About those Apparent "Condemnations" of Homosexuality in the Bible...
(¯`·.¸Craig Chilton¸.·´¯) -- Rx for RRR Cult's Loathsome Agendas: Extinction!
About those Apparent "Condemnations"
of Homosexuality in the Bible...
The Bible had several authors, and it IS likely that God
influenced/inspired some of what they wrote. More or less
like the Ultimate Muse, so to speak.
The Bible Codes pretty much PROVE that, because there's
no way any person could integrate those into their writing with-
out producing gibberish. AND, there's no way the writers could
have foreseen the FUTURE events that are foretold, both in
plain text. and in the Codes.
But God did NOT **author** the Bible. Such as by dictating
to them, verbatim, what they should write. And if we accept
that He's perfect, and thus can make no mistakes, we have
the PROOF of that. Since the Bible is chock-FULL of contra-
dictions and discrepancies. (Put "bible contradictions" into
Google and see what happens!)
Thus, it is EASY to see that the FEW (which do *not*
include the Ten Commandments) places in the Bible that are
condemnatory of homosexuality could very LIKELY be expres-
sions by some of those human writers who may have been
just as hateful and bigoted as are today's homophobes, simply
venting their personal opinions.
-- Craig Chilton
xana...@mchsi.com -- To E-Mail me.
http://www.roadrat.com -- Learn how to get PAID to TRAVEL.
http://apifar.blogspot.com -- Great TACTICS to Fight Bigotry.
http://pro-christian.blogspot.com -- Christianity *vs.* Bigotry.
lsen...@hotmail.com
Loathsome Agendas: Extinction!" <xan...@mchsi.com> wrote:
> About those Apparent "Condemnations"
> of Homosexuality in the Bible...
>
> The Bible had several authors, and it IS likely that God
> influenced/inspired some of what they wrote. More or less
> like the Ultimate Muse, so to speak.
>
> The Bible Codes pretty much PROVE that, because there's
> no way any person could integrate those into their writing with-
> out producing gibberish. AND, there's no way the writers could
> have foreseen the FUTURE events that are foretold, both in
> plain text. and in the Codes.
>
> But God did NOT **author** the Bible. Such as by dictating
> to them, verbatim, what they should write. And if we accept
> that He's perfect, and thus can make no mistakes, we have
> the PROOF of that. Since the Bible is chock-FULL of contra-
> dictions and discrepancies. (Put "bible contradictions" into
> Google and see what happens!)
>
> Thus, it is EASY to see that the FEW (which do *not*
> include the Ten Commandments) places in the Bible that are
> condemnatory of homosexuality could very LIKELY be expres-
> sions by some of those human writers who may have been
> just as hateful and bigoted as are today's homophobes, simply
> venting their personal opinions.
>
Jamffer
"(¯`·.¸Craig Chilton¸.·´¯) -- Rx for RRR Cult's Loathsome Agendas:
news:2bgn64hphj3urr5tv...@4ax.com...
>
> About those Apparent "Condemnations"
> of Homosexuality in the Bible...
>
> The Bible had several authors, and it IS likely that God
> influenced/inspired some of what they wrote. More or less
> like the Ultimate Muse, so to speak.
>
> The Bible Codes pretty much PROVE that, because there's
> no way any person could integrate those into their writing with-
> out producing gibberish. AND, there's no way the writers could
> have foreseen the FUTURE events that are foretold, both in
> plain text. and in the Codes.
>
> But God did NOT **author** the Bible. Such as by dictating
> to them, verbatim, what they should write. And if we accept
> that He's perfect, and thus can make no mistakes, we have
> the PROOF of that. Since the Bible is chock-FULL of contra-
> dictions and discrepancies. (Put "bible contradictions" into
> Google and see what happens!)
>
> Thus, it is EASY to see that the FEW (which do *not*
> include the Ten Commandments) places in the Bible that are
> condemnatory of homosexuality could very LIKELY be expres-
> sions by some of those human writers who may have been
> just as hateful and bigoted as are today's homophobes, simply
> venting their personal opinions.
Don't ask, don't tell, (see no evil, hear no evil and speak no evil) also,
don't walk like you have a pine cone up your butt.
If you are a child molester or a same sex fairy, don't advertise and
heterosexuals will accept you.
(¯`·.¸Craig Chilton¸.·´¯) -- Rx for RRR Cult's Loathsome Agendas: Extinction!
Dream on yourself. Such is the delusion bred of ignorance.
(¯`·.¸Craig Chilton¸.·´¯) -- Rx for RRR Cult's Loathsome Agendas: Extinction!
"Jamffer" <jam...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "(¯`·.¸Craig Chilton¸.·´¯) -- Rx for RRR Cult's Loathsome Agendas:
>> About those Apparent "Condemnations"
>> of Homosexuality in the Bible...
>>
>> The Bible had several authors, and it IS likely that God
>> influenced/inspired some of what they wrote. More or less
>> like the Ultimate Muse, so to speak.
>>
>> The Bible Codes pretty much PROVE that, because there's
>> no way any person could integrate those into their writing with-
>> out producing gibberish. AND, there's no way the writers could
>> have foreseen the FUTURE events that are foretold, both in
>> plain text. and in the Codes.
>>
>> But God did NOT **author** the Bible. Such as by dictating
>> to them, verbatim, what they should write. And if we accept
>> that He's perfect, and thus can make no mistakes, we have
>> the PROOF of that. Since the Bible is chock-FULL of contra-
>> dictions and discrepancies. (Put "bible contradictions" into
>> Google and see what happens!)
>>
>> Thus, it is EASY to see that the FEW (which do *not*
>> include the Ten Commandments) places in the Bible that are
>> condemnatory of homosexuality could very LIKELY be expres-
>> sions by some of those human writers who may have been
>> just as hateful and bigoted as are today's homophobes, simply
>> venting their personal opinions.
> If you are [gay], don't advertise and heterosexuals will
> accept you.
As a *straight* ALLY of the Gay Community in its reasonable
and fair quest to achieve across-the-board EQUAL rights, I deplore the
notion that any person would have to keep such a TRIVIALITY as their
sexual orientation in the closet. ANY more than anyone should need to
hide lefthandedness, blue eyes, or any OTHER such trivial variation of
NORMALCY.
Jesus said the poor would always be with us. I hope He wasn't
including people who are poor in terms of not having the intelligence
NOT to be bigots.
Jamffer
"(¯`·.¸Craig Chilton¸.·´¯) -- Rx for RRR Cult's Loathsome Agendas:
news:mitn64tt4aluavqat...@4ax.com...
I don't care if you use the (missionary) position or butt hump, your
personal sexual activity should be kept just that, (personal). Maybe you'd
like to know how many cheerleaders come over on Friday night?
Nah, that goes without saying. Sex is a private activity, keep it private.
lsen...@hotmail.com
Loathsome Agendas: Extinction!" <xan...@mchsi.com> wrote:
> > dream on! Such is the deceit of sin.
>
> Dream on yourself. Such is the delusion bred of ignorance.
>
I take no delight in your blindness. Also, you presume that I am
unstudied in the biblical address of this issue. Well, you are
wrong. Go to SRC and look up such threads as:
Source of Arsenokoitai
OT Apocrypha & Pseudepigrapha
Homosexuality/OT
Homosexuality/NT
Romans 1:24-32
Gen 6 & Jude-Procreation
Our discussions date as far back as 1992. I've written on the
revisionist homosexual theologians such as D.S. Bailey's,
"Homosexuality and the Western Christian Tradition" and
J. Boswell's, "Christianity, Social Tolerance and Homosexuality"
and R. Scroggs, "The NT and Homosexuality" all being
soundly rebuffed as revisionist. Their scholarship does
stand the test of historic/cultural linguistic investigation.
God does not play a kernel and husk game with His
revealed will. The fraud comes from the nature of sin
itself. We are blind to God and His will because of
sin. And beyond that, Satan steals away the Truth
from his slaves.
I ask no one to believe me. I merely ask that one
humbly bows to God and with all the humility and
sincerity he can muster, ask for true enlightenment
.... no matter what the cost. Obedience is better than
sacrifice.
lsen...@hotmail.com
Why? You incorrectly presume that a life style choice is the
equivalent of race or gender. It is not. No one affords the
murderer the same rights as the non-murderer. The murderer
made a choice to kill. And beyond that, the scriptures
distinguish between adulterers and non-adulterers as well.
The will of God in these area's in not hidden. Rather it is the
will of man, as Lot's wife's, to chose to continue to desire
the things of the flesh instead of obeying His command.
What did John say in 1 Jn about the commands of God?
> I deplore the
> notion that any person would have to keep such a TRIVIALITY as their
> sexual orientation in the closet.
And how about child molestation? Your paradigm does not
remain consistent to itself. Nor does society agree with you.
> ANY more than anyone should need to
> hide lefthandedness, blue eyes, or any OTHER such trivial variation of
> NORMALCY.
>
Again, you confuse that which is progenerated to that which is chosen.
AND don't give me this, "But I didn't chose to homosexual." That is
not
the point. To be truly born again means that there will be a
resultant
sanctification. No evidence of sanctification, no regeneration. No
regeneration- well you're still headed to hell. Sanctification is a
process
wherein the regenerate choses to be holy. Justification is by the
grace of God. Sanctification is a personal decision to live by the
power of that grace in choosing to live a new life unto Christ, not
to self and its self gratifications. Easy? No. No one should ever
allude to that. It is a constant struggle, a war between the flesh
and
the Spirit. Perfectionism in this life cannot be attained. HOWEVER,
significant progress is expected so that we would not draw back
ashamed at Christ's return for His bride.
>
> Jesus said the poor would always be with us. I hope He wasn't
> including people who are poor in terms of not having the intelligence
> NOT to be bigots.
>
Poor in spirit, i.e. humble even as Christ humbled Himself all the way
to the cross. We must not cling to our lives as we would live them.
We must set ourselves apart unto godliness. Those who so quickly
cast stones have a very poor view of their own sins. Yet that said,
two wrongs can never make a right. I am a sinner. I still have my
battles. The bible never states that we will be free from this battle
in this life time. In fact, it encourages by the fact that we have
an Advocate who too knew of temptation. When we sin, we are to
confess that sin as sin and as rebellion and then set our minds
on Christ with a Spirit led determination not to do it again.
"Bad company corrupts good morals." If you have homosexual
tendencies, then don't surround yourself with homosexuals. If
you have problems with internet pornography, then either stop
your internet service or put you computer in the middle of the
family living room and promise your wife that you will never
log on without her presence. We are to flee from temptation,
not surround ourselves with and then say, "Oh well!" We forget
to Whom we have to give an answer to.
(¯`·.¸Craig Chilton¸.·´¯) -- Rx for RRR Cult's Loathsome Agendas: Extinction!
> "(¯`·.¸Craig Chilton¸.·´¯) -- Rx for RRR Cult's Loathsome Agendas:
> Extinction!" <xan...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>> "Jamffer" <jam...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> I don't care [how you have sex], your personal sexual activity should
> be kept just that, (personal). Sex is a private activity, keep it private.
Just like us straights, most gays DO.
And HOW and WITH WHOM people choose to enjoy sex is the
only significant aspect of people's sexual orientation. Otherwise,
gays and straights are alike in every way.
It's incomprehensible to me how ANYONE can be stupid enough
to seek to discriminate against people over the TRIVIALITY of their
sexual orientation. That would be every bit as STUPID as it would be
for right-handed people to discriminate against lefties.
It takes PROFOUND ignorance to be a homophobe.
(¯`·.¸Craig Chilton¸.·´¯) -- Rx for RRR Cult's Loathsome Agendas: Extinction!
lsen...@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Jul 2, 4:49 pm, "(¯`·.¸Craig Chilton¸.·´¯) -- Rx for RRR Cult's
> Loathsome Agendas: Extinction!" <xan...@mchsi.com> wrote:
(1) A person'e sexual orientation has NOTHING to do
a lifestyle choice. JUST as straights don't wake up some
morning deciding to be attracted to people of the opposite
sex, NEITHER do gays awaken one day and decide to be
attracted to people of the same sex. So there's NO
"choice" involved. If you want to call being attracted to
one gender or other a "lifestyle," fine. But it really
isn't that at all. Everyone does that which is NATURAL
for them to do.
(2) If a person FORCES him/herself to APPEAR to society
to be heterosexual when he/she is not because they
aware that society is still infested with supremely-
ignorant bigots... THAT would be a choice. One that
NO one should *ever* feel compelled to make.
<INANE analogy flushed>
> The scriptures distinguish between adulterers and non-adulter
> ers as well.
Apples-and-oanges.
> The will of God in these areas in not hidden. Rather it is the
> will of man, as Lot's wife's, to chose to continue to desire
> the things of the flesh instead of obeying His command.
Whatever the will of God may or may not be, what makes you
think He's appointing you or anyone else to act as His GESTAPO?
> What did John say in 1 Jn about the commands of God?
Suggest you check out 1 Cor 5:12-13. Only CHURCH discipline,
within congregations of Christians, is authorized. Seeking to ENFORCE
Biblic precepts (either real, or worse, misperceived) against society
in general -- is Biblically FORBIDDEN!
>> I deplore the notion that any person would have to keep such
>> a TRIVIALITY as their sexual orientation in the closet.
> And how about child molestation?
Apples-and-oranges. ALL sexually-oriented segments of society
contain child molestors. You might just as sensibly ask, "How about
enjoying riding roller coasters?"
>> ANY more than anyone should need to hide lefthandedness,
>> blue eyes, or any OTHER such trivial variation of NORMALCY.
<Already-answered point flushed. Redundant.>
> To be truly born again means that there will be a resultant
> sanctification. No evidence of sanctification, no regeneration. No
> regeneration- well you're still headed to hell. Sanctification is a
> process wherein the regenerate choses to be holy. Justification
> is by the grace of God. Sanctification is a personal decision to live
> by the power of that grace in choosing to live a new life unto Christ,
> not to self and its self gratifications. Easy? No. No one should ever
> allude to that. It is a constant struggle, a war between the flesh
> and the Spirit. Perfectionism in this life cannot be attained. HOWEVER,
> significant progress is expected so that we would not draw back
> ashamed at Christ's return for His bride.
