way you do? You've set
the standard.
It is instead "the tree of knowledge
> of good and evil," & if they eat of it, they will gain knowledge which
> is forbidden, namely knowledge of evil. Rather obviously, in the full
> context of everything else said of Adam & Eve, & their offspring, in
> Genesis, what was meant here is that they would become *mortal* on the
> very day in which they ate this fruit.
"To become mortal" is not the same thing as "to die". A mortal being,
though destined to die, is alive until the point of death. This is
represented also in mythologies where a god or goddess loses his/her
immortality, but even so, he/she only "eventually" dies.
> I'm suspecting that meaning
> would have been perfectly clear to Hebrew readers at the time.
Yet it doesn't translate that way. "In the day" is pretty clear as far
as "meaning" is concerned.
Earlier you were letting the alleged "meaning" of the passage be
sufficient with your insertions, but now you're falling back on the
"full context" as justification. Which is it?
[snip]
> If what was actually meant was that they would become *mortal* on that
> day (& becoming mortal is indeed exactly the same thing as saying "you
> will surely die"), then there was no "lying" about the "time," since
> they did indeed become mortal on the exact day in which they ate this
> fruit.
There is no "if" about it, because "mortal", like "eventually," is not
in the text of the verse (nor is my word "poison"). The passage, in
"full context" of the rest of Genesis, puts a lie into God's mouth.
>>Remind me not to let you make an appointment with me.
> Remind me not to trust you when you quote a single verse of Scripture
> entirely out of context, & fail to observe the quite obvious overall
> meaning of it.
Remind me not to have you draw up a legal contract for me. It's
interesting that we expect the social, scientific, and legal human
documents that we write today should be as precise as possible, yet the
"word of God" gets a free ride, even though it has not only social and
legal implications, but also spiritual ones.
But back to your quip, once again you have set the standard. You are
invoking "full context" to rescue a biblical passage from its hopeless
fault, but this is unnecessary when the passage involved is quite clear
in itself (as opposed to one which might be genuinely ambiguous or
incomplete). That tactic doesn't work in this case, because the further
context does not expand on God's statement to Adam and Eve about their
impending death as your above explanation would have it; it simply shows
that the happening as stated, nay, predicted in the declaration did not
come to pass.
Dore
> Let's go back to what I said: "Most things that are distinctly harmful
> have continuously been illegal, in this country at least, practically
> since the country was founded." I didn't say a thing about "most laws,"
> I said "most things that are distinctly harmful" are also illegal.
> Surely you are not claiming for a moment that the majority of harmful
> activities humans commit aren't illegal? I've just named some of the
> primary ones which have *always* been illegal. Oh yes, some of our laws
> have loopholes in them which allow certain people to get away with
> certain *other* harmful actions, but I'm guessing that the number of
> harmful activities expressly allowed to anyone by law are smaller than
> the number of harmful activities which aren't allowed to anyone by law.
Righteous and moral people don't need law, and evil, immoral people will
just break them.
--
Dore
"Rob Mitchell" <sorbus...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:sorbus_rowan-BE13...@individual.net...
Dore
news:pan.2004.05.28....@postini.spamcon.org...
> There is not, nor has there ever been, enough water to cover the entire
> face of the Earth. The story of Noah's ark is an exaggeration at best.
You underestimate God.
--
Dore
"Bill Baker" <wba...@postini.spamcon.org> wrote in message
news:pan.2004.05.28....@postini.spamcon.org...
> On Fri, 28 May 2004 20:19:26 +0000, Michael Pollard <mchl...@aol.com>
> wrote in message news:<i9Ntc.1423$IJ....@newssvr24.news.prodigy.com>:
>
> > "Brent Norman" <nellig...@hotmail.com> wrote
> >> Other available historical accounts from ancient sources (from other
> >> parts of the world not
> >> covered by the biblical accounts),
> >> don't seem to have any mention of any great flood - which would mean
> >> that the flood
> >> was not worldwide as it says.
> > Read carefully Genesis 6-9. God CLEARLY indicates a great global
> > flood. As proof of the global flood, God promised never to send another
> > flood like Noah's Flood (9:11, 15), and SINCE THAT TIME there have
> > been no other global floods.
> >
> > Also, if Noah's Flood was only a local flood, then God lied to us.
> > Likewise, there was no need for Noah to build an ark for survival as he
had
> > many years' warning, and simply could have moved.
>
> There is not, nor has there ever been, enough water to cover the entire
> face of the Earth. The story of Noah's ark is an exaggeration at best.
>
> --
> Lurlean Lie #18:
> He's a closet Hindu that's infiltrated the Lutheran Church with all his
Satanic
> doctrines in order to pull it down.
> news:7908c278.04040...@posting.google.com
Bill Baker
wrote in message news:<u2Puc.8082$hB2....@nwrdny03.gnilink.net>:
> "Bill Baker" <wba...@postini.spamcon.org> wrote in message
> news:pan.2004.05.28....@postini.spamcon.org...
>
>
>> There is not, nor has there ever been, enough water to cover the entire
>> face of the Earth. The story of Noah's ark is an exaggeration at best.
>
>
> You underestimate God.
*Chuckle* Oh, really? I think you overestimate your myth.
--
Funny Sister Lurlean quote #12:
"The important thing to know is whether the different candidates is
circumcised." --Lurlean makes her final decision as she approaches the ballot
box.
Light Templar
news:M1Puc.8081$hB2....@nwrdny03.gnilink.net,
<dorewil...@verizon.net> he or she gave us all a good laugh with the
following...
> "Rob Mitchell" <sorbus...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:sorbus_rowan-BE13...@individual.net...
>> Let's go back to what I said: "Most things that are distinctly
>> harmful have continuously been illegal, in this country at least,
>> practically since the country was founded." I didn't say a thing
>> about "most laws," I said "most things that are distinctly harmful"
>> are also illegal. Surely you are not claiming for a moment that the
>> majority of harmful activities humans commit aren't illegal? I've
>> just named some of the primary ones which have *always* been
>> illegal. Oh yes, some of our laws have loopholes in them which
>> allow certain people to get away with certain *other* harmful
>> actions, but I'm guessing that the number of harmful activities
>> expressly allowed to anyone by law are smaller than the number of
>> harmful activities which aren't allowed to anyone by law.