I let that long rant stand without snipping for brevity, but now
here's something for you to chew on:
(1) Sexual orientation/homosexuality isn't even mentioned in
the Ten Commandments. But LYING **is**. And EVERY-
BODY lies! So see THIS passage about THAT: Rev. 21:8.
(2) Homosexuals are in NO worse shape, from the standpoint
of the next life, than are fortune tellers, mediums, people
who play with Tarot Cards, people who wear mixed fabrics,
people who eat shrimp and lobster -- and liars. So all this
emphasis on being hateful and bigoted toward gays is not
just LUDICROUS; it *also* is the epitome of HYPOCRISY.
>> Jesus said the poor would always be with us. I hope He wasn't
>> including people who are poor in terms of not having the intelligence
>> NOT to be bigots.
> Poor in spirit, i.e. humble even as Christ humbled Himself all the way
> to the cross. We must not cling to our lives as we would live them.
> We must set ourselves apart unto godliness. Those who so quickly
> cast stones have a very poor view of their own sins. Yet that said,
> two wrongs can never make a right. I am a sinner. I still have my
> battles. The Bible never states that we will be free from this battle
> in this life time. In fact, it encourages by the fact that we have
> an Advocate who too knew of temptation. When we sin, we are to
> confess that sin as sin and as rebellion and then set our minds
> on Christ with a Spirit led determination not to do it again.
Well and good. And while doing so, REMEMBER 2 Cor. 5:12-13.
> "Bad company corrupts good morals." If you have homosexual
> tendencies, then don't surround yourself with homosexuals. If
> you have problems with internet pornography, then either stop
> your internet service or put you computer in the middle of the
> family living room and promise your wife that you will never
> log on without her presence. We are to flee from temptation,
> not surround ourselves with and then say, "Oh well!" We forget
> to Whom we have to give an answer to.
Ah. That nonsensical "accountability partner" baloney. I laugh
every time I hear that. Like ANY *sensible* person would do any
such things. LOL!!
Jamffer
"(¯`·.¸Craig Chilton¸.·´¯) -- Rx for RRR Cult's Loathsome Agendas:
news:aq2o64pc20rhhgc51...@4ax.com...
I'm all for freedom. To do what we want with our lives, it's our decision
to shape our forever into whatever we strive it to be. To have life more
abundantly and to love our neighbor. Marriage is a man made concept and was
invented mostly for having children. As far as gay people, I get along
with some of them with no problem.
I think that being committed whether married or not is the real (marriage)
and the law only protects the rights of the spouse.
I could not care less whether gays want to commit to each other or not. It
might affect any adopted children a bit because most heterosexuals don't
understand being gay and most never will.
(¯`·.¸Craig Chilton¸.·´¯) -- Rx for RRR Cult's Loathsome Agendas: Extinction!
lsen...@hotmail.com wrote:
> "(¯`·.¸Craig Chilton¸.·´¯) -- Rx for RRR Cult's Loathsome
> Agendas: Extinction!" <xan...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>>> Craig Chilton <xan...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>>>> About those Apparent "Condemnations"
>>>> of Homosexuality in the Bible...
>>>>
>>>> The Bible had several authors, and it IS likely that God
>>>> influenced/inspired some of what they wrote. More or less
>>>> like the Ultimate Muse, so to speak.
>>>>
>>>> The Bible Codes pretty much PROVE that, because there's
>>>> no way any person could integrate those into their writing with-
>>>> out producing gibberish. AND, there's no way the writers could
>>>> have foreseen the FUTURE events that are foretold, both in
>>>> plain text. and in the Codes.
>>>>
>>>> But God did NOT **author** the Bible. Such as by dictating
>>>> to them, verbatim, what they should write. And if we accept
>>>> that He's perfect, and thus can make no mistakes, we have
>>>> the PROOF of that. Since the Bible is chock-FULL of contra-
>>>> dictions and discrepancies. (Put "bible contradictions" into
>>>> Google and see what happens!)
>>>>
>>>> Thus, it is EASY to see that the FEW (which do *not*
>>>> include the Ten Commandments) places in the Bible that are
>>>> condemnatory of homosexuality could very LIKELY be expres-
>>>> sions by some of those human writers who may have been
>>>> just as hateful and bigoted as are today's homophobes, simply
>>>> venting their personal opinions.
>>> Dream on! Such is the deceit of sin.
>> Dream on yourself. Such is the delusion bred of ignorance.
> I take no delight in your blindness. Also, you presume that I am
> unstudied in the biblical address of this issue.
Wrong. A person can be very learbed in some areas of
a topic/discipline, and be ignorant as hell in others. You just
indicated the possibility of the latter, in your case.
> Well, you are
> wrong. Go to SRC and look up such threads as:
>
> Source of Arsenokoitai
> OT Apocrypha & Pseudepigrapha
> Homosexuality/OT
> Homosexuality/NT
> Romans 1:24-32
> Gen 6 & Jude-Procreation
>
> Our discussions date as far back as 1992.
Not *OUR* discussions, even if you used a different alias
back then. Since I've only been in Usenet since 1994.
> I've written on the ... homosexual theologians such as D.S. Bailey's,
> "Homosexuality and the Western Christian Tradition" and J. Boswell's,
> "Christianity, Social Tolerance and Homosexuality." and R. Scroggs,'
> "The NT and Homosexuality" all being soundly rebuffed as revisionist.
"Revisionist" in your opinion.
> Their scholarship does stand the test of historic/cultural
> linguistic investigation.
>
> God does not play a kernel and husk game with His
> revealed will. The fraud comes from the nature of sin
> itself. We are blind to God and His will because of
> sin. And beyond that, Satan steals away the Truth
> from his slaves.
Have you considered the very real possibility that Satan
is allegorical, just as Jesus' parables were allegorical? People
are QUITE able to conjure up evil and falsehoods, all by
themselves.
> I ask no one to believe me. I merely ask that one
> humbly bows to God and with all the humility and
> sincerity he can muster, ask for true enlightenment
> .... no matter what the cost. Obedience is better than
> sacrifice.
And at bottom, it is every individual's choice, and every
individual's own business.
(¯`·.¸Craig Chilton¸.·´¯) -- Rx for RRR Cult's Loathsome Agendas: Extinction!
"Jamffer" <jam...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "(¯`·.¸Craig Chilton¸.·´¯) -- Rx for RRR Cult's Loathsome
>> Just like us straights, most gays DO.
>>
>> And HOW and WITH WHOM people choose to enjoy sex is the
>> only significant aspect of people's sexual orientation. Otherwise,
>> gays and straights are alike in every way.
>>
>> It's incomprehensible to me how ANYONE can be stupid enough
>> to seek to discriminate against people over the TRIVIALITY of their
>> sexual orientation. That would be every bit as STUPID as it would be
>> for right-handed people to discriminate against lefties.
>>
>> It takes PROFOUND ignorance to be a homophobe.
> I'm all for freedom. To do what we want with our lives, it's our decision
> to shape our forever into whatever we strive it to be. To have life more
> abundantly and to love our neighbor. Marriage is a man made concept and
> was invented mostly for having children. As far as gay people, I get along
> with some of them with no problem.
Good!
> I think that being committed whether married or not is the real (marriage)
> and the law only protects the rights of the spouse.
>
> I could not care less whether gays want to commit to each other or not.
> It might affect any adopted children a bit because most heterosexuals don't
> understand being gay and most never will.
The ones who grow up with same-sex parents will probably understand
it FAR more than most heterosexuals. And, of course, thereby be shaking
their heads in amazement at the ignorance of the homophobes.
Gabriel
: (2) Homosexuals are in NO worse shape, from the standpoint
: of the next life, than are fortune tellers, mediums, people
: who play with Tarot Cards, people who wear mixed fabrics,
: people who eat shrimp and lobster -- and liars. So all this
: emphasis on being hateful and bigoted toward gays is not
: just LUDICROUS; it *also* is the epitome of HYPOCRISY.
Actually it's not. A person who says they are a homosexual is
saying "I will live in this sin every day and I don't care what
God says about it". That's *unrepentant* sin - another matter
entirely from someone who tells a lie but then confesses it,
determined to not do it again, and so on - such a person who
confesses it is showing repentance and a resolve to stop living
that way.
People who tell an occasional lie don't go around saying "I'm
going to lie every single day no matter what and I don't care
what God says about it". They might tell a lie, but then confess
that sin to God and hope to be better at not doing it again.
That's the behavior of a child of God. But if they did act like
"I'm going to lie every single day no matter what and I don't
care what God says about it", they'd be in the same boat as those
who claim they will live in homosexual activity and also not care
what God says about it: not really a child of God, living as a
clear slave to sin, and unrepentant.
Jesus said:
Luke 13:3 KJVR I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall
all likewise perish.
That's what those who practice homosexual activity do: they are
clearly saying "I'm going to live in sin this way every single
day and I don't care what God says about it." They are clearly
unrepentant, having rationalized their sin as being "good".
Unfortunately, they will wish they had chosen otherwise when they
face Jesus Christ on judgment day if they never come out of being
such a clear slave to sin.
Leviticus 20:13 KJVR
13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman,
both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be
put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
Romans 1:26-28 KJVR
26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for
even their women did change the natural use into that which is
against nature:
27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the
woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men
working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that
recompense of their error which was meet.
28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their
knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those
things which are not convenient;
Romans 1:32 KJVR
32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such
things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have
pleasure in them that do them.
1 John 2:3-4 KJVR
3 And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his
commandments.
4 He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments,
is a liar, and the truth is not in him.
Matthew 7:21-23 KJVR
21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter
into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my
Father which is in heaven.
22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not
prophesied in thy name and in thy name have cast out devils? and
in thy name done many wonderful works?
23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart
from me, ye that work iniquity.
I only speak the truth of God's word, even though it's something
you do not want to hear. I'm not going to change God's word to
make people "happy" in this life, teaching false doctrines of
God, only to have their blood on my hands when they end up in
hell because as God word shows, such unrepentant sinners really
don't know God yet at all and are still headed straight for hell.
:-(
Ignore God's word at your own risk. Teach others to also ignore
God's word at further risk to yourself - God will not be mocked,
no matter how clever a spin you put on trying to convince
everyone else what God says. You want to live in homosexual sin?
Or encouraging such sin? Murder babies because they are young
enough? Encourage others to murder their children because they
are young enough? **God** is the one you're going to have to
convince He is actually completely ok with what His Word clearly
says is an utter abomination to Him, and what is really murder to
Him.
Galatians 6:7-8 KJVR
7 Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man
soweth, that shall he also reap.
8 For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap
corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit
reap life everlasting.
So don't think you need to convince me of anything - it is clear
what the truth of God's word says. You of course are going to
either choose to obey God, or reject what God says. And when you
face Jesus Christ on your day of judgment, you'll get your chance
to convince Him of what *He* really meant when *He* literally
said the things that contradict what you claim.
I hope the seriousness of it wakes you up to the truth of God,
and obeying Him, rather than obeying the wisdom of unsaved men
who do not know God. If not, then we disagree and I choose to
follow what God's word says - in the end it will be between you
and God. But at least you heard the truth of God's word and had a
chance to come to the right decision, which I hope you one day
do.
Ray Fischer
>: (2) Homosexuals are in NO worse shape, from the standpoint
>: of the next life, than are fortune tellers, mediums, people
>: who play with Tarot Cards, people who wear mixed fabrics,
>: people who eat shrimp and lobster -- and liars. So all this
>: emphasis on being hateful and bigoted toward gays is not
>: just LUDICROUS; it *also* is the epitome of HYPOCRISY.
>
>Actually it's not. A person who says they are a homosexual is
>saying "I will live in this sin every day and I don't care what
>God says about it".
No, they're not. They're rejecting your cult of hate in entirety.
There is no rejection of God because you're not God and a rejection
of you and your cult is not a rejection of God.
[...]
>Leviticus 20:13 KJVR
If you'd read the last sentence of Leviticus then you'd know better
than to cite anything from that book. Obviously you're just parroting
the hate you get from others.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
No One
> On Wed, 02 Jul 2008 23:47:05 GMT, "(¯`·.¸Craig Chilton¸.·´¯) --
> Rx for RRR Cult's Loathsome Agendas: Extinction!"
> <xan...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>
> : (2) Homosexuals are in NO worse shape, from the standpoint
> : of the next life, than are fortune tellers, mediums, people
> : who play with Tarot Cards, people who wear mixed fabrics,
> : people who eat shrimp and lobster -- and liars. So all this
> : emphasis on being hateful and bigoted toward gays is not
> : just LUDICROUS; it *also* is the epitome of HYPOCRISY.
>
> Actually it's not. A person who says they are a homosexual is
> saying "I will live in this sin every day and I don't care what
> God says about it". That's *unrepentant* sin - another matter
> entirely from someone who tells a lie but then confesses it,
> determined to not do it again, and so on - such a person who
> confesses it is showing repentance and a resolve to stop living
> that way.
Nope. Any such "sin" is a figment of your imagination. In fact,
you sound like the scribes and pharisees that Jesus seemed to
particularly dislike. :-)
> Luke 13:3 KJVR
(nothing about homosexuality)
> Leviticus 20:13 KJVR
> 13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman,
> both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be
> put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
(rules for the tribe - the last sentence in Leviticus indicates
that these are rules for the ancient "Israelites")
> Romans 1:26-28 KJVR
(Paul's hangups on sex, where he thought same-sex attractions were
a punishment for something else)
> Romans 1:32 KJVR
(nothing about homosexuality)
> 1 John 2:3-4 KJVR
(nothing about homosexuality)
> Matthew 7:21-23 KJVR
(nothing about homosexuality)
> Galatians 6:7-8 KJVR
(nothing about homosexuality)
You might add Matthew 23:23-24:
Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay
tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the
weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith:
these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other
undone. Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a
camel.
Lots of "woe" for the rabid preacher types who can't see the forest
for the trees, but that just might hit a bit too close to home. :-)
juanjo
> I ask no one to believe me.
Good because I don't. There are no gods or goddesses but if it
comforts you to believe in such, be my guest. If according to your
"religion" certain foods are taboo or certain sexual or cloth
combinations are taboo, then you should not indulge. But I do not
subscribe to your superstitions and do not intend to conform my
behaviour to them. As for the Bible, I have read it. I also have the
benefit of a classic education so I can read Hebrew and Greek. I have
seen the linguistic gymnastics by which certain groups redefine
concepts to mean something they do not. There is nothing in the Bible
which refers to homosexuality as that term is presently defined. I am
equally aware that the Levitical Code is NOT a Chinese menu from which
one may select which parts of the purity code one may follow or
ignore, either you follow it all or not at all. And indeed a
Christian following any of it is absurd under the dictates of that
religion.
What I have seen consistently is a group of so-called Christians
violating the very biblical injunctions under which they are supposed
to comport their behaviour in that they are so arrogant as to presume
they can judge others and determine which people will burn in hell or
not. I have seen them lie or present the lies of others as if they
were truth. Indeed were their saviour to return I strongly suspect
that he would turn away from them and order them to depart his company
for being the moral equivalent of the hypocritical pharisees that he
condemned in his lifetime.
No One
> On Jul 2, 3:09 pm, lsend...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > I ask no one to believe me.
>
> Good because I don't. There are no gods or goddesses but if it
> comforts you to believe in such, be my guest. If according to your
> "religion" certain foods are taboo or certain sexual or cloth
> combinations are taboo, then you should not indulge.
Also (see <http://www.ncf.ca/ip/sigs/life/gay/religion/homrelorg>) the
kings of conquered tribes were sometimes raped as a way of humiliating
them, so rulers who might see themselves on the losing end of a battle
might not like the practice. Meanwhile, the pagans let their bottoms
serve as temple prostitutes, ostensibly as part of a fertility cult
(see
<http://books.google.com/books?id=BWmBUBre55QC&pg=PA160&lpg=PA160&dq=%22middle+east%22++%22temple+prostitutes%22&source=web&ots=UmIGSo0qXW&sig=kJczYwh1VR7us_VMDgCRPA3KY9s&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=8&ct=result>). A
cynic might claim that in reality it was an excuse so they'd be able
to get lots of sex.
Given the historical setting and the need for the Israeli tribes to
form an identity distinct from their neighbors, the ban is hardly
suprising. What is surprising is that people would actually take
it seriously today.
(¯`·.¸Craig Chilton¸.·´¯) -- Rx for RRR Cult's Loathsome Agendas: Extinction!
Gabriel <gabriel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "(¯`·.¸Craig Chilton¸.·´¯) -- Rx for RRR Cult's Loathsome
> Agendas: Extinction!"<xan...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>> (1) A person'e sexual orientation has NOTHING to do
>> a lifestyle choice. JUST as straights don't wake up some
>> morning deciding to be attracted to people of the opposite
>> sex, NEITHER do gays awaken one day and decide to be
>> attracted to people of the same sex. So there's NO
>> "choice" involved. If you want to call being attracted to
>> one gender or other a "lifestyle," fine. But it really
>> isn't that at all. Everyone does that which is NATURAL
>> for them to do.
Nice to see that you left that UNcontended!
>> (2) Homosexuals are in NO worse shape, from the standpoint
>> of the next life, than are fortune tellers, mediums, people
>> who play with Tarot Cards, people who wear mixed fabrics,
>> people who eat shrimp and lobster -- and liars. So all this
>> emphasis on being hateful and bigoted toward gays is not
>> just LUDICROUS; it *also* is the epitome of HYPOCRISY.
> Actually it's not.
No - *actually*, it IS. For the very reasons stated.
> A person who says they are a homosexual is saying "I will
> live in this sin every day and I don't care what God says about it".
FIRST of all, most homosexuals don't regard their relationships
to be "living in sin" any more than most HETEROsexuals (*and*
homosexuals) consider the LIES they tell almost daily, "white" or
otherwise, to be "living in sin." (Interestingly, the Ten Command-
ments make NO mention of homosexuality, and sex between them,
unless one or the other or both parties happen to be married. But
LYING *is* prohibited by the Big Ten.
SECONDLY, whether or not a person is homosexual, or engages
in same-sex sex MAY be of interest to God (or not) -- but FOR SURE,
it it NONE of YOUR business. Nor that of any other busybodyish
control-freak.
(See 1 Cor. 5:12-13, NIV. God's business. NONE of yours.)
> That's *unrepentant* sin - another matter entirely from some-
> one who tells a lie but then confesses it, ...
ROTFL!!! *Most* people NEVER confess to having lied, unless
they are incontrovertably CAUGHT in it.
> ...determined to not do it again,....
See above. Getting CAUGHT in a lie is usually about the only
incentive people have not to repeat it.
> People who tell an occasional lie don't go around saying "I'm
> going to lie every single day no matter what and I don't care
> what God says about it".
You're right there. Even in the case of HABITUAL liars. Almost
NO one says that, or even cares about it.
> They might tell a lie, but then confess that sin to God and hope
> to be better at not doing it again.
"MIGHT" is the operative word, there, since I'll bet that almost
NO one goes through such a rigamarole. Most people have lives.
> That's the behavior of a child of God.
MORE like the behavior of a *child*, period. Who's had a guilt
trip laid upon them -- usually by a parent.
> Jesus said:
> Luke 13:3 KJVR I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall
> all likewise perish.
<Anti-Gay HATE-rant flushed>
It is NOTEWORTHY that ALL of the passages you cited in
the course of your WHININGS about homosexuality were
written by MEN. While it is very likely that SOME of their writings
were inspired, it ALSO is most assuredly true that not ALL of them
were, by any means. Or the Bible wouldn't be so chock-full of
clear-cut contradictions. (Put "Bible" and "contradictions" into a
Google search engine and see what you get.) There is no reason
to believe that the anti-homosexual comments by those writers
weren't written by people having the SAME mindless bigotries
that are harbored and spewed by TODAY's homophobes.
> Ignore God's word at your own risk. Teach others to also ignore
> God's word at further risk to yourself.
I always make it clear that people have the complete right to
make ANY decisions they want in their personal lives, and that
they can base those decisions on anything... or nothing. Including
what it says in the Bible... or not. As THEY choose. NO one else's
business.
> So don't think you need to convince me of anything...
RRR Cultists or SO brainwashed, FACT just *sail* right over
their tinfoil caps.
<Idiotic scare-tactics flushed>
<Tirade flushed. (Apparently he hasn't figured out yet that I'm
not gay. But the gays don't deserve being raved at, either.>
-- Craig Chilton
xana...@mchsi.com -- To E-Mail me.
http://www.roadrat.com -- Learn how to get PAID to TRAVEL.
http://apifar.blogspot.com -- Great TACTICS to Fight Bigotry.
http://pro-christian.blogspot.com -- Christianity *vs.* Bigotry.
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
Same-Sex Marriage Harms Opposite-Sex Marriage???
The tired argument that same-sex marriage some how diminishes
marriage is absurd, especially considering the contempt with which so
many mixed-sex couples treat it and have for generations.
juanjo <jonp...@mindspring.com>, 7-3-08
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
Jamffer
"(¯`·.¸Craig Chilton¸.·´¯) -- Rx for RRR Cult's Loathsome Agendas:
news:e92q64lia7f0kgn5k...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 03 Jul 2008 01:40:39 -0400,
> Gabriel <gabriel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > "(¯`·.¸Craig Chilton¸.·´¯) -- Rx for RRR Cult's Loathsome
> > Agendas: Extinction!"<xan...@mchsi.com> wrote:
> > A person who says they are a homosexual is saying "I will
> > live in this sin every day and I don't care what God says about it".
>
> FIRST of all, most homosexuals don't regard their relationships
> to be "living in sin" any more than most HETEROsexuals (*and*
> homosexuals) consider the LIES they tell almost daily, "white" or
> otherwise, to be "living in sin." (Interestingly, the Ten Command-
> ments make NO mention of homosexuality, and sex between them,
> unless one or the other or both parties happen to be married. But
> LYING *is* prohibited by the Big Ten.
>
> SECONDLY, whether or not a person is homosexual, or engages
> in same-sex sex MAY be of interest to God (or not) -- but FOR SURE,
> it it NONE of YOUR business. Nor that of any other busybodyish
> control-freak.
So.., the reason that you are making it other peoples business is
exactly....what?
> It is NOTEWORTHY that ALL of the passages you cited in
> the course of your WHININGS about homosexuality were
> written by MEN. While it is very likely that SOME of their writings
> were inspired, it ALSO is most assuredly true that not ALL of them
> were, by any means. Or the Bible wouldn't be so chock-full of
> clear-cut contradictions. (Put "Bible" and "contradictions" into a
> Google search engine and see what you get.) There is no reason
> to believe that the anti-homosexual comments by those writers
> weren't written by people having the SAME mindless bigotries
> that are harbored and spewed by TODAY's homophobes.
>
> > Ignore God's word at your own risk. Teach others to also ignore
> > God's word at further risk to yourself.
>
> I always make it clear that people have the complete right to
> make ANY decisions they want in their personal lives, and that
> they can base those decisions on anything... or nothing. Including
> what it says in the Bible... or not. As THEY choose. NO one else's
> business.
That is, unless some queer fixated moron tries to make it other peoples
business, like you have.
(¯`·.¸Craig Chilton¸.·´¯) -- Rx for RRR Cult's Loathsome Agendas: Extinction!
"Jamffer" <jam...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "(¯`·.¸Craig Chilton¸.·´¯) -- Rx for RRR Cult's Loathsome
> Agendas: Extinction!" <xan...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>> Gabriel <gabriel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> "(¯`·.¸Craig Chilton¸.·´¯) -- Rx for RRR Cult's Loathsome
>>> Agendas: Extinction!"<xan...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>>> A person who says they are a homosexual is saying "I will
>>> live in this sin every day and I don't care what God says about it".
>> FIRST of all, most homosexuals don't regard their relationships
>> to be "living in sin" any more than most HETEROsexuals (*and*
>> homosexuals) consider the LIES they tell almost daily, "white" or
>> otherwise, to be "living in sin." (Interestingly, the Ten Command-
>> ments make NO mention of homosexuality, and sex between them,
>> unless one or the other or both parties happen to be married. But
>> LYING *is* prohibited by the Big Ten.
>>
>> SECONDLY, whether or not a person is homosexual, or engages
>> in same-sex sex MAY be of interest to God (or not) -- but FOR SURE,
>> it it NONE of YOUR business. Nor that of any other busybodyish
>> control-freak.
> So.., the reason that you are making it other peoples business is
> exactly....what?
DEFENDING, and working to EXPAND personal liberties is the
right and responsible thing to do. NOTHING is more important than
liberty!
>> It is NOTEWORTHY that ALL of the passages you cited in
>> the course of your WHININGS about homosexuality were
>> written by MEN. While it is very likely that SOME of their writings
>> were inspired, it ALSO is most assuredly true that not ALL of them
>> were, by any means. Or the Bible wouldn't be so chock-full of
>> clear-cut contradictions. (Put "Bible" and "contradictions" into a
>> Google search engine and see what you get.) There is no reason
>> to believe that the anti-homosexual comments by those writers
>> weren't written by people having the SAME mindless bigotries
>> that are harbored and spewed by TODAY's homophobes.
>>> Ignore God's word at your own risk. Teach others to also ignore
>>> God's word at further risk to yourself.
>> I always make it clear that people have the complete right to
>> make ANY decisions they want in their personal lives, and that
>> they can base those decisions on anything... or nothing. Including
>> what it says in the Bible... or not. As THEY choose. NO one else's
>> business.
<stupidity-flush>
Gabriel
wrote:
: Gabriel <gabriel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
:
: >: (2) Homosexuals are in NO worse shape, from the standpoint
: >: of the next life, than are fortune tellers, mediums, people
: >: who play with Tarot Cards, people who wear mixed fabrics,
: >: people who eat shrimp and lobster -- and liars. So all this
: >: emphasis on being hateful and bigoted toward gays is not
: >: just LUDICROUS; it *also* is the epitome of HYPOCRISY.
: >
: >Actually it's not. A person who says they are a homosexual is
: >saying "I will live in this sin every day and I don't care what
: >God says about it".
:
: No, they're not. They're rejecting your cult of hate in entirety.
It's not me or anyone else you have to convince - It's God you're
going to have to convince that He didn't really mean what He said
in numerous places throughout both the old and the New Testaments
- that you have taken it upon your own authority to dismiss all
the parts of God's Word you do not want to obey.
Keep in mind what you're doing here is what many others do to
reject other parts they don't want to obey: pretend it's not
really in God's word, or that particular book of the Bible is to
be ignored, and so on.
Proverbs 16:25 KJVR
25 There is a way that seemeth right unto a man, but the end
thereof are the ways of death.
: There is no rejection of God
Actually it is - you're rejecting God's word. When you face
Jesus, you can tell him you rejected *His* "cult of hate"
: because you're not God and a rejection
: of you and your cult is not a rejection of God.
You're right I'm not God. In fact I am nothing - just another
sinner that needed the grace of God and the shed blood of Jesus
Christ. It's not what I say you're rejecting: it's what God says
that you're rejecting. You've been shown the numerous verses, and
you have shown that for now you're going to ignore what God
clearly says on the matter. I'm merely pointing out the truth of
how clear God's word is on this matter throughout the entire
Bible.
:
: [...]
: >Leviticus 20:13 KJVR
:
: If you'd read the last sentence of Leviticus then you'd know better
: than to cite anything from that book.
So again, you're offering your own authority that a book of God's
Word can be entirely ignored.
I've quoted you verses from all over God's Word. It's not just
Leviticus that states the same thing.
: Obviously you're just parroting
: the hate you get from others.
No, love starts from sharing the truth. If I were to lie to you
and say "God loves homosexual activity" when I believe God says
otherwise, I'd now be setting you up and clearly not showing any
genuine care for you at all. It's by telling the truth that I'm
showing Christian love for other possible brothers and sisters in
Christ. If I did not care for you, I'd remain silent or say
"you're probably right", contributing to you dying in your
*unrepentant* sins.