>
> Righteous and moral people don't need law, and evil, immoral people
> will just break them.
>
One wonders why the bulk of the prison inmates in this country are
Christian.
--
Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to
evade the need to think and evaluate evidence.
Faith is belief in spite of, even perhaps because of,
the lack of evidence. - Richard Dawkins
Viii@bill.com 'enry VIII
"Light Templar" <I...@DONTACCEPTEMAIL.FAM> wrote in message
news:S1Suc.18718$be....@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> While Dore was contemplating his or her navel in
> news:M1Puc.8081$hB2....@nwrdny03.gnilink.net,
> <dorewil...@verizon.net> he or she gave us all a good laugh with the
> following...
>
>> "Rob Mitchell" <sorbus...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
>> news:sorbus_rowan-BE13...@individual.net...
>>> Let's go back to what I said: "Most things that are distinctly
>>> harmful have continuously been illegal, in this country at least,
>>> practically since the country was founded." I didn't say a thing
>>> about "most laws," I said "most things that are distinctly harmful"
>>> are also illegal. Surely you are not claiming for a moment that the
>>> majority of harmful activities humans commit aren't illegal? I've
>>> just named some of the primary ones which have *always* been
>>> illegal. Oh yes, some of our laws have loopholes in them which
>>> allow certain people to get away with certain *other* harmful
>>> actions, but I'm guessing that the number of harmful activities
>>> expressly allowed to anyone by law are smaller than the number of
>>> harmful activities which aren't allowed to anyone by law.
>>
>> Righteous and moral people don't need law, and evil, immoral people
>> will just break them.
>>
>
> One wonders why the bulk of the prison inmates in this country are
> Christian.
I never did wonder that, always thought that it was rather a natural
evolution of their religion.
'enry VIII
Light Templar
news:o8Tuc.28892$eY2.12938@attbi_s02,
<enry Vi...@bill.com> he or she gave us all a good laugh with the
following...
True enough! LOL!
bob young
Dore wrote:
> "Bill Baker" <wba...@postini.spamcon.org> wrote in message
> news:pan.2004.05.28....@postini.spamcon.org...
>
> > There is not, nor has there ever been, enough water to cover the entire
> > face of the Earth. The story of Noah's ark is an exaggeration at best.
>
> You underestimate God.
You overestimate mythology
bob young
Dore wrote:
> "Brent Norman" <nellig...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:z1Jtc.205912$0qd....@twister01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
>
> > Other available historical accounts from ancient sources (from other parts
> > of the world not
> > covered by the biblical accounts),
> > don't seem to have any mention of any great flood - which would mean that
> > the flood
> > was not worldwide as it says.
> >
>
> That is NOT true, there are countless religions and ancient texts stating a
> great flood. In fact, the evil ones attempt to use these ancient accounts as
> the basis to accuse the Biblical writers of stealing the story from them.
> --
> Dore
so you say the flood and noah are factual, what do you say about the loaves and
fishes story?
Fritz
I always thought it was something inmates did to influence the
parole board, and get some small privileges.
--
Fritz
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Religion = tyranny.
RainLover
>"bob young" <alasp...@netvigator.com> wrote in message
>news:40B71615...@netvigator.com...
>
>
>> ...and that silly fairy story about 'the animals two by two! There is as
>much
>> truth in that silly fable as there is in your distorted logic on the
>goodness
>> of human beings. There are good and bad in every community, the
>proportion
>> always being roughly the same *regardless* of any imaginary gods that
>happen to
>> be around! Any trained psychiatrist will demonstrate it to you, if you
>care to
>> take the time.
>
>
>How would YOU know whether Noah gathered animals two by two, where you
>there?
Um, it's NOT really a secret, Dore...
Genesis 7
1 And the LORD said unto Noah, Come thou and all thy house into the ark; for
thee have I seen righteous before me in this generation.
2 Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his
female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female.
3 Of fowls also of the air by sevens, the male and the female; to keep seed
alive upon the face of all the earth.
It looks like a MINIMUM of two animals... Many were 7 of them... And how
did all these animals fit into a 400' long boat?
> Just because in your small and limited mind, thinking all things have
>to be as they are today, you believe anything outside of what you think or
>see cannot be reality.
This is a description of YOU, Dore!!! You can't see how fitting that many
animals on a small boat and living with them and feeding them for SIX MONTHS
cannot possibly be "'reality". Yet you claim the bible perfect.
James, Seattle
RainLover
>"Brent Norman" <nellig...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:z1Jtc.205912$0qd....@twister01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
>
>
>> Other available historical accounts from ancient sources (from other parts
>> of the world not
>> covered by the biblical accounts),
>> don't seem to have any mention of any great flood - which would mean that
>> the flood
>> was not worldwide as it says.
>>
>
>
>That is NOT true, there are countless religions and ancient texts stating a
>great flood. In fact, the evil ones attempt to use these ancient accounts as
>the basis to accuse the Biblical writers of stealing the story from them.
Gilgamesh, the Sumarians, and Mesopotamia existed long be Christianity or the
Christian God. The story of Noah is taken directly from Gilgamesh and the
story of Jesus is also taken from Sumarian myth/religion.
If the flood occured as you claim, why is it that MUCH older civilizations
(I.E. the chinese and the egyptians) don't talk of this flood? Even moreso...
why did their civilizations apparently weather this global flood without
mentioning it or being destroyed by it?
James, Seattle
bob young
RainLover wrote:
Wonder how the thousands of snake species got on with all the others!
Were the carnivores separated, or did they suddenly loose their appetite?
The insects must have been included otherwise there would not be any today and it
is said insect varieties run to billions, thousands yet to be discovered.
Clever Fella this Noaaar!
Unless, of course someone just made it up just to entertain the peasants!
bob young
RainLover wrote:
reckon all the Kangaroos in Australia 'missed the boat'!