Gabriel
wrote:
: Gabriel <gabriel...@hotmail.com> writes:
:
: > On Wed, 02 Jul 2008 23:47:05 GMT, "(¯`·.¸Craig Chilton¸.·´¯) --
: > Rx for RRR Cult's Loathsome Agendas: Extinction!"
: > <xan...@mchsi.com> wrote:
: >
: > : (2) Homosexuals are in NO worse shape, from the standpoint
: > : of the next life, than are fortune tellers, mediums, people
: > : who play with Tarot Cards, people who wear mixed fabrics,
: > : people who eat shrimp and lobster -- and liars. So all this
: > : emphasis on being hateful and bigoted toward gays is not
: > : just LUDICROUS; it *also* is the epitome of HYPOCRISY.
: >
: > Actually it's not. A person who says they are a homosexual is
: > saying "I will live in this sin every day and I don't care what
: > God says about it". That's *unrepentant* sin - another matter
: > entirely from someone who tells a lie but then confesses it,
: > determined to not do it again, and so on - such a person who
: > confesses it is showing repentance and a resolve to stop living
: > that way.
:
: Nope. Any such "sin" is a figment of your imagination. In fact,
: you sound like the scribes and pharisees that Jesus seemed to
: particularly dislike. :-)
The scribes and Pharisees made up things that were not in God's
word. I've shown you numerous verses in God's Word, in several
books, that clearly show God finds homosexual activity an
abomination. You deleted them and ignore them.
You don't need to try convincing me - God's word is clear on this
matter, and I'm personally not going to dismiss it. It's when you
face Christ that you'll have to convince Him that He didn't
really mean any of it in the numerous times He said it in His
Word. In the meantime, many are going to obey God's word and not
join you or encourage you in your unrepentant sin, but rather
point you to the truth and hope you come to the truth of God.
Matthew 18:8-9 KJVR
8 Wherefore if thy hand or thy foot offend thee, cut them off,
and cast them from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life
halt or maimed, rather than having two hands or two feet to be
cast into everlasting fire.
9 And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from
thee: it is better for thee to enter into life with one eye,
rather than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire.
Jesus told us we'd be better off without one of our eyes or
maimed if that meant we would avoid hell in doing so. By
comparison you're intent on holding onto mere unnatural sexual
affections that God clearly points out to be an abomination and
risk eternal damnation hoping He didn't mean what He said in
numerous places throughout His Word (when we know God means what
He says).
RamRod Sword of Baal
<lsen...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:cc7ffd73-06b3-43c9...@b1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
Oh you mean like those who quote Leviticus saying homosexual sex is a sin,
but eat oysters, and wear clothes made of different cloths etc and say that
is not a sin.
It sure sounds like deciet to me.
(¯`·.¸Craig Chilton¸.·´¯) -- Rx for RRR Cult's Loathsome Agendas: Extinction!
GEE!!! I wonder why?? Just *might* be that he realizes the same
thing that I and countless other people have come to realize. That
it is NOTEWORTHY that ALL of the passages that homophobes cite in
the course of their WHININGS about homosexuality were written by
MEN. While it is very likely that SOME of the writings of those men
*were* Divinely- inspired, it ALSO is most assuredly true that not ALL
of them were, by any means. Or the Bible wouldn't be so chock-full
of clear-cut contradictions. (Put "Bible" and "contradictions" into a
Google search engine and see what you get.) There is no reason to
believe that the anti-homosexual comments by those writers weren't
written by people having the SAME mindless bigotries that are harbor-
ed and spewed by TODAY's homophobes.
Gabriel
: While it is very likely that SOME of the writings of those men
: *were* Divinely- inspired, it ALSO is most assuredly true that not ALL
: of them were, by any means.
So much for your claim of "allegory". It's as I said before that
you vehemently denied: you flat out think part of God's word is
nothing more than lies.
So, besides the fact that you don't want to obey certain parts,
on what basis, exactly and in detail, do you come to your own
authority to decide exactly and to what degree what is divinely
inspired by God and what is not?
How exactly do you decide which part of God's Word are lies, and
which parts are truly "divinely inspired"?
Please back up your claims with scripture rather than personal
opinion, as that is an exceedingly bold claim of yours to say the
least.
No One
> On 02 Jul 2008 23:32:20 -0700, No One <no...@nospam.pacbell.net>
> wrote:
>
> : Gabriel <gabriel...@hotmail.com> writes:
> :
>
> : Nope. Any such "sin" is a figment of your imagination. In fact,
> : you sound like the scribes and pharisees that Jesus seemed to
> : particularly dislike. :-)
>
> The scribes and Pharisees made up things that were not in God's
> word. I've shown you numerous verses in God's Word, in several
> books, that clearly show God finds homosexual activity an
> abomination. You deleted them and ignore them.
All of them were shot down. Your own Bible doesn't state what you
claim.
You had precisely *one* claim that anal sex between two men
(not homosexual activity in general) was considered an abomination,
but that part of the Bible states that it applies only to the
"chlidren of Israel", perhaps at a particular time and place. Read
the last sentence in Leviticus to see why. But *you* specifically
ignored that because the facts don't fit your preconeptions.
> You don't need to try convincing me - God's word is clear on this
> matter, and I'm personally not going to dismiss it.
You sound like one of the false prophets Jesus supposedly warned
about. :-)
No One
> On Thu, 03 Jul 2008 20:11:14 GMT, "(¯`·.¸Craig Chilton¸.·´¯) --
> Rx for RRR Cult's Loathsome Agendas: Extinction!"
> <xan...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>
> : While it is very likely that SOME of the writings of those men
> : *were* Divinely- inspired, it ALSO is most assuredly true that not ALL
> : of them were, by any means.
>
> So much for your claim of "allegory". It's as I said before that
> you vehemently denied: you flat out think part of God's word is
> nothing more than lies.
Sigh. Whether you believe the "divinely inspired" claim or not, it is
very obvious that there is a lot of human error in the Bible, some of
which can be measured by comparing more recent texts to older texts
and seeing what was changed as the texts were copied (during which
copiers sometimes "fixed" errors or added text they thought should
have been there).
lsen...@hotmail.com
Loathsome Agendas: Extinction!" <xan...@mchsi.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 2 Jul 2008 15:09:09 -0700 (PDT),
>
>
>
> lsend...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > "(¯`·.¸Craig Chilton¸.·´¯) -- Rx for RRR Cult's Loathsome
> > Agendas: Extinction!" <xan...@mchsi.com> wrote:
almost 100% homosexual men who had this unknown sickness
that years later came to be known as AIDS. So I am not only
studied in this theologically, but practically as well. My grandma
was a volunteer through All Saints church that aided these
dying men. So all that you have written is really nothing new
to me. I've heard all the arguments. You probably weren't even
born when I first began a ministry with men who had either
left their wives or were seeking help not to leave their wives
(and families) because of homosexual desires. As I said,
just because a straight married man has the eyes for a woman
other than his wife, does not HAVE to give into that desire.
And no, it isn't different. It is a matter of choice.
lsen...@hotmail.com
Loathsome Agendas: Extinction!" <xan...@mchsi.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 2 Jul 2008 15:09:09 -0700 (PDT),
>
>
> > revealed will. The fraud comes from the nature of sin
> > itself. We are blind to God and His will because of
> > sin. And beyond that, Satan steals away the Truth
> > from his slaves.
>
> Have you considered the very real possibility that Satan
> is allegorical, just as Jesus' parables were allegorical? People
> are QUITE able to conjure up evil and falsehoods, all by
> themselves.
>
When you slip off into allegorizing the text, then there is a
real question as to whether or not words actually mean
anything, whether language has any sense to it and of course
whether the text is being fairly interpreted.
The primary issue with allegorization has to do with
standardization. Simply put, there are no rules. You
just make the text say what you want it to say. Again,
this is a form of revisionism. It really does make a
mockery of revelational conversation. What I often
point out is that you don't employ this elsewhere so
why with the Scriptures? You read this thread from
a literal perspective and take words at their face
value. But, as in our discussion, when you come
to straight statements against homosexuality in
scripture, you morph them into your own wanting.
Literal or historical/grammatic methodology allows
for the use of an allegory, for metaphors, and the
other various figures of speech including symbolism
and typology. There are rules to guide the
interpretation. But not so with the allegorical
method where there are, practically, no strict
guidelines on where to begin the allegorization
and where to end it. Nor is there any means
of verification of one allegorical interpretation
over another. It is sheer relativism when looked
at properly.
(¯`·.¸Craig Chilton¸.·´¯) -- Rx for RRR Cult's Loathsome Agendas: Extinction!
ALL of that paragraph above, just to get to the point at the
very end of it. And the reality is THIS: Whom a person chooses
to have as a sex partner IS a choice, mutually agreed upon by
both -- whether the couple is gay or straight. But a person's
*sexual orientation* is NOT a choice. We all are BORN with desire
doe one sex or the other... and some are born with an orientation
that attracts them to both sexes.
All of which is NO one else's business but that of the individuals
concerned directly -- ONLY.
(¯`·.¸Craig Chilton¸.·´¯) -- Rx for RRR Cult's Loathsome Agendas: Extinction!
I can take anti-homosexuality passages in scripture
literally too. I never said they were allegorical. I said
that there would appear to be a STRONG likelihood that
the writers of those words were just as homophobic as
today's homophones. Albeit substantially more literate
than today's homophobes -- most of whom are just bigoted
and often-ignorant dolts.
> Literal or historical/grammatic methodology allows
> for the use of an allegory, for metaphors, and the
> other various figures of speech including symbolism
> and typology. There are rules to guide the
> interpretation. But not so with the allegorical
> method where there are, practically, no strict
> guidelines on where to begin the allegorization
> and where to end it. Nor is there any means
> of verification of one allegorical interpretation
> over another. It is sheer relativism when looked
> at properly.
Again, I think that the writings that were so hateful
and intolerant toward homosexuality were not allegorical,
nor meant to be taken as being allegorical. It think they
probably meant exactly what they said, in plain language.
AND, that they were homophobic (bigoted).
(¯`·.¸Craig Chilton¸.·´¯) -- Rx for RRR Cult's Loathsome Agendas: Extinction!
Gabriel <gabriel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "(¯`·.¸Craig Chilton¸.·´¯) -- Rx for RRR Cult's Loathsome
> Agendas: Extinction!" <xan...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>> While it is very likely that SOME of the writings of those men
>> *were* Divinely- inspired, it ALSO is most assuredly true that
>> not ALL of them were, by any means.
> So much for your claim of "allegory". It's as I said before that
> you vehemently denied: you flat out think part of God's word is
> nothing more than lies.
Nice TRY at dishonestly discrediting me, but NO cigar.
Because THIS is what I said -- in its entirety... and fully in
its context -- BEFORE you OMITTED the key portions of it:
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
In response to this comment...
>>> The scribes and Pharisees made up things that were not in God's
>>> word. I've shown you numerous verses in God's Word, in several
>>> books, that clearly show God finds homosexual activity an
>>> abomination. You deleted them and ignore them.
I wrote THIS...
> GEE!!! I wonder why?? Just *might* be that he realizes the same
> thing that I and countless other people have come to realize. That
> it is NOTEWORTHY that ALL of the passages that homophobes cite in
> the course of their WHININGS about homosexuality were written by
> MEN. While it is very likely that SOME of the writings of those men
> *were* Divinely- inspired, it ALSO is most assuredly true that not ALL
> of them were, by any means. Or the Bible wouldn't be so chock-full
> of clear-cut contradictions. (Put "Bible" and "contradictions" into a
> Google search engine and see what you get.) There is no reason to
> believe that the anti-homosexual comments by those writers weren't
> written by people having the SAME mindless bigotries that are harbor-
> ed and spewed by TODAY's homophobes.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
While many parts of the Bible clearly ARE allegorical, I made no
such suggestion pertaining to the anti-homosexual passages. I made
it QUITE clear that the writers of those clearly meant for their com-
ments to be taken literally -- and that those writings (just like many in
the Bible tahat contadict each other) probably are among the many
that were NOT Divinely-inspired. Instead, there's a very strong likeli-
hood that those writers were purposely venting their OWN hateful-
ness and bigotry toward homosexuals and homosexual sex.
Why weren't you HONEST enough to acknowledge in the first
place that that's what I said -- and include my ENTIRE comment in
context, as I did when I RESTORED it, above?
> So, besides the fact that you don't want to obey certain parts,
> on what basis, exactly and in detail, do you come to your own
> authority to decide exactly and to what degree what is divinely
> inspired by God and what is not?
See above. The Bible's contradictions prove that not all of the
Bible was Divinely-inspired, since God, being perfect, wouldn't have
made those mistakes. Homosexuality isn't even mentioned in the
Ten Commandments, and the passages written by the Apostles
very LIKELY reflected their own personal distates and bigotries.
> How exactly do you decide which part of God's Word are lies,
> and which parts are truly "divinely inspired"?
Good luck that *anone* will ever be able to make such discern-
ments with certainty, case-by-case. But -- since the Bible DOES
contain flaws (as proven by its many contradictions), it would be
reasonable to regard hateful commens as questionable, and prob-
ably only rants by the writers, expressing their OWN opinions.
> Please back up your claims with scripture rather than personal
> opinion, as that is an exceedingly bold claim of yours to say the
> least.
Bold? No. Common sense, combined with looking at the Bible
from the standpoint of using our God-given intelligence. If it con-
tained NO contradictions, it might be a different story. But it DOES.
So that deems that we look at it analytically and sensibly.
Ray Fischer
> rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer)
>: Gabriel <gabriel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>: >Actually it's not. A person who says they are a homosexual is
>: >saying "I will live in this sin every day and I don't care what
>: >God says about it".
>:
>: No, they're not. They're rejecting your cult of hate in entirety.
>
>It's not me or anyone else you have to convince - It's God you're
Pay attention, idiot: You are not God and you do not speak for God.
>: There is no rejection of God
>
>Actually it is - you're rejecting God's word.
No, moron, it is rejecting YOUR word.
>: because you're not God and a rejection
>: of you and your cult is not a rejection of God.
>
>You're right I'm not God. In fact I am nothing - just another
>sinner that needed the grace of God and the shed blood of Jesus
>Christ.
An unrepentent sinner.
> It's not what I say you're rejecting:
Yes, it is.
> it's what God says
Pay attention, halfwit: It's not God's commandments.
> You've been shown the numerous verses,
From some book that you claim is the word of God.
> and
>you have shown that for now you're going to ignore what God
>clearly says on the matter.
God hasn't said anything, as far as I can tell.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Gabriel
: > How exactly do you decide which part of God's Word are lies,
: > and which parts are truly "divinely inspired"?
:
: Good luck that *anone* will ever be able to make such discern-
: ments with certainty, case-by-case. But -- since the Bible DOES
: contain flaws (as proven by its many contradictions), it would be
: reasonable to regard hateful commens as questionable,
Trying to learn your truth of God, if you would be so kind.
Please define "hateful comments".
Who's to decide what is a hateful and what is not a hateful
comment, since clearly people do not always agree? If one person
thinks it's a hateful comment, and another does not, does that
mean it's divinely inspired or not?
Gabriel
wrote:
Please show cases of error in the Bible. Because if there were
errors, it would be trivial for them to have "corrected" it, yet
strangely they obviously did not if the errors are still in
there. Thank you.
(¯`·.¸Craig Chilton¸.·´¯) -- Rx for RRR Cult's Loathsome Agendas: Extinction!
And "they" would be all those different writers of the books
in the Bible... who did their writings in some cases hundreds, and
even thousands of years apart? And NONE of whom would have
had any way of knowing that there would even BE anything to
compare, since the councils that assembled those books were far
in the future of all of them.
Living in denial, as you do, would be hilarious... if it just weren't
so darned pathetic!
The Bible has many, MANY contradictions.
http://www.freethoughtdebater.com/tenbiblecontradictions.htm
http://www.evilbible.com/Biblical%20Contradictions.htm
Gabriel
: On Fri, 04 Jul 2008 08:49:14 -0400,
Actually all your "contradictions" have long been refuted in
terms the natural man might understand. Here's just the tip of
the iceberg on such refutations.
http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/bible.htm
http://usminc.org/FLASHGIFS/136BC.pdf
http://www.carm.org/bible_difficulties.htm
http://www.carm.org/bible_difficulties_2.htm
http://www.carm.org/bible_difficulties_3.htm
http://www.carm.org/bible_difficulties_4.htm
http://www.carm.org/bible_difficulties_5.htm
http://www.carm.org/bible_difficulties_6.htm
http://www.carm.org/bible_difficulties_7.htm
http://www.carm.org/bible_difficulties_8.htm
Google to find any more you have doubts about, and it can be
explained to you.
But the real problem is those who are not children of God do not
have the Holy Spirit to guide them to spiritual truth of what
God's word says. The natural man receives not the things of the
spirit of God. The natural man, for example, rationalizes
murdering babies ok if they are young enough, ignoring God's
command to not kill, and more, because they are not of God, or at
best they are carnal Christians. The natural man rationalizes it
ok to have sex with whoever you want even though you are not
married, and so on.
1 Corinthians 2:9-14 KJVR
9 But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard,
neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God
hath prepared for them that love him.
10 But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the
Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.
11 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of
man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man,
but the Spirit of God.
12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the
Spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are
freely given to us of God.
13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's
wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing
spiritual things with spiritual.
14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of
God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them,
because they are spiritually discerned.
John 1:5 KJVR
5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness
comprehended it not.
The darkness does not comprehend the wisdom of God.
The natural man receives nothing of faith.
1 Corinthians 1:19-20 KJVR
19 For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and
will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.
20 Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer
of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this
world?
1 Corinthians 2:4-6 KJVR
4 And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of
man's wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power:
5 That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in
the power of God.
6 Howbeit we speak wisdom among them that are perfect: yet not
the wisdom of this world, nor of the princes of this world, that
come to naught:
For even new Christians who are carnal can only understand so
much
1 Corinthians 3:1-4 KJVR
1 And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual,
but as unto carnal, even as unto babes in Christ.
2 I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye
were not able to bear it, neither yet now are ye able.
3 For ye are yet carnal: for whereas there is among you envying,
and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men?
4 For while one saith, I am of Paul; and another, I am of
Apollos; are ye not carnal?
In the end, God clearly states few there will be who find the way
Matthew 7:13-14 KJVR
13 Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and
broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be
which go in thereat:
14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which
leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.
Just like you were unable to explain how all those doctrines were
allegories, as they completely contradict what you belief is
truth instead.
It's easy for people to find convoluted ways to rationalize away
obeying God. Few there are that avoid such rationalizations and
choose to obey God instead.
No One
Craig answered it for you.
You might also look at
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Sea_Scrolls#Significance>:
"The significance of the scrolls relates in a large part to the
field of textual criticism. Before the discovery of the Dead
Sea Scrolls, the oldest Hebrew manuscripts of the Bible were
Masoretic texts dating to 9th century. The biblical
manuscripts found among the Dead Sea Scrolls push that date
back to the 2nd century BC. Before the discovery, the oldest
Greek manuscripts such as Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus
were the earliest extant versions of biblical
manuscripts. Although a few of the biblical manuscripts found
at Qumran differ significantly from the Masoretic text, most
do not. The scrolls thus provide new variants and the ability
to be more confident of those readings where the Dead Sea
manuscripts agree with the Masoretic text or with the early
Greek manuscripts."
Note the phrase "a few of the biblical manuscripts found at Qumran
differ significantly from the Masoretic text". That wouldn't be there
if various copies of the Bible all agreed with each other.
Explain how the same book of the Bible changed over time unless
human error was involved. :-)
(¯`·.¸Craig Chilton¸.·´¯) -- Rx for RRR Cult's Loathsome Agendas: Extinction!
NOT *all*. MANY apparent contradictions are CLEAR-CUT
contradictions, which have never been refuted by anyone.
It doesn't surprise me a bit that you presented the sites
below, which (1) DO refute many contradictions... and (2)
clutch at straws in *lame* attempts to refute many, and
(3) don't succeed -- and don't even MENTION the contra-
dictions that they can't even PRETEND to refute.
>http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/bible.htm
>http://usminc.org/FLASHGIFS/136BC.pdf
>http://www.carm.org/bible_difficulties.htm
>http://www.carm.org/bible_difficulties_2.htm
>http://www.carm.org/bible_difficulties_3.htm
>http://www.carm.org/bible_difficulties_4.htm
>http://www.carm.org/bible_difficulties_5.htm
>http://www.carm.org/bible_difficulties_6.htm
>http://www.carm.org/bible_difficulties_7.htm
>http://www.carm.org/bible_difficulties_8.htm
> Google to find any more you have doubts about, and it
> can be explained to you.
LOL!! You, who lives so deeply in denial, can only WISH that
would be the case. But it's not. There ARE many contradictions
that are ACTUAL contradictions. The Bible DOES contain FLAWS,
no matter HOW much you may wish that were otherwise.
> But the real problem is those who are not children of God do
> not have the Holy Spirit to guide them to spiritual truth of what
> God's word says.
LOL!!! The Holy Spirit would have to LIE in order to deny
that the Bible contains REAL contradictions and flaws, and
I don't think He's *about* to break one of His own Big Ten.
The Bible was written by MEN. Not all of it was inspired,
or it couldn't contain any of the FLAWS that it DOES contain.
And BECAUSE this is the case, there's PLENTY of room in
that scenario for writers who were BIGOTED toward gays to
express their OWN opinions.
<Anti-Choice BULLCRAP flushed. HATER-propaganda will
NOT be *repeated* in (and thereby allowed to POLLUTE)
*my* posts>
If you continue to spew that mindless and hateful CRAP that
advocates FORCING girls and women to gestate UNwanted
pregnancies to term against their will (a very real, 9-month-long
form of RAPE), I will conclude that you aren't even worth
responding to. You are without excuse on such a loathsome
stance like that. AND, very properly, a laughingstock!
[ ... ]
> It's easy for people to find convoluted ways to rationalize
> away obeying God.
Which has NOTHING to do with the FACT that the Bible
DOES contain FLAWS.
Gabriel
wrote:
: Gabriel <gabriel...@hotmail.com> writes:
:
: > On 03 Jul 2008 15:04:42 -0700, No One <no...@nospam.pacbell.net>
: > wrote:
: >
: > : Gabriel <gabriel...@hotmail.com> writes:
: > :
: > : > On Thu, 03 Jul 2008 20:11:14 GMT, "(¯`·.¸Craig Chilton¸.·´¯) --
: > : > Rx for RRR Cult's Loathsome Agendas: Extinction!"
: > : > <xan...@mchsi.com> wrote:
: > : >
: > : > : While it is very likely that SOME of the writings of those men
: > : > : *were* Divinely- inspired, it ALSO is most assuredly true that not ALL
: > : > : of them were, by any means.
: > : >
: > : > So much for your claim of "allegory". It's as I said before that
: > : > you vehemently denied: you flat out think part of God's word is
: > : > nothing more than lies.
: > :
: > : Sigh. Whether you believe the "divinely inspired" claim or not, it is
: > : very obvious that there is a lot of human error in the Bible, some of
: > : which can be measured by comparing more recent texts to older texts
: > : and seeing what was changed as the texts were copied (during which
: > : copiers sometimes "fixed" errors or added text they thought should
: > : have been there).
: >
: >
: > Please show cases of error in the Bible. Because if there were
: > errors, it would be trivial for them to have "corrected" it, yet
: > strangely they obviously did not if the errors are still in
: > there. Thank you.
:
: Craig answered it for you.
Actually he didn't. He just says "they didn't refute it" and then
ignored them all. He think this is proof of his opinion. It's
not.
So again, please show *cases* of errors in the Bible that were
not refuted, because you still haven't. Thank you.
Gabriel
wrote:
: Gabriel <gabriel...@hotmail.com> writes:
:
: > On 02 Jul 2008 23:32:20 -0700, No One <no...@nospam.pacbell.net>
: > wrote:
: >
: > : Gabriel <gabriel...@hotmail.com> writes:
: > :
: >
: > : Nope. Any such "sin" is a figment of your imagination. In fact,
: > : you sound like the scribes and pharisees that Jesus seemed to
: > : particularly dislike. :-)
: >
: > The scribes and Pharisees made up things that were not in God's
: > word. I've shown you numerous verses in God's Word, in several
: > books, that clearly show God finds homosexual activity an
: > abomination. You deleted them and ignore them.
:
: All of them were shot down.
Refusing to look at them and/or saying they are just lies does
not equate to them being 'shot down'.
And it's not me you have to convince. You're free to act like
it's all a lie. When you face God, you can tell Him that you just
thought His word was a lie, and plead with Him about how were you
supposed to know, and conversations just like this will be used
against your claimed lack of having a chance to hear the truth.
:-(
BOB
news:pois64tnjmmovipo9...@4ax.com:
> On 03 Jul 2008 14:37:26 -0700, No One <no...@nospam.pacbell.net>
> wrote:
>
>: Gabriel <gabriel...@hotmail.com> writes:
>:
>: > On 02 Jul 2008 23:32:20 -0700, No One <no...@nospam.pacbell.net>
>: > wrote:
>: >
>: > : Gabriel <gabriel...@hotmail.com> writes:
>: > :
>: >
>: > : Nope. Any such "sin" is a figment of your imagination. In fact,
>: > : you sound like the scribes and pharisees that Jesus seemed to
>: > : particularly dislike. :-)
>: >
>: > The scribes and Pharisees made up things that were not in God's
>: > word. I've shown you numerous verses in God's Word, in several
>: > books, that clearly show God finds homosexual activity an
>: > abomination. You deleted them and ignore them.
>:
>: All of them were shot down.
>
> Refusing to look at them and/or saying they are just lies does
> not equate to them being 'shot down'.
>
> And it's not me you have to convince. You're free to act like
> it's all a lie. When you face God,
You know deep down that there is absolutely no chance of this. Why do
you lie, Gobler?
(¯`·.¸Craig Chilton¸.·´¯) -- Rx for RRR Cult's Loathsome Agendas: Extinction!
Indeed, I *did* answer it. As follows:
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
\/
> Please show cases of error in the Bible. Because if there were
> errors, it would be trivial for them to have "corrected" it, yet
> strangely they obviously did not if the errors are still in
> there. Thank you.
And "they" would be all those different writers of the books
in the Bible... who did their writings in some cases hundreds, and
even thousands of years apart? And NONE of whom would have
had any way of knowing that there would even BE anything to
compare, since the councils that assembled those books were far
in the future of all of them.
Living in denial, as you do, would be hilarious... if it just weren't
so darned pathetic!
The Bible has many, MANY contradictions.
http://www.freethoughtdebater.com/tenbiblecontradictions.htm
http://www.evilbible.com/Biblical%20Contradictions.htm
/\
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
>> You might also look at
>> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Sea_Scrolls#Significance>:
>>
>> "The significance of the scrolls relates in a large part to the
>> field of textual criticism. Before the discovery of the Dead
>> Sea Scrolls, the oldest Hebrew manuscripts of the Bible were
>> Masoretic texts dating to 9th century. The biblical
>> manuscripts found among the Dead Sea Scrolls push that date
>> back to the 2nd century BC. Before the discovery, the oldest
>> Greek manuscripts such as Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus
>> were the earliest extant versions of biblical
>> manuscripts. Although a few of the biblical manuscripts found
>> at Qumran differ significantly from the Masoretic text, most
>> do not. The scrolls thus provide new variants and the ability
>> to be more confident of those readings where the Dead Sea
>> manuscripts agree with the Masoretic text or with the early
>> Greek manuscripts."
>>
>> Note the phrase "a few of the biblical manuscripts found at Qumran
>> differ significantly from the Masoretic text". That wouldn't be there
>> if various copies of the Bible all agreed with each other.
>>
>> Explain how the same book of the Bible changed over time unless
>> human error was involved. :-)
Exactly. This is just one more item of PROOF that, despite portions
of it having been Divinely inspired, much of the Bible was simply written
straight from the minds of MEN who in many cases never know each
other, and thus contradicted each other in many places.