>
>
> James, Seattle
Rob Mitchell
"L. Neff" <ln...@udel.nospam.edu> wrote:
> Rob Mitchell wrote:
> > In article <40BA102F...@udel.nospam.edu>,
> > "L. Neff" <ln...@udel.nospam.edu> wrote:
> [snip]
>
> > Um, I realize that it doesn't say the word "eventually" there in that
> > translation, but it also doesn't specifically say that they would die
> > before that particular day was over.
>
> What part of "in the day" do you not understand?
I understand it perfectly. "In the day" in which they eat of the fruit,
on the very day they eat the fruit, not a day earlier or later, they
shall become mortal.
> Is it supposed to be
> one of those non-24-hour days that some biblical apologists use to
> massage the scientifically impossible 6-day creation?
Apparently not.
> > Only one of the 18 English
> > translations I'm looking at says that specifically. And "poison"?
> > Where are you getting that from? The fruit is never said to be
> > "poisoned" or anything like that.
>
> I was simply trying to come up with the metaphysical or spiritual
> mechanism involved with the word "die". Well, then, instead of poison,
> how about "that which would kill the eater of the fruit"?
If it makes them mortal, looks like it will indeed kill them to eat the
fruit.
> In any case,
> why should you have a problem with it? It was, after all, following
> your example with your insertions of "eventually" and "mortal." Are the
> rest of us not allowed to play with the text the way you do? You've set
> the standard.
Ah, but the "standard" I set was not simply to insert anything at all,
whether or not it fits with the full context & what was obviously meant.
> It is instead "the tree of knowledge
> > of good and evil," & if they eat of it, they will gain knowledge which
> > is forbidden, namely knowledge of evil. Rather obviously, in the full
> > context of everything else said of Adam & Eve, & their offspring, in
> > Genesis, what was meant here is that they would become *mortal* on the
> > very day in which they ate this fruit.
>
> "To become mortal" is not the same thing as "to die".
Pardon me? The exact phrase in the translation you produced is "you
will surely die," which is indeed exactly the same thing as being
mortal. One who is mortal will *surely* die.
> A mortal being,
> though destined to die, is alive until the point of death.
Um yes, we all already knew that.
> This is
> represented also in mythologies where a god or goddess loses his/her
> immortality, but even so, he/she only "eventually" dies.
But they will still *surely* die. They weren't going to die at all
before losing their immortality.
> > I'm suspecting that meaning
> > would have been perfectly clear to Hebrew readers at the time.
>
> Yet it doesn't translate that way.
Yes, lots of things don't translate well from one language to another,
because each language has its own unique idioms. The Hebrew words
"qadesh" & "qadesha," for example, which are masculine & feminine forms
of the same word, give Biblical translators fits, because there's
nothing close to an English equivalent for those words. The NRSV, for
example, translates those as "temple prostitute," but that still isn't
an entirely accurate meaning. The closest one can come in English would
be something like "a male who participated in fertility rituals in pagan
temples," & "a female who participated," etc., for the feminine form.
English Biblical translators also have trouble with the Hebrew word
"to'ebah." This is often translated as "abomination," but it actually
had a more specific meaning than that which is difficult to render into
English with a single term of only one or two words. But to Hebrew
readers at the time the full context of all 3 of these words would have
been quite apparent.
> "In the day" is pretty clear as far
> as "meaning" is concerned.
Yeppers.
> Earlier you were letting the alleged "meaning" of the passage be
> sufficient with your insertions, but now you're falling back on the
> "full context" as justification. Which is it?
"Earlier" I was keeping the full context in mind as well. I was keeping
it in mind from the moment I first began commenting on this. It is not
something I only began "falling back" on later, so there is no "which is
it" to be concerned with. It's been the same the whole time.
They didn't actually die on that day, but of course they did eventually
die. Nothing was said prior to the warning about the fruit that they
would die for any reason. Only when speaking of the fruit is the
possibility of their deaths mentioned for the first time. The knowledge
of all that informed my very first reply on this subject, whether I
actually mentioned all of it or not. Quite frankly, I didn't even deem
it to be *necessary* to mention all of that in the first reply, because
I assumed it all to be quite evident to anyone who had read at least the
first 5 chapters of Genesis in their entirety.
> [snip]
> > If what was actually meant was that they would become *mortal* on that
> > day (& becoming mortal is indeed exactly the same thing as saying "you
> > will surely die"), then there was no "lying" about the "time," since
> > they did indeed become mortal on the exact day in which they ate this
> > fruit.
>
> There is no "if" about it, because "mortal", like "eventually," is not
> in the text of the verse (nor is my word "poison").
It isn't necessarily required for the actual word "mortal" to appear in
the passage, nor for the actual word "eventually" to appear in it, for
the meaning to still be quite evident.
> The passage, in
> "full context" of the rest of Genesis, puts a lie into God's mouth.
Feh. In "full context" it does no such thing. We see immediately
afterward that they don't die on that very day, but that they are indeed
expelled from the Garden & thus from "paradise," doomed to a much more
mundane human existence. And in a much more mundane human existence,
humans are mortal, among many other things. The context makes it far
more likely that God meant that they would lose their immortality on the
day they ate the fruit, rather than that they would literally "die" on
the same day they ate it.
Perhaps you should think carefully on the implications of the word
"surely." That is a word which indeed *does* appear in the translation
you quoted. He didn't simply say, "you will die," He said, "you will
SURELY die." A being who is mortal indeed will *surely* die. Not just
maybe. Not just probably. *Surely*. The word "certainly" has an
identical meaning. We could also render it as, "for in the day that you
eat of it you will certainly die," which could also be taken to mean,
"on the day eat of it, it is certain that you will die."
You've piqued my curiosity. I'm now wondering what Hebrew word (if any)
is being translated there as "surely." Unfortunately I don't have
access to the original Hebrew of that verse. It might be interesting,
however, to look at some earlier translations. Let's start with the
Vulgate:
15. tulit ergo Dominus Deus hominem et posuit eum in paradiso voluptatis
ut operaretur et custodiret illum
16. praecepitque ei dicens ex omni ligno paradisi comede
17. de ligno autem scientiae boni et mali ne comedas in quocumque enim
die comederis ex eo morte morieris
Fascinating. What is rendered as "the garden of Eden" in verse 15 in
the KJV & NRSV is given as "paradiso" here, "paradise," which is
precisely what I myself said above was the very place from which they
were expelled once they ate the fruit, & in verse 16, where the 2
English translations say "garden," the Vulgate says "paradisi." One
would think that in "paradise" they would never die. But now they will,
since they've left it. And why do they leave it? Because they ate that
silly fruit.