And remember, it was councils of MEN who *selected* the writings
that THEY compiled into the collection of books that we know as The
Bible. And the also OMITTED many that could have qualified. Such
as the books of the Apocrypha, which ARE included in some versions
of the Bible.
Dennis Kemmerer
news:pois64tnjmmovipo9...@4ax.com...
More of the old, self-righteous 'wait 'til your daddy gets home' b.s.
[plonk]
Ray Fischer
>Please show cases of error in the Bible. Because if there were
>errors, it would be trivial for them to have "corrected" it, yet
>strangely they obviously did not if the errors are still in
>there. Thank you.
Here's an extensive review of the entire Bible that highlights the
contradictions, errors, and absurdities.
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
No One
> On 04 Jul 2008 08:09:04 -0700, No One <no...@nospam.pacbell.net>
> wrote:
>
> : Gabriel <gabriel...@hotmail.com> writes:
> :
> :
> : Craig answered it for you.
>
> Actually he didn't. He just says "they didn't refute it" and then
> ignored them all. He think this is proof of his opinion. It's
> not.
>
> So again, please show *cases* of errors in the Bible that were
> not refuted, because you still haven't. Thank you.
You'd look like less of an idiot if you'd refrain from snipping the
answer to your question when you reply to a post - the specific
translation/transcription errors and chnages are not relevant, only
that they exist.
Here's part of what you cut.
-----------------
No One
> On 03 Jul 2008 14:37:26 -0700, No One <no...@nospam.pacbell.net>
> wrote:
>
> : Gabriel <gabriel...@hotmail.com> writes:
> :
> : > On 02 Jul 2008 23:32:20 -0700, No One <no...@nospam.pacbell.net>
> : > wrote:
> : >
> : > : Gabriel <gabriel...@hotmail.com> writes:
> : > :
> : >
> : > : Nope. Any such "sin" is a figment of your imagination. In fact,
> : > : you sound like the scribes and pharisees that Jesus seemed to
> : > : particularly dislike. :-)
> : >
> : > The scribes and Pharisees made up things that were not in God's
> : > word. I've shown you numerous verses in God's Word, in several
> : > books, that clearly show God finds homosexual activity an
> : > abomination. You deleted them and ignore them.
> :
> : All of them were shot down.
>
> Refusing to look at them and/or saying they are just lies does
> not equate to them being 'shot down'.
I did look at them, and all of them were shot down. Most of the
verses you cited had nothing to do with homosexuality (never mentioned
in those). One was from Levicitus, whose last sentence clearly
indicates that the whole book is a set of rules for the ancient
Israelites (and hence is not applicable to others). One contained
Paul's opinion that homosexual activity was being forced on straight
people as God's punishment for idolatry and other "sins".
So nothing you posted backed up your claims and denying that won't
change the facts.
Emerson Wainwright
> Gabriel <gabriel_bapt...@hotmail.com> writes:
> > On 04 Jul 2008 08:09:04 -0700, No One <no...@nospam.pacbell.net>
> > wrote:
>
> > :
> > :
> > : Craig answered it for you.
>
> > Actually he didn't. He just says "they didn't refute it" and then
> > ignored them all. He think this is proof of his opinion. It's
> > not.
>
> > So again, please show *cases* of errors in the Bible that were
> > not refuted, because you still haven't. Thank you.
>
> You'd look like less of an idiot
Your stock response, and it means nothing.
Emerson Wainwright
> On 03 Jul 2008 14:37:26 -0700, No One <no...@nospam.pacbell.net>
> wrote:
>
>
> :
> : > On 02 Jul 2008 23:32:20 -0700, No One <no...@nospam.pacbell.net>: > wrote:
>
> : >
> : > :
> : >
> : > : Nope. Any such "sin" is a figment of your imagination. In fact,
> : > : you sound like the scribes and pharisees that Jesus seemed to
> : > : particularly dislike. :-)
> : >
> : > The scribes and Pharisees made up things that were not in God's
> : > word. I've shown you numerous verses in God's Word, in several
> : > books, that clearly show God finds homosexual activity an
> : > abomination. You deleted them and ignore them.
> :
> : All of them were shot down.
>
> Refusing to look at them and/or saying they are just lies does
> not equate to them being 'shot down'.
>
> And it's not me you have to convince. You're free to act like
> it's all a lie. When you face God, you can tell Him that you just
> thought His word was a lie, and plead with Him about how were you
> supposed to know, and conversations just like this will be used
> against your claimed lack of having a chance to hear the truth.
> :-(
1. Most people do not believe in your god.
2. Leviticus is a book describing the Levites. LEVIticus. LEVIte.
Unless you are a Levite, you need not abide by the rules of
Leviticus. If you claim to be a Levite, you'd better lay off the pork
and any mixed cloth and any number of other "abominations" listed
therein.
No One
Here's what this troll, who could not even quote a full sentence
because it would show his response to be a lie, cut:
------------------------------------------------
You'd look like less of an idiot if you'd refrain from snipping the
answer to your question when you reply to a post - the specific
translation/transcription errors and changes are not relevant, only
Emerson Wainwright
> Emerson Wainwright <emersonwainwri...@gmx.com> writes:
> > On Jul 5, 3:38 pm, No One <no...@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote:
> > > Gabriel <gabriel_bapt...@hotmail.com> writes:
> > > > On 04 Jul 2008 08:09:04 -0700, No One <no...@nospam.pacbell.net>
> > > > wrote:
>
> > > > : Gabriel <gabriel_bapt...@hotmail.com> writes:
> > > > :
> > > > :
> > > > : Craig answered it for you.
>
> > > > Actually he didn't. He just says "they didn't refute it" and then
> > > > ignored them all. He think this is proof of his opinion. It's
> > > > not.
>
> > > > So again, please show *cases* of errors in the Bible that were
> > > > not refuted, because you still haven't. Thank you.
>
> > > You'd look like less of an idiot
>
> > Your stock response, and it means nothing.
>
> Here's what this troll,
Ad Hom Queen.
No One
Ray Fischer
No One
Emerson Wainwright not only snipped the reply containing hard evidence
(citing a comparision of old manuscripts) showing that the Bible
changed over time, but to further his hate campaign, he has been
engaging in infantile post forging as well, and even denied it when
the actual post was only a couple of posts above in the thread so
that people could easily compare his fabrication to what was
actually there.
It's pretty hard to claim that the Bible is the literal word of
anyone/anything when people copying it and translating it go around
changing the text.
BOB
news:87k5fzb...@nospam.pacbell.net:
There were many writings and gospels left out of the official buybull
because they conflicted with the phony beliefs that were written and
included at the time.
No One
> No One <no...@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote in
> news:87k5fzb...@nospam.pacbell.net:
>
> > rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) writes:
> >
> >> Emerson Wainwright <emersonw...@gmx.com> wrote:
> >> >On Jul 5, 6:26Â pm, No One <no...@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote:
> >> >> Emerson Wainwright <emersonwainwri...@gmx.com> writes:
Aside from that, the fact that what was reputed to be the same
writings changed over time makes the "literal word" claim patently
absurd. Any "inspiration" has been filtered by human error. Why the
Fundamentalist Christians can't admit what any respectable Biblical
scholar would tell them, and that is really incredible.
BOB
In my personal opinion, it's due to the lemming-like attitude of the
cult. Too bad there aren't more cliffs.
>
Emerson Wainwright
> Emerson Wainwright <emersonwainwri...@gmx.com> writes:
> > On Jul 5, 3:38 pm, No One <no...@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote:
> > > Gabriel <gabriel_bapt...@hotmail.com> writes:
> > > > On 04 Jul 2008 08:09:04 -0700, No One <no...@nospam.pacbell.net>
> > > > wrote:
>
> > > > : Gabriel <gabriel_bapt...@hotmail.com> writes:
> > > > :
> > > > :
> > > > : Craig answered it for you.
>
> > > > Actually he didn't. He just says "they didn't refute it" and then
> > > > ignored them all. He think this is proof of his opinion. It's
> > > > not.
>
> > > > So again, please show *cases* of errors in the Bible that were
> > > > not refuted, because you still haven't. Thank you.
>
> > > You'd look like less of an idiot
>
> > Your stock response, and it means nothing.
>
> Here's what this troll, who could not even quote a full sentence
> because it would show his response to be a lie, cut:
I wasn't addressing that part of the post, which is why I cut it.
What I left in was your ad hominem attack, which leaves you looking
like a fool. You lose credibility when you post ad homs, and you do
it frequently.
Emerson Wainwright
> rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) writes:
> > Emerson Wainwright <emersonwainwri...@gmx.com> wrote:
> > >On Jul 5, 6:26 pm, No One <no...@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote:
> > >> Emerson Wainwright <emersonwainwri...@gmx.com> writes:
> > >> > On Jul 5, 3:38 pm, No One <no...@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote:
> > >> > > Gabriel <gabriel_bapt...@hotmail.com> writes:
> > >> > > > On 04 Jul 2008 08:09:04 -0700, No One <no...@nospam.pacbell.net>
> > >> > > > wrote:
>
> > >> > > > : Gabriel <gabriel_bapt...@hotmail.com> writes:
> > >> > > > :
> > >> > > > :
> > >> > > > : Craig answered it for you.
>
> > >> > > > Actually he didn't. He just says "they didn't refute it" and then
> > >> > > > ignored them all. He think this is proof of his opinion. It's
> > >> > > > not.
>
> > >> > > > So again, please show *cases* of errors in the Bible that were
> > >> > > > not refuted, because you still haven't. Thank you.
>
> > >> > > You'd look like less of an idiot
>
> > >> > Your stock response, and it means nothing.
>
> > >> Here's what this troll,
>
> > >Ad Hom Queen.
>
> > Run away, coward.
>
> Emerson Wainwright not only snipped the reply containing hard evidence
> (citing a comparision of old manuscripts) showing that the Bible
> changed over time,
Everyone who wants to can see your original post.
I was addressing your penchant for calling people names, which
diminishes your credibility.
> but to further his hate campaign, he has been
> engaging in infantile post forging as well, and even denied it when
> the actual post was only a couple of posts above in the thread so
> that people could easily compare his fabrication to what was
> actually there.
What a fucking crybaby.
> It's pretty hard to claim that the Bible is the literal word of
> anyone/anything when people copying it and translating it go around
> changing the text.-
I've never claimed that the Bible was the literal word of anyone at
all. It's a book, written by different people at various times.
That's all it is.
(¯`·.¸Craig Chilton¸.·´¯) -- Rx for RRR Cult's Loathsome Agendas: Extinction!
Gabriel <gabriel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "(¯`·.¸Craig Chilton¸.·´¯) -- Rx for RRR Cult's Loathsome
> Agendas: Extinction!"<xan...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>>> How exactly do you decide which part of God's Word are lies,
>>> and which parts are truly "divinely inspired"?
>> Good luck that *anyone* will ever be able to make such discern-
>> ments with certainty, case-by-case. But -- since the Bible DOES
>> contain flaws (as proven by its many contradictions), it would be
>> reasonable to regard hateful commens as questionable,
> Trying to learn your truth of God, if you would be so kind.
> Please define "hateful comments".
>
> Who's to decide what is a hateful and what is not a hateful
> comment, since clearly people do not always agree? If one person
> thinks it's a hateful comment, and another does not, does that
> mean it's divinely inspired or not?
Hateful comments would be any that encourage discrimination
and bigotry against any person or group on the basis of their race,
beliefs, orientation, handedness, ethnicity, eye color, or any other
TRIVIALITY that is no one else's business but that of each individual
person him/herself.
And -- see SIG, below.
-- Craig Chilton
xana...@mchsi.com -- To E-Mail me.
http://www.roadrat.com -- Learn how to get PAID to TRAVEL.
http://apifar.blogspot.com -- Great TACTICS to Fight Bigotry.
http://pro-christian.blogspot.com -- Christianity *vs.* Bigotry.
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
BIBLICAL CONTRADICTIONS
Here's extensive coverage of the entire Bible that
points out its errors, absurdities, and contradictions:
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/
Portions of the Bible very clearly WERE Divinely-
inspired, as proven by the inerrancy of prophecies
that came to pass AND by the Bible Codes. BUT --
the fact that the Bible contains an ABUNDANCE of
contradictions that are so clear-cut that they CANNOT
be explained away shows that much of what the Bible
contains is straight out of the minds of its writers.
Interestingly, that makes it HIGHLY likely that the
passages in it that seem to harshly oppose homoseual-
ity were nothing more than the hateful opinions of
those who wrote them. People likely as bigoted as
are today's homophobes, VENTING that hatefulness.
(And, since it's probably safe to say that the Ten
Commandments ARE God's word, it's noteworthy that
the contain NO mention of homosexuality.
This pretty well puts those whines about homo-
sexuality into the SAME archaic category as those
prohibitions against eating shrimp & lobster, and of
fortune-telling, and of wearing mixed fabrics.
And that's a good thing, since sexual orientation
is comprised of nothing other than *variations* of
NORMALCY -- just like handedness and eye color.
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
No One
"Emerson Wainwright" is the new name used by the troll ScottyFLL, who
is simply recycling his old material. He has a grudge - a very long
one and when his feelings are hurt, he acts out, regressing to the
point where he has the maturity of a 12 year old boy. He is a
pathological liar.
As just one example of this troll's infantile behavior, we can cite
one instance of Emerson Wainwright reducing himself to the status of
the lowly post forger. In this instancee, he has replied to a post
<news:87od5gge...@nospam.pacbell.net>, forging the text by
inserting a misspelled word that never appeared in the original and
cutting everything else. His forgery can be found at
<news:63bd6dfa-31c8-48d4...@79g2000hsk.googlegroups.com>.
Then in a post,
<news:04996044-57d8-4448...@z72g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
he stupidly tried to pretend he had replied to something else even
though the "References" header had shown otherwise. It's the classic
"little boy caught with his hand in the cookie jar" scenario. How
pathetic.
No One
ROTFMAO. I'm merely calling you (and a few others) an "idiot" when
they start posting a string of abusive personal attacks, which you've
done on a regular basis.
Emerson Wainwright
Ummmm... rolling on the floor ... your ass off?