I'm thus wondering what original Hebrew word is being translated here as
"paradiso." Ya think maybe, just maybe, the word itself implied to its
readers at the time that remaining there was equivalent to immortality,
a subtlety of meaning which may be lost to us today, well over 2000
years later, reading it now in a language which didn't even exist back
then?
Like "qadesh"?
Then we come to the crucial phrase, "morte morieris." Now, my Latin is
rather less than wonderful, but I'm seeing a possible implication of the
concept of mortality there, not merely "dying," as in on a given day.
It is not merely a form of the verb "to die" which is used there, as
that would have been accomplished by a single word, a form of the word
"mori." We instead see "morte," which is the noun "death," followed by
"morieris," a form of the verb "morior." And what does that verb mean?
Oh yes, it CAN simply mean "to die," but it can ALSO mean "to die away,"
"to wither away," & "to decay." The word itself does not necessarily
imply an "immediate" death, but instead can also mean the beginning of
the process which *leads* to death.
IIRC the Vulgate predates the earliest English translation of the Bible
by about 900 years, & may be closer in accurate meaning to the original
Hebrew, since it is in far closer proximity to the era in which that
form of Hebrew was spoken.
Far closer to that era was the Greek Septuagint, produced before the
birth of Christ, by scholars who themselves spoke both Hebrew & Greek.
Let's see what it says here:
15. kai elaben kurios o theos ton anqropon
on eplasen kai eqeto auton en to paradeiso ergazesqai auton kai fulassein
16. kai eneteilato kurios o theos to adam legon apo pantos xulou tou en
to paradeiso brosei fagi
17. apo de tou xulou tou ginoskein kalon kai ponhron ou fagesthe ap
autou i d' an imera fagite ap autou thanato apothaneisthe
Well, well, looky there: even if we didn't know a thing about ancient
Greek, we'd still see the obvious similarity between "paradeiso" &
"paradise." "Paradise" seems to be a place where no one ever dies.
Ah, but outside of it is a rather different matter.
And what happened to them, again, when they ate the fruit? Where were
they forced to go?
Looks like God's warning to them was rather accurate. On the very day
in which they ate that fruit, they were forced to leave the only place
on earth in which they would never die.
Now let's talk about "day." The word "imera" in the above means "day."
And the word "thanato" is the noun "death." We see "autou" appear
twice, which means "this." "Fagesthe" & "fagite" are, of course, forms
of the verb "to eat." The crucial word here seems to be the last,
"apothaneisthe." Our word "apothecary" is related to this, which might
seem to support your "poison" insertion. However, it also seems
possibly to be related to the Greek word "apothikeuo," which is a verb
which means "to store." Of course an apothecary might be said to
"store" certain medicines & drugs, but the meaning of this in verse 17
might be that death would now be "stored" within Adam if he eats of the
fruit. I honestly don't know, as the exact meaning of the word is
obscure to me. But in an online discussion of this very verse, I see
this:
**********
In Genesis 2:17, as rendered by the LXX [the Septuagint], God said of
the tree of knowledge of good and evil:
. . . now in whatever day you
may eat from it, in death (thanato), you will die (apothaneisthe).
The day Adam and Eve sinned, they were
in a state of spiritual death. The noun, death, in the locative case,
expresses this. Spiritual death or the
death of the soul was immediate--in whatever day. The statement you will
die is a verb in the future tense. This
is an imminent physical death that will occur--you will die. Thus,
death--spiritual and physical--passed
upon all men.
http://www.crisispub.com/greek/5.htm
**********
Now yes, this person says that the Spiritual death, the death of the
soul, is "immediate." However, it is also shown here that, just as I
said, "thanato" means "death," but more importantly, this is followed by
"apothaneisthe," which this author claims is the future tense of the
verb "to die." This is quite similar to the Latin above, in which it is
not merely the verb "to die" which is used, but something very like what
this author is suggesting, "in death you will die" (future tense). And
remember that the Latin word "morieris" doesn't simply mean "will die"
in future tense, but it can *also* mean "will die away," "will wither,"
or "will decay." It is entirely possible that "apothaneisthe" means
roughly the same thing.
Oh this is too fun; let's look at another:
15. Und Gott der Herr nahm den Menschen und setzte ihn in den Garten
Eden, dass er ihn bauete und bewahrete.
16. Und Gott der Herr gebot dem Menschen und sprach: Du sollst essen von
allerlei Baumen im Garten;
17. aber von dem Baum des Erkenntnisses Gutes und Boses sollst du nicht
essen. Denn welches Tages du davon issest, wirst du des Todes sterben.
That is, of course, the Martin Luther German translation, which predates
the KJV, as I recall, by nearly a century. Now here, admittedly, it's
more like the English, in that it is not "paradise" which is said, but
rather "Garten Eden" & "Garten." I trust you don't need a translation
of that. Oh but lo & behold, looky what happens yet again at the end.
Once again, quite unlike the English, but very like the Latin & Greek,
it is not simply the verb "to die" which is used. Instead, once again,
the noun "death" (Todes) is juxtaposed with the verb "die" (sterben),
rendering it once again as something to the effect of "in death shall
you die."
Now, which one of us is looking at a good deal more of the "full
context"? You appear to be going only by a single English translation,
& furthermore ignoring the context of the verses which follow to the end
of Chapter 3. See how I, in stark contrast, not only view this in the
full context of ALL those verses, but moreover don't rely just on a
single English translation, but instead look not only at other English
translations, but translations in other languages as well, including
translations which vastly predate the one you quoted?
> >>Remind me not to let you make an appointment with me.
> >
> > Remind me not to trust you when you quote a single verse of Scripture
> > entirely out of context, & fail to observe the quite obvious overall
> > meaning of it.
>
> Remind me not to have you draw up a legal contract for me.