Typo, right?
> I'm merely calling you (and a few others) an "idiot"
"A few"? Are you fucking KIDDING me?
ANYONE who disagrees with you gets called this, while you sit there
and spin out red herrings, strawmen, non-stop misspellings, and ad
homs.
That's why we call you Usenet's Ad Hom Queen of 2008 -- you will
almost CERTAINLY be recognized as same in 2009, 2010, and beyond!
No One
juanjo
> On Wed, 02 Jul 2008 23:47:05 GMT, "(¯`·.¸Craig Chilton¸.·´¯) --> : (2) Homosexuals are in NO worse shape, from the standpoint
> : of the next life, than are fortune tellers, mediums, people
> : who play with Tarot Cards, people who wear mixed fabrics,
> : people who eat shrimp and lobster -- and liars. So all this
> : emphasis on being hateful and bigoted toward gays is not
> : just LUDICROUS; it *also* is the epitome of HYPOCRISY.
>
> Actually it's not. A person who says they are a homosexual is
> saying "I will live in this sin every day and I don't care what
> God says about it". That's *unrepentant* sin - another matter
> entirely from someone who tells a lie but then confesses it,
> determined to not do it again, and so on - such a person who
> confesses it is showing repentance and a resolve to stop living
> that way.
>
The only specific injunction you can hold to in the one in Leviticus.
Then remainder are simply linguistic gymnastics. The Levitical Code is
clearly designed for the followers to strictly adhere to. No
separation of parts to ignore or follow. Further the use of Hebrew
"toevah" vs "zimah" shows it is a relativistic prohibition, i.e.
related to the religious practices of the non-Israelite peoples
surrounding them.
Ray Fischer
> Hateful comments would be any that encourage discrimination
>and bigotry against any person or group on the basis of their race,
>beliefs, orientation, handedness, ethnicity, eye color, or any other
>TRIVIALITY that is no one else's business but that of each individual
>person him/herself.
Such as: ILLEGAL immigrant.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
(¯`·.¸Craig Chilton¸.·´¯) -- Rx for RRR Cult's Loathsome Agendas: Extinction!
Ray Fischer -- NITWIT <rfis...@sonic.net> wrote:
> (¯`·.¸Craig Chilton¸.·´¯) -- Rx for RRR Cult's Loathsome
> Agendas: Extinction! <xan...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>> Hateful comments would be any that encourage discrimination
>> and bigotry against any person or group on the basis of their race,
>> beliefs, orientation, handedness, ethnicity, eye color, or any other
>> TRIVIALITY that is no one else's business but that of each individual
>> person him/herself.
> Such as: ILLEGAL immigrant.
Ah. So you think that people who SNEAKED across the border,
automatically becoming criminals per THIS Federal law, are NOT,
quite **literally**, ILLEGAL aliens?
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
U.S. Code : Title 8 : Section 1325 -- U.S. Code as of: 01/03/05
Improper Entry by Alien
(a) Improper time or place; avoidance of examination or inspection;
misrepresentation and concealment of facts
Any alien who (1) enters or attempts to enter the United States
at any time or place other than as designated by immigration
officers, or (2) eludes examination or inspection by immigration
officers, or (3) attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United
States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the
willful concealment of a material fact, shall, for the first
commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18 or
imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both, and, for a subse-
quent commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18, or
imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.
(b) Improper time or place; civil penalties
Any alien who is apprehended while entering (or attempting to
enter) the United States at a time or place other than as
designated by immigration officers shall be subject to a civil
penalty of -
(1) at least $50 and not more than $250 for each such entry (or
attempted entry); or
(2) twice the amount specified in paragraph (1) in the case of
an alien who has been previously subject to a civil penalty under
this subsection.
Civil penalties under this subsection are in addition to, and not
in lieu of, any criminal or other civil penalties that may be
imposed.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Thus, you have once AGAIN made a total, public FOOL of
yourself, Ray. Thanks for playing. It's always a laugh to watch
a nitwit like you self-destructing. LOL!!!
Ray Fischer
>Ray Fischer
>>> Hateful comments would be any that encourage discrimination
>>> and bigotry against any person or group on the basis of their race,
>>> beliefs, orientation, handedness, ethnicity, eye color, or any other
>>> TRIVIALITY that is no one else's business but that of each individual
>>> person him/herself.
>
>> Such as: ILLEGAL immigrant.
>
> Ah. So you think that people who SNEAKED across the border,
>automatically becoming criminals per THIS Federal law,
You just cannot stop lying, can you?
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Emerson Wainwright
That's kinda sad, but expected, I guess.
Everyone knows that you are Usenet's Ad Hom Queen, and Crybaby of the
Year.
(¯`·.¸Craig Chilton¸.·´¯) -- Rx for RRR Cult's Loathsome Agendas: Extinction!
Ray Fischer -- CRIMINAL-coddler
and Pathological Liar <rfis...@sonic.net> wrote:
> (¯`·.¸Craig Chilton¸.·´¯) -- Rx for the RRR Cult's Loathsome
> Agendas: EXTINCTION! <xan...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>> Ray Fischer-- Pathological Liar <rfis...@sonic.net> wrote:
>>> Craig Chilton... from a DIFFERENT thread, wrote:
>>>> Hateful comments would be any that encourage discrimination
>>>> and bigotry against any person or group on the basis of their race,
>>>> beliefs, orientation, handedness, ethnicity, eye color, or any other
>>>> TRIVIALITY that is no one else's business but that of each individual
>>>> person him/herself.
>>> Such as: ILLEGAL immigrant.
>> Ah. So you think that people who SNEAKED across the border,
>> automatically becoming criminals per THIS Federal law, are NOT,
>> quite **literally**, ILLEGAL aliens?
> You just cannot stop lying, can you?
You are real piece of work, Ray. LYING **as** you are being
PROVEN wrong. What a tool.
As I was saying before you just , once AGAIN, made a total FOOL
of yourself by lying about me like a metronome...
No One
Bald-faced lying idiot.
"Emerson Wainwright" is the new name used by the troll ScottyFLL, who
is simply recycling his old material. He has a grudge - a very long
one and when his feelings are hurt, he acts out, regressing to the
point where he has the maturity of a 12 year old boy. He is a
pathological liar.
As just one example of this troll's infantile behavior, we can cite
one instance of Emerson Wainwright reducing himself to the status of
the lowly post forger. In this instance, he has replied to a post
Ray Fischer
that I did not post. The text has been removed.
(¯`·.¸Craig Chilton¸.·´¯) -- Liar and criminal
>Ray Fischer
>>> Ah. So you think that people who SNEAKED across the border,
>>> automatically becoming criminals per THIS Federal law,
>
>> You just cannot stop lying, can you?
>
> You are real piece of work, Ray. LYING **as** you are being
As has been pointed out many, many times, immigration violations are
not a criminal offense. In fact your own cite says as much.
By your own cite, you are a liar.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
juanjo
The Chief Instigator
> Craig stay on topic or go play in traffic.
Where he is, it would take a few centuries to accumulate the traffic that
you get to see every day in your corner of SoCal. (I have no complaints on
being two-thirds of the continent away from your no-thought zone.)
--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (pat...@io.com) Houston, Texas
www.io.com/~patrick/aeros.php (TCI's 2008-09 Houston Aeros) AA#2273
LAST GAME: Rockford 5, Houston 2 (April 25)
NEXT GAME: The 2008-09 season opener in early October
Emerson Wainwright
> Emerson Wainwright <emersonwainwri...@hotmail.com> writes:
> > On Jul 7, 3:49 pm, No One <no...@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote:
> > > Emerson Wainwright <emersonwainwri...@gmx.com> writes:
> > > > On Jul 7, 1:02 pm, No One <no...@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > I'm merely calling you (and a few others) an "idiot"
>
> > > > "A few"? Are you fucking KIDDING me?
>
> > > No I'm not kidding,
>
> > That's kinda sad, but expected, I guess.
>
> > Everyone knows that you are Usenet's Ad Hom Queen, and Crybaby of the
> > Year.
>
> Bald-faced lying idiot.
It is SO funny when you prove my point without even realizing it!
(¯`·.¸Craig Chilton¸.·´¯) -- Rx for RRR Cult's Loathsome Agendas: Extinction!
juanjo <jonp...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> Craig stay on topic or go play in traffic.
Sorry, but my name is NOT Ray Fischer. Take that up with
him. He does that incessantly.
(¯`·.¸Craig Chilton¸.·´¯) -- Rx for RRR Cult's Loathsome Agendas: Extinction!
>Once again chilton has lied about what I posted by insterting text
>that I did not post. The text has been removed.
>
>(¯`·.¸Craig Chilton¸.·´¯) -- Liar and criminal
>>Ray Fischer
>
>>>> Ah. So you think that people who SNEAKED across the border,
>>>> automatically becoming criminals per THIS Federal law,
>>
>>> You just cannot stop lying, can you?
>>
>> You are real piece of work, Ray. LYING **as** you are being
>
> As has been pointed out many, many times, immigration violations
> are not a criminal offense. In fact your own cite says as much.
They ARE a criminal offense. See the federal LAW, below. It's
not just the ones in Section 1325. It's ALSO the ones covered by
Section 1326 -- FELONS. (I've mentioned that section before, but
am including it in THIS post.)
> By your own cite, you are a liar.
I never lie in my posts, and I didn't in this one.
U.S. Code : Title 8 : Section 1326. Reentry of Removed Aliens
(a) In general
Subject to subsection (b) of this section, any alien who -
(1) has been denied admission, excluded, deported, or removed
or has departed the United States while an order of exclusion,
deportation, or removal is outstanding, and thereafter
(2) enters, attempts to enter, or is at any time found in, the
United States, unless (A) prior to his reembarkation at a place
outside the United States or his application for admission from
foreign contiguous territory, the Attorney General has expressly
consented to such alien's reapplying for admission; or (B) with
respect to an alien previously denied admission and removed,
unless such alien shall establish that he was not required to
obtain such advance consent under this chapter or any prior Act,
shall be fined under title 18, or imprisoned not more than 2 years,
or both.
(b) Criminal penalties for reentry of certain removed aliens
Notwithstanding subsection (a) of this section, in the case of
any alien described in such subsection -
(1) whose removal was subsequent to a conviction for commission
of three or more misdemeanors involving drugs, crimes against the
person, or both, or a felony (other than an aggravated felony),
such alien shall be fined under title 18, imprisoned not more
than 10 years, or both;
(2) whose removal was subsequent to a conviction for commission
of an aggravated felony, such alien shall be fined under such
title, imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both;
(3) who has been excluded from the United States pursuant to
section 1225(c) of this title because the alien was excludable
under section 1182(a)(3)(B) of this title or who has been removed
from the United States pursuant to the provisions of subchapter V
of this chapter, and who thereafter, without the permission of
the Attorney General, enters the United States, or attempts to do
so, shall be fined under title 18 and imprisoned for a period of
10 years, which sentence shall not run concurrently with any
other sentence.(!1) or
(4) who was removed from the United States pursuant to section
1231(a)(4)(B) of this title who thereafter, without the
permission of the Attorney General, enters, attempts to enter, or
is at any time found in, the United States (unless the Attorney
General has expressly consented to such alien's reentry) shall be
fined under title 18, imprisoned for not more than 10 years, or
both.
For the purposes of this subsection, the term "removal" includes
any agreement in which an alien stipulates to removal during (or
not during) a criminal trial under either Federal or State law.
(c) Reentry of alien deported prior to completion of term of
imprisonment
Any alien deported pursuant to section 1252(h)(2) (!2) of this
title who enters, attempts to enter, or is at any time found in,
the United States (unless the Attorney General has expressly
consented to such alien's reentry) shall be incarcerated for the
remainder of the sentence of imprisonment which was pending at the
time of deportation without any reduction for parole or supervised
release. Such alien shall be subject to such other penalties
relating to the reentry of deported aliens as may be available
under this section or any other provision of law.
(d) Limitation on collateral attack on underlying deportation order
In a criminal proceeding under this section, an alien may not
challenge the validity of the deportation order described in
subsection (a)(1) of this section or subsection (b) of this section
unless the alien demonstrates that -
(1) the alien exhausted any administrative remedies that may
have been available to seek relief against the order;
(2) the deportation proceedings at which the order was issued
improperly deprived the alien of the opportunity for judicial
review; and
(3) the entry of the order was fundamentally unfair.
= = = = = = = = = = =
Emerson Wainwright
Loathsome Agendas: Extinction!" <xan...@mchsi.com> wrote:
> http://pro-christian.blogspot.com-- Christianity *vs.* Bigotry.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Craig, you've got a problem here.
That is, trying to show that everything that is "illegal" is actually
"wrong".
There have been laws in this country against SNEEZING in public.
Sneezing was illegal.
Is sneezing wrong?
Therein lies you dilemma in this situation.
Illegal immigration is, by definition, illegal.
Is it WRONG?
(¯`·.¸Craig Chilton¸.·´¯) -- Rx for RRR Cult's Loathsome Agendas: Extinction!
Emerson Wainwright <emersonw...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> "(¯`·.¸Craig Chilton¸.·´¯) -- Rx for RRR Cult's Loathsome
> Agendas: Extinction!" <xan...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>>> (¯`·.¸Craig Chilton¸.·´¯) <xan...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>>>> Ray Fischer -- Pathologial Liar <rfis...@sonic.net> wrote:
>>>>>> Ah. So you think that people who SNEAKED across the border,
>>>>>> automatically becoming criminals per THIS Federal law ...
> Craig, you've got a problem here.
>
> That is, trying to show that everything that is "illegal" is actually
> "wrong".
>
> There have been laws in this country against SNEEZING in public.
> Sneezing was illegal.
>
> Is sneezing wrong?
>
> Therein lies you dilemma in this situation.
>
> Illegal immigration is, by definition, illegal.
>
> Is it WRONG?
VERY wrong. Not even counting all the other negative aspects, the
one thing that bothers me the most about it is the fact that as long as
they remain here, the ILLEGAL aliens are figuratively giving a very hard
slap in the face to the millions of LEGAL immigrants who followed the
rules, obeyed the law, and worked hard to EARN their residency and
citizensip status.