Looks like in reality I'd be a rather good person to draw up a legal
contract for you. You'd be reading only the one sentence, whereas I'd
be calling your attention to the fine print at the bottom. Furthermore
you're using a woefully inappropriate analogy. You're comparing a legal
document, which is typically written in the contemporary language of
those to whom it applies (notwithstanding that some "Latin" does
sometimes appear in such documents) to a text which was originally
written in a language which no one has spoken as a native tongue in that
particular form for thousands of years, & which we typically read only
in translations made well over a millenium later, in which various
translations say different things. In a legal document, you are not
typically reading a "translation" which is anything like that.
> It's
> interesting that we expect the social, scientific, and legal human
> documents that we write today should be as precise as possible, yet the
> "word of God" gets a free ride, even though it has not only social and
> legal implications, but also spiritual ones.
Oh, it doesn't get a "free ride" at all. Anyone even mildly familiar
with my posting history will see that I've posted quite a few articles
calling attention to contradictions in Scripture. I simply don't agree
that this is one of them.
> But back to your quip, once again you have set the standard.
That I have, & am furthermore setting it in spades in this article, a
standard which seems far beyond your own.
> You are
> invoking "full context" to rescue a biblical passage from its hopeless
> fault,
Or an alternate explanation: I am invoking "full context" to show what
might have been actually & truly meant within that "full context."
> but this is unnecessary when the passage involved is quite clear
> in itself (as opposed to one which might be genuinely ambiguous or
> incomplete).
You mean that it ***SEEMS*** "quite clear in itself" when you read only
one single English translation, don't take much account of the verses
which follow it, & don't even bother to investigate what other
translations say.
> That tactic doesn't work in this case,
According to you. Your knowledge of this subject seems, at the moment,
to be inferior to mine. It was I, not you, who said that I had compared
18 different English translations of this passage. You have yet to say
you've done anything of the sort. It is I, not you, who have quoted
other non-English translations, quoted more than just verse 17, &
although I do not for a moment claim to be an expert scholar of Greek &
Latin, have gone some way in attempting to explain what those
translations mean. You have yet to do anything of the sort. If your
knowledge is at all comparable to mine, you have yet to demonstrate it.
> because the further
> context does not expand on God's statement to Adam and Eve about their
> impending death as your above explanation would have it;
Oh? That "further context" doesn't just include what follows that verse
in a single English translation; it *also* includes what is said in
*other* translations, all 3 of which that I've produced here going
farther than to simply use the verb "to die."
> it simply shows
> that the happening as stated, nay, predicted in the declaration did not
> come to pass.
Sure it did. On the very day in which they ate of the fruit, they were
expelled from the only place on earth in which they could live forever.
Try looking ahead a bit. In my copy of the NRSV, I don't even have to
turn the page from Genesis 2:17 to see 3:22-4 on the opposite page.
Look at what the Lord says & does there. Look at how it is quite
specifically stated there how Adam & Eve will be prevented from living
forever.
Matty
Na, they were part of the "Joeys" overboard scandle ;-)
Matty
--
My blog: http://kaiwai.blogspot.com/
"Was there any truth in the rumour that you were
dead?" - Norman; The Great Australian Bleeder
"You don't have to live next to me, Just give me my
equality" - Nina Simone (Mississippi Goddam)
"Science without religion is lame, religion without
science is blind." - Albert Einstein
"You don't need to be 'straight' to fight and die
for your country. You just need to
shoot straight." - Barry Goldwater, (Ret. AF general)
Matty
>
> Dore wrote:
>
>
>>"Brent Norman" <nellig...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:z1Jtc.205912$0qd....@twister01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
>>
>>
>>>Other available historical accounts from ancient sources (from other parts
>>>of the world not
>>>covered by the biblical accounts),
>>>don't seem to have any mention of any great flood - which would mean that
>>>the flood
>>>was not worldwide as it says.
>>>
>>
>>That is NOT true, there are countless religions and ancient texts stating a
>>great flood. In fact, the evil ones attempt to use these ancient accounts as
>>the basis to accuse the Biblical writers of stealing the story from them.
>>--
>>Dore
>
>
> so you say the flood and noah are factual, what do you say about the loaves and
> fishes story?
The loves and fishes could have occured, assuming that Jesus was Scottish in
what he allowed people to eat ;-)
Matty
> "Brent Norman" <nellig...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:z1Jtc.205912$0qd....@twister01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
>
>
>
>>Other available historical accounts from ancient sources (from other parts
>>of the world not
>>covered by the biblical accounts),
>>don't seem to have any mention of any great flood - which would mean that
>>the flood
>>was not worldwide as it says.
>>
>
>
>
> That is NOT true, there are countless religions and ancient texts stating a
> great flood. In fact, the evil ones attempt to use these ancient accounts as
> the basis to accuse the Biblical writers of stealing the story from them.
They're beliefs, not facts. Get a book and learn what a belief is before
opening your mouth again.
Matty
Thats in a boat, made of wood. The it defies every law of engineering under
ths sun. The mear size and materials used don't add up. This boat should have
broken in two had it existed.
RainLover
That's why they are existent... don't be so stupid!
James, Seattle
RainLover
>>reckon all the Kangaroos in Australia 'missed the boat'!
>
>That's why they are existent... don't be so stupid!
That's "EXTINCT"!!! (I hadn't had my coffee when I had spelled that) God, I
hope the grammar police read this message before they hurt me with their
words...
Death
"RainLover" <SP-AMB-LOC...@raincity.com> wrote in message
news:9f4vb01ndqu9s7rag...@4ax.com...
had coffee ?
Damn, get a life.
Dore
news:S1Suc.18718$be....@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> One wonders why the bulk of the prison inmates in this country are
> Christian.
No, wonder why they are ALL poor and mostly black and I'll give you a hint:
it ISN'T for justice.
--
Dore
"Light Templar" <I...@DONTACCEPTEMAIL.FAM> wrote in message
news:S1Suc.18718$be....@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
Dore
There's not a whole lot you can do when your enemy has
> vastly superior weapons.
And there is nothing Americans will be able to do, when they are being
imprisoned, murdered, enslaved and abused simply because they speak against
the government.
cont
> No, sorry, there is not anything even remotely similar happening in the
> U.S. Oh yes, Herr Bush has taken some steps to consolidate power into
> his own hands, but they are extraordinarily meager compared to what
> Hitler did, & I see no sign whatsoever that any U.S. president will be
> able to come even close to attaining such absolute power. Nor do I see
> any large group of people of a single race or religion being directly
> herded by the government itself into ghettos, or into concentration
> camps, & even the most disadvantaged person in our present-day ghettos
> is not prevented by law from attaining the degree of education to obtain
> job opportunities which get her/him right out of the ghettos, nor are
> they prevented by law from moving out of the ghettos. In fact, we've
> moved quite distinctly in the *opposite* direction over the past
> half-century. Fifty years ago it was far more difficult for persons of
> certain minorities (one minority in particular) to be registered to vote
> & to be allowed educational & career opportunities than it is today.
>
Oh, so as long as you cower, submit and give in to the capitalistic, Nazi
fascist agenda of the New World Order, and seek money to be enslaved by
Capitalism, you will be fine. Anyone who wants FREEDOM and doesn't have
opportunity or doesn't want to be a slave to the greed machine of the beast,
well, they should have NO right to life, I suppose and just suffer the
neglect, denial, imprisonment, oppression and abuse of the greedy and
wealthy? Fact is, the government is NOT run by Bush, but by the Illuminati,
A Masonic offshoot organization, which is a conglomeration of CFR, The
trilateral Commission, the Federal Reserve, (a privately owned banking
industry) The Bilderburgs, and the wealthy elite, which are all either
members of the same family or friends of in the same social circles that
cannot be penetrated by outsiders. They ALREADY control the whole world and
NAZIISM, SATANISM, and FASCISM is their goals and influences. They ARE the
BEAST, and completely evil, having absolute power, telling ONLY lies,
deceit, and pretense with propaganda, brainwashing, and methods of the
Nazi's. But they have learned from the past mistakes of history, and thus
are more subtle, secretive and control though slow manipulation and control,
much like putting a frog in water and slowly turning up the heat until it
boils to death. The Patriot Acts are paving the way for all people who are
Christian, own guns, use or sell drugs, or speak against the government,
demanding Constitutional rights, to be imprisoned, murdered, or placed in
concentration camps that are already being set up around the country.Their
pretense is for terrorism, so you will support it, but you know how that
goes, whatever they do for a certain purpose, becomes the norm for ALL that
they desire to persecute. Just like the three strikes law. It was initiated
for ONLY 3 time violent offenders with weapons and yet it is being used for
any federal crime, which is slowly becoming even the most minor of offenses.
cont
> If Herr Bush were anything like Herr Hitler, after his first year in
> office we would already be utterly unable to criticize his government in
> the slightest, & we would be far more severely restricted in our
> freedoms than we are today, & ***ALL*** persons of certain races or
> religions would have already had most of their rights taken away from
> them BY LAW. But not even in the current post-9-11 anti-Muslim climate
> do we see that anything even remotely close to ALL Muslims have had
> anywhere close to ALL of their rights taken away from them, nor are the
> majority of them being herded BY LAW into geographically distinct &
> separate areas, nor are they being carted off BY LAW to concentration
> camps. The closest thing we have to anyone of any particular race or
> religion being put in concentration camps are those tiny minority of
> Muslims who have been captured as "enemy combatants" overseas, or who
> have been arrested on charges of aiding terrorism in some way. While
> I'll instantly agree that the rights of some of those people have been
> abominably violated, there's not even a shred of evidence that such a
> thing will ever, ever, ever happen to anything more than a tiny minority
> of people who belong to any given race or religion.
>
You have NO FREEDOM whatsoever. Tell me what freedom do you have? And people
are being imprisoned for speaking against Bush. ALL rights and privileges
are taken away by law, for unless you bow and submit to their laws, and ALL
things have some sort of law concerning it, you are imprisoned, fined or all
of your possessions are taken from you. And for your information, it wasn't
the Muslims that caused 911. It was planned, orchestrated, trained, financed
and supported by the government, to which the government blamed the Muslims
to cause separation and conflict, for the global elite love chaos, turning
the focus off of their evil deeds and actions and putting it on others, so
they can pretend to come in as the peacemakers and saviors, implementing
Homeland Security, so they can take away all of your rights and privileges
in the name of security. Very soon, anyone who speaks against the
government, WILL be carted off into concentration camps, when martial law is
initiated, when they perform another of their "terrorist" acts in the US.
And they will keep implementing terrorist acts in the US until they have
everyone implanted with computer chips, (mark of the beast), and have
complete control and enslavement of the masses. If you speak against the
government PUBLICALLY, and are able to provide names, dates and places, you
will be considered "enemy combatants" and imprisoned, taking away all of
your rights, possessions and not permitted any legal counsel whatsoever.
Those enemy combatants in Cuba, are Afghanistan FARMERS, who were forced
into the war, and being used by the US government as patsies to deceive and
brainwash you into thinking they are doing something about terrorism, when
THEY ARE THE TERRORISTS! They will soon outlaw the Bible as Hate literature,
and Christians will be round up and imprisoned, for the global elite are ALL
SATANISTS/Illuminati/Masons, who's only desire is to remove the name of
Christ from off the earth.
cont
> Several million of them were killed in the concentration camps too, in
> case you've forgotten. So were quite a few Slavs.
>
> Slavs are a race, or a nationality, or a particular group of races or
> nationalities, but not a religion, in case you didn't know.
Hitler wanted to create a pure race, of blond, blue eyed Germans. It wasn't
about religion.
cont
> No, I do not see anything even remotely like any of this happening in
> the U.S. At most, I see only extremely tiny steps in that direction,
> relatively speaking, which are already under intense public criticism, &
> may very well doom this administration.
Then you aren't paying attention. I suggest you read the book by Victor
Thorn, called "The New World Order Exposed."
cont
>
> Remember, we can vote this administration out of office.
No you can't, first of all, the only ones that can run are the rich and
wealthy and the only ones they will support, with media attention and focus
are members of their own social order and groups. Your vote is worthless,
because whomever runs are of the same New World Order mindset and are
puppets thereof.
cont
Hitler arranged things very quickly, long before the end of his first
> year in office, so that he could not ever be voted out of office.
And when the Anti-christ comes to power, complete and utter martial law ( we
already are under a form of it, called Homeland Security) will be initiated
and he will never be able to be voted out of office.
cont
Every president from the inception of the US was EVIL, and members of the
Satanic organizations, the masons, Illuminati. George Washington was a
member of the Masons and so were many presidents thereafter. There NEVER is
anyone running who is NOT a member of their social order and organizations
that put them in power. NONE.... and they ARE ALL evil. They have to do some
good, to deceive with their evil and lies. The Masons, who are an
organization that is based on lies, secrecy, power, wealth and manipulation,
have been in power since the inception of the US. You have been lied to and
brainwashed your whole life and history as the US department of Education
makes you learn is ALL lies and deceit. The US was born and bred in EVIL
ONLY. Capitalism is the most greedy, evil form of government that ever
existed, which is nothing more than the Roman Empire resurrected. They make
you HATE communism from childhood and yet, the only evil that communism is,
is their ungodliness. Capitalism is a greater form of evil, because it
enslaves the poor and the working class, while the rich, live luxuriously.
And if you attain great wealth, they immediately force you to cower to their
will, or they will ruin you. Look at the symbols beside the seat of the
Speaker of the House in the Capital. Two Fasces symbols on each side. The
streets of Washington DC were designed with the Symbols of the Masons and
the cornerstone of the Capital has a Masonic symbol on it. The Washington
Monument is a ancient Egyptian phallic symbol. The money has the eye of
Horus, on top of a pyramid, the symbol of the Illuminati, which is an
ancient Egyptian god, who the Masons worship. Everything they do, plan,
orchestrate and implement is in secret, while using lies, deceit, propaganda
and the pretense of patriotism, liberty and freedom which is clearly a RUSE.
cont
> Whatever. We can still vote bad people out of office if we so chose, &
> can even force them to resign without even having to vote them out if
> the public pressure is intense enough, as has indeed happened on many,
> many, many occasions, if we're talking about all elected political
> offices, not just the presidency. Hitler made it impossible, within his
> first year in office, to vote him out of office or to get him out of
> office through public pressure. No such thing has yet occurred in this
> country, or has even come anywhere remotely close.
You cannot vote evil people out of office, because only evil people are left
to put into it. It IS impossible for any good person to get elected for they
will ONLY have available to run for the ruse of democracy and elections, are
people of their own organizations, social class and wealth, minions of the
New World Order. If someone should happen to get into a Congressional
office, and they attempt to do some good for the people, they suddenly end
up in an airplane crash, or found having committed "suicide", or some other
unfortunate end. The government IS the MAFIA.
cont
> Yes, "they" do, & as we all knew years ago, plenty of people refuse to
> fall for it.
Not many, because the election polls and the support for these evil
deceivers and liars is still the majority, for they are brainwashed and
accepting of corruption, lies, deceit and complacent, shrugging their
shoulders, not wanting to stand up for right or cause a ripple for fear of
imprisonment or death so they allow it to continue.
cont
> By public dissent, of course, which we are guaranteed by the
> Constitution, & has yet to be taken away from us to any significant
> degree. We can still criticize the government pretty much as easily as
> we always could. Oh yes, in the months immediately following 9-11, &
> immediately following the initiation of the Iraq war, the administration
> succeeded in pressuring *some* groups & individuals into stifling their
> criticism through calls to "patriotism" & so forth, but that didn't work
> for long, as today this administration is criticized more widely &
> intensely than it ever has been before.
>
The Constitution was shredded by the Patriot Acts. Go to ground zero of 911
and attempt to hold up a sign with some statement that is anti-Bush. You
will immediately be accosted by police and if you do not leave or if you
resist in any way, you will be arrested and imprisoned. The administration
may be criticized, but they KNOW there is NOTHING anyone will do about it.
People who are protesting in France and Britain, against Bush and the US are
even being arrested and imprisoned. They have absolute power and there is
NOTHING anyone can do about it. If Bush is despised and his usefulness is at
an end, being the talking head and scapegoat of the Illuminati's decisions,
they will simply remove him and place another of their puppets in his place,
for the next goal and plan of the global elite.
cont
> > Who are you to determine what is sin and what isn't under ANY
circumstances?
>
> I could ask the same of you.
>
How does the name of Jesus Christ sound to you?
cont
> "Lust demons"? Fascinating. I take it you believe in the existence of
> such "demons"?
And I take it you do not, however, your disbelief does not make them
non-existent.
cont
> > which
> > causes them to tempt and possess others, and that is why promiscuity and
sex
> > is so prevalent on the earth.
>
> Perhaps so. Of course, monogamy has nothing to do with promiscuity.
> You're completely ignoring in this reply of yours this statement of
> mine, which I made in the very article you're responding to here:
Monogamy has nothing to do with the power and spirit of sex and lust. You
can be monogamous and still be a sex addict, or because of the actions of
the spirit realm and influence cause others to be sexually influenced as
well. Take for example the angry mob scenario. One person begins the anger
and soon the whole crowd is clamoring and screaming in anger, escalating to
some form of violence. You assume that what you do in the privacy of your
own bedroom stays in your bedroom, but you do NOT know the spiritual realm
and what occurs there. You can be having sex in your bedroom and your
neighbor will suddenly become amorous, because you are empowering lust
demons in your area in the spiritual realm that affects all surrounding you,
whether you are aware of it or not.
cont
> I'm still waiting for you to address a loving, committed, & permanently
> monogamous lifelong union between 2 consenting adults of the same
> gender. None of anything you've so far said in reply to me has any
> bearing whatsoever on that type of relationship. Here you're talking
> only about lust & promiscuity, which are totally different issues.
>
Any couple no matter of their gender, who are in a relationship, engage in
sex of some kind and therefore increase lust, whether for themselves or for
others because of the influence of the spiritual realm. SEX IS LUST, no
matter who the partners are. Lust is EVIL and sin.
cont
> Um, I'm curious as to how a dog counts as a "consenting adult." You're
> again talking about apples & oranges. Please address the actual subject
> being raised, not an entirely different subject.
The point is, anyone having sex, empowers lust demons to the surrounding
beings, whether human or animal. The subject is sex and sex is LUST,
consenting or otherwise.
cont
> Sorry, that I myself "like" lust & sex is not in evidence. And you have
> yet to establish that a loving, committed, & permanently monogamous
> lifelong union between 2 consenting adults of the same gender is even
> mildly "evil."
ALL SEX IS EVIL, and if you like evil, then you have a problem. The subject
is NOT committed relationships, because it is a given that committed
relationships engage in sex and sex is the problem. My point is, that man is
to seek, serve, obey and do the WILL OF GOD, not engage in their own earthly
wants and desires. Anything less that a committed, loving and servitude
relationship to GOD, IS EVIL.
cont
> > Like I said, all actions,
> > thoughts, beliefs etc on the earth affect others around them and to GOD,
> > what is evil is evil, and does NOT have degrees of depravation, and YOUR
> > concepts of what you think is mild or severe are NOT what truly is.
>
> Neither are yours, as a matter of fact.
As a matter of fact, my concepts ARE God's concepts.
cont
> That can indeed be so. How does this address a loving, committed, &
> permanently monogamous lifelong union between 2 consenting adults of the
> same gender? We all know that such a relationship, & also the analogous
> type of lifelong relationship between opposite genders, is usually not
> based primarily on any sort of "addiction" or "obsession" with sex. And
> using exactly your own argument, with no difference whatsoever, if such
> a relationship does NOT include such an "addiction" or "obsession," the
> "harmful" aspect of it is...what, exactly?
Man's ONLY purpose for being on the earth is to find his way back to His
Creator, to be redeemed, so he can return to heaven, to be with God. Nothing
else matters. If someone is committed to another HUMAN, than they cannot be
Committed to GOD, for they spend all of their time, pleasing their mates and
doing what pleases themselves and NOT GOD. Anything OUTSIDE of God is EVIL
and harmful, whether you realize it or not.
cont
> I can quite easily see how promiscuity might "empower" such "demons,"
> heterosexual promiscuity & homosexual promiscuity equally. I utterly
> fail to see how monogamy does any such thing, whether it is between the
> same gender or opposite genders. If I'm failing to see something
> obvious, please demonstrate exactly how monogamy between adults,
> regardless of gender, "is empowering LUST demons who are just as EVIL as
> murderous demons." To be even remotely convincing in your argument, you
> have to demonstrate how monogamy ITSELF does such a thing, & you
> furthermore have to demonstrate how monogamy ITSELF does such a thing
> either way, both between the same gender & between opposite genders
> equally. If you concentrate only on same-gender monogamy, you are not
> demonstrating how monogamy ITSELF encourages or empowers lust.
ALL SEX IS LUST, whether monogamous or not , whether gay or straight, and
empowers lust demons. How many relationships between two humans do not
engage in sex? And even if they do not, how many are dedicated and committed
to serving GOD? Monogamy doesn't empower anything, but the results of what
people do in monogamous or otherwise relationships with other humans usually
results in a sexual one, does it not? Choose, serve God or serve yourself,
your eternal fate depends on that choice.
--
Dore
"Rob Mitchell" <sorbus...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:sorbus_rowan-60D4...@individual.net...
Dore
news:2i7noeF...@uni-berlin.de...
> Thats in a boat, made of wood. The it defies every law of engineering
under
> ths sun. The mear size and materials used don't add up. This boat should
have
> broken in two had it existed.
You mean like the Titanic that was engineered to be unsinkable?
--
Dore
"Matty" <kaiw...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:2i7noeF...@uni-berlin.de...
Dore
> >How would YOU know whether Noah gathered animals two by two, where you
> >there?
>
> Um, it's NOT really a secret, Dore...
> Genesis 7
> 1 And the LORD said unto Noah, Come thou and all thy house into the ark;
for
> thee have I seen righteous before me in this generation.
> 2 Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and
his
> female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female.
> 3 Of fowls also of the air by sevens, the male and the female; to keep
seed
> alive upon the face of all the earth.
Ok, I said that wrong. What I meant was your inference to it being a fairy
tale, thus stating you weren't there to know what occurred to state that it
wasn't true.
cont
>
> It looks like a MINIMUM of two animals... Many were 7 of them... And
how
> did all these animals fit into a 400' long boat?
Do you know anything about animals and their being crossbred into various
breeds? He only had to take two or seven, as the case warranted, of the
source kinds and the evolution process of cross breeding takes place. You
are also forgetting the power of God, who can at any time, place a whole new
species on the planet at will.
cont
This is a description of YOU, Dore!!! You can't see how fitting that many
> animals on a small boat and living with them and feeding them for SIX
MONTHS
> cannot possibly be "'reality". Yet you claim the bible perfect.
>
God can DO anything. He created the WHOLE Universe. Gathering, keeping and
feeding a group of animals and people for a hundred years, on a small boat,
if he so desired, is a small feat for Him.
--
Dore
"RainLover" <SP-AMB-LOC...@raincity.com> wrote in message
news:o82pb0p90l9lrs5v9...@4ax.com...
Dore
> Gilgamesh, the Sumarians, and Mesopotamia existed long be Christianity or
the
> Christian God. The story of Noah is taken directly from Gilgamesh and the
> story of Jesus is also taken from Sumarian myth/religion.
First of all, ADAM and EVE, were the ancestors of Israel and were the FIRST
civilizations on the earth. Christianity came out of the Jews. Gilgamesh
took the story from Moses. And the story of Jesus was written by those who
KNEW me, or knew my apostles.
cont
>
> If the flood occured as you claim, why is it that MUCH older civilizations
> (I.E. the chinese and the egyptians) don't talk of this flood? Even
moreso...
> why did their civilizations apparently weather this global flood without
> mentioning it or being destroyed by it?
They are NOT older.
--
Dore
"RainLover" <SP-AMB-LOC...@raincity.com> wrote in message
news:4j2pb0tp027mt0m4k...@4ax.com...