THAT *alone* would be more than enough reason for them all to go
back home, get at the back of the line, and do the process honestly
and RIGHT.
-- Craig Chilton
xana...@mchsi.com -- To E-Mail me.
http://www.roadrat.com -- Learn how to get PAID to TRAVEL.
No One
Pastor Dave
<jonp...@mindspring.com> spake thusly:
If that were true, then God wouldn't have said it
to the Israelites.
Furthermore, claiming everything else is "linguistic
gymnastics", because you don't want to deal with it,
does not make it so, but that is the typical liberal
approach.
But if you're convinced that homosexual acts are
just fine with God, then all you must do, is provide
one place in the Bible, where God places His stamp
of approval on it. He must say that:
1) Homosexuals don't have to get married to be together
as a couple that He approves of.
2) Homosexual sex is just fine with Him.
3) Homosexual sex would not be fornication.
God placed His stamp of approval on heterosexual marriage.
Of that there is no doubt. And He said that man and wife
are to join. So you need to provide this for homosexual
relationships, since homosexuals and their advocates always
seem to be claiming that not only is homosexual sex okay,
even though it's outside of marriage, but that homosexuals
don't need to be married and just need to be in "committed,
monogamous relationships". Of course, the homosexuals
and their advocates don't allow the same for heterosexuals,
but that's another story.
Anyway, I'm not talking about you pointing at what you
think are examples of homosexual relationships in the Bible.
That isn't proof that God approves of it. Something being
mentioned in the Bible, is not proof that God approves of it.
Adultery is mentioned in the Bible. God does not approve.
What you need to do, is show us where GOD HIMSELF
APPROVES of what YOU claim is okay with Him, since
surely, He would not just have forgotten to mention
something this important!
Oh wait, that's right, He did mention homosexual sex!
The problem is, that each time, it was in a negative way.
So if you can prove your case, go ahead. But claiming
someone in the Bible was homosexual, or attacking people
who had more than one wife, is not proof that God approves
of homosexual sex. So now, the ball is in your court.
Prove to us that GOD Himself approves of it.
--
"Mediocrity knows nothing higher than itself,
but talent instantly recognizes genius."
- Sir Arthur Doyle
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
Robert
<emersonw...@gmx.com> wrote:
>On Jul 4, 12:11 pm, Gabriel <gabriel_bapt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On 03 Jul 2008 14:37:26 -0700, No One <no...@nospam.pacbell.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> : Gabriel <gabriel_bapt...@hotmail.com> writes:
>>
>> :
>> : > On 02 Jul 2008 23:32:20 -0700, No One <no...@nospam.pacbell.net>: > wrote:
>>
>> : >
>> : > : Gabriel <gabriel_bapt...@hotmail.com> writes:
>> : > :
>> : >
>> : > : Nope. Any such "sin" is a figment of your imagination. In fact,
>> : > : you sound like the scribes and pharisees that Jesus seemed to
>> : > : particularly dislike. :-)
>> : >
>> : > The scribes and Pharisees made up things that were not in God's
>> : > word. I've shown you numerous verses in God's Word, in several
>> : > books, that clearly show God finds homosexual activity an
>> : > abomination. You deleted them and ignore them.
>> :
>> : All of them were shot down.
>>
>> Refusing to look at them and/or saying they are just lies does
>> not equate to them being 'shot down'.
>>
>> And it's not me you have to convince. You're free to act like
>> it's all a lie. When you face God, you can tell Him that you just
>> thought His word was a lie, and plead with Him about how were you
>> supposed to know, and conversations just like this will be used
>> against your claimed lack of having a chance to hear the truth.
>> :-(
>
>1. Most people do not believe in your god.
>
>2. Leviticus is a book describing the Levites. LEVIticus. LEVIte.
>Unless you are a Levite, you need not abide by the rules of
>Leviticus. If you claim to be a Levite, you'd better lay off the pork
>and any mixed cloth and any number of other "abominations" listed
>therein.
And if you subscribe to any of Leviticus you need to follow all of the
laws of Leviticus. Have fun!!
No One
> On Mon, 7 Jul 2008 23:54:09 -0700 (PDT), juanjo
> <jonp...@mindspring.com> spake thusly:
>
> >The only specific injunction you can hold to in the one in Leviticus.
> >Then remainder are simply linguistic gymnastics. The Levitical Code is
> >clearly designed for the followers to strictly adhere to. No
> >separation of parts to ignore or follow. Further the use of Hebrew
> >"toevah" vs "zimah" shows it is a relativistic prohibition, i.e.
> >related to the religious practices of the non-Israelite peoples
> >surrounding them.
>
> If that were true, then God wouldn't have said it
> to the Israelites.
The Isreaelites at the time were supposedly trying to form their own
culture distinct from that of their neighbors. A lot of what is in
Levicitus is for that purpose.
The prohibitions against eating pork are quiet reasonable for the
conditions they were in - trichinosis was a real risk if you could
not cook pork thoroughly and fuel for a fire could be in scarce
supply. Those prohibitions are not reasonable today.
Emerson Wainwright
> Pastor Dave <ananias917_@_gmail.com> writes:
> > On Mon, 7 Jul 2008 23:54:09 -0700 (PDT), juanjo
>
> > >The only specific injunction you can hold to in the one in Leviticus.
> > >Then remainder are simply linguistic gymnastics. The Levitical Code is
> > >clearly designed for the followers to strictly adhere to. No
> > >separation of parts to ignore or follow. Further the use of Hebrew
> > >"toevah" vs "zimah" shows it is a relativistic prohibition, i.e.
> > >related to the religious practices of the non-Israelite peoples
> > >surrounding them.
>
> > If that were true, then God wouldn't have said it
> > to the Israelites.
>
> The Isreaelites at the time were supposedly trying to form their own
> culture distinct from that of their neighbors.
There were 12 tribes of Israel.
> A lot of what is in
> Levicitus is for that purpose.
No. Leviticus is a story of the Levites.
> The prohibitions against eating pork are quiet reasonable for the
> conditions they were in - trichinosis was a real risk if you could
> not cook pork thoroughly and fuel for a fire could be in scarce
> supply. Those prohibitions are not reasonable today.
In Christianity, it is said that Jesus "fulfilled the law" of
Leviticus. So while it is true that sanitation methods have improved
with respect to food, that is not the religious purpose for having
those dietary laws removed.
No One
> On Jul 9, 6:39 pm, No One <no...@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote:
> > Pastor Dave <ananias917_@_gmail.com> writes:
> > > On Mon, 7 Jul 2008 23:54:09 -0700 (PDT), juanjo
> > > <jonpe...@mindspring.com> spake thusly:
> >
> > > >The only specific injunction you can hold to in the one in Leviticus.
> > > >Then remainder are simply linguistic gymnastics. The Levitical Code is
> > > >clearly designed for the followers to strictly adhere to. No
> > > >separation of parts to ignore or follow. Further the use of Hebrew
> > > >"toevah" vs "zimah" shows it is a relativistic prohibition, i.e.
> > > >related to the religious practices of the non-Israelite peoples
> > > >surrounding them.
> >
> > > If that were true, then God wouldn't have said it
> > > to the Israelites.
> >
> > The Isreaelites at the time were supposedly trying to form their own
> > culture distinct from that of their neighbors.
>
> There were 12 tribes of Israel.
Irrelevant - their neighbors were the non-Israeli tribes.
> > A lot of what is in
> > Levicitus is for that purpose.
>
> No. Leviticus is a story of the Levites.
No, Leviticus is not a story of the Levites. It is a compilation of
rules. That's all it is.
> > The prohibitions against eating pork are quiet reasonable for the
> > conditions they were in - trichinosis was a real risk if you could
> > not cook pork thoroughly and fuel for a fire could be in scarce
> > supply. Those prohibitions are not reasonable today.
>
> In Christianity, it is said that Jesus "fulfilled the law" of
> Leviticus. So while it is true that sanitation methods have improved
> with respect to food, that is not the religious purpose for having
> those dietary laws removed.
Irrelevant. The prohibitions were most likely put in place for health
reasons, even though they didn't understand what was going on. People
who ate pork would get sick and they'd most likely interpret that as a
punishment from an angry god. Attributing such rules to a deity is
simply a convenient ploy for getting people in primitive cultures to
pay attention. Also, if you didn't tend to get as sick as your
neighbors, you had a military advantage and the Biblical accounts
seemed to have them in a frequent state of war with their neighbors. So,
they had a good reason for enforcing some of these rules.
Emerson Wainwright
> Emerson Wainwright <emersonwainwri...@hotmail.com> writes:
> > On Jul 9, 6:39 pm, No One <no...@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote:
> > > Pastor Dave <ananias917_@_gmail.com> writes:
> > > > On Mon, 7 Jul 2008 23:54:09 -0700 (PDT), juanjo
> > > > <jonpe...@mindspring.com> spake thusly:
>
> > > > >The only specific injunction you can hold to in the one in Leviticus.
> > > > >Then remainder are simply linguistic gymnastics. The Levitical Code is
> > > > >clearly designed for the followers to strictly adhere to. No
> > > > >separation of parts to ignore or follow. Further the use of Hebrew
> > > > >"toevah" vs "zimah" shows it is a relativistic prohibition, i.e.
> > > > >related to the religious practices of the non-Israelite peoples
> > > > >surrounding them.
>
> > > > If that were true, then God wouldn't have said it
> > > > to the Israelites.
>
> > > The Isreaelites at the time were supposedly trying to form their own
> > > culture distinct from that of their neighbors.
>
> > There were 12 tribes of Israel.
>
> Irrelevant - their neighbors were the non-Israeli tribes.
Wrong. They were all Israelites, and all Semitic.
> > > A lot of what is in
> > > Levicitus is for that purpose.
>
> > No. Leviticus is a story of the Levites.
>
> No, Leviticus is not a story of the Levites.
LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
LEVIticus. LEVItes.
How motherfucking dense can you BE?
> It is a compilation of
> rules.
FOR THE LEVITES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! And it's not even a "compilation of
rules for the Levites", but a DESCRIPTION of how the Levites lived.
You retarded buttfuck.
You're now going to claim theological as well as mathematical and
anthropological superiority over all of us who have proved you wrong
TIME and TIME again?!??!
> > > The prohibitions against eating pork are quiet reasonable for the
> > > conditions they were in - trichinosis was a real risk if you could
> > > not cook pork thoroughly and fuel for a fire could be in scarce
> > > supply. Those prohibitions are not reasonable today.
>
> > In Christianity, it is said that Jesus "fulfilled the law" of
> > Leviticus. So while it is true that sanitation methods have improved
> > with respect to food, that is not the religious purpose for having
> > those dietary laws removed.
>
> Irrelevant.
LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Did you READ what I wrote?
LOL!!!!!!!!
> The prohibitions were most likely put in place for health
> reasons,
And encoded into Levite law, which means only ... well... nothing.
> even though they didn't understand what was going on.
Well... speaking of people who have no clue as to what's going on,
Gary... I mean, seriously
> People
> who ate pork would get sick
Not most of 'em.
> and they'd most likely interpret that as a
> punishment from an angry god.
Cite?
> Attributing such rules to a deity is
> simply a convenient ploy for getting people in primitive cultures to
> pay attention.
Cite?
> Also, if you didn't tend to get as sick as your
> neighbors, you had a military advantage and the Biblical accounts
> seemed to have them in a frequent state of war with their neighbors. So,
> they had a good reason for enforcing some of these rules.
So... are you saying that vaccinating against hepatitis-B is a
MILITARY concern?
Oy, No One!
You have fallen the fuck off your rocker on this one!
You stupid fool. (Oh: And I fully expect this: "Emerson Wainwright
is a troll...")
Everyone else expects it, too.
Which is why so many people plonk you, Blanche.
No One
Hey moron, read the last sentence of Levicitus, which clearly states
that the rules are for the Israelites.
> You're now going to claim theological as well as mathematical and
> anthropological superiority over all of us who have proved you wrong
> TIME and TIME again?!??!
>
>
> > > > The prohibitions against eating pork are quiet reasonable for the
> > > > conditions they were in - trichinosis was a real risk if you could
> > > > not cook pork thoroughly and fuel for a fire could be in scarce
> > > > supply. Those prohibitions are not reasonable today.
> >
> > > In Christianity, it is said that Jesus "fulfilled the law" of
> > > Leviticus. So while it is true that sanitation methods have improved
> > > with respect to food, that is not the religious purpose for having
> > > those dietary laws removed.
> >
> > Irrelevant.
>
> LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> Did you READ what I wrote?
>
> LOL!!!!!!!!
>
> > The prohibitions were most likely put in place for health
> > reasons,
>
> And encoded into Levite law, which means only ... well... nothing.
... which means they Levicitus is a list of rules, not a story as
you stupidly claimed.
> > even though they didn't understand what was going on.
>
> Well... speaking of people who have no clue as to what's going on,
> Gary... I mean, seriously
>
> > People
> > who ate pork would get sick
>
> Not most of 'em.
>
> > and they'd most likely interpret that as a
> > punishment from an angry god.
>
> Cite?
>
> > Attributing such rules to a deity is
> > simply a convenient ploy for getting people in primitive cultures to
> > pay attention.
>
> Cite?
>
> > Also, if you didn't tend to get as sick as your
> > neighbors, you had a military advantage and the Biblical accounts
> > seemed to have them in a frequent state of war with their neighbors. So,
> > they had a good reason for enforcing some of these rules.
>
> So... are you saying that vaccinating against hepatitis-B is a
> MILITARY concern?
>
> Oy, No One!
YOu can bet the the U.S. military vaccinates its personal against
all sorts of things.
>
> You have fallen the fuck off your rocker on this one!
>
> You stupid fool. (Oh: And I fully expect this: "Emerson Wainwright
> is a troll...")
>
> Everyone else expects it, too.
>
> Which is why so many people plonk you, Blanche.
You are a complete and utter idiot.
Ray Fischer
>On 09 Jul 2008 02:41:22 GMT, rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>
>>Once again chilton has lied about what I posted by insterting text
>>that I did not post. The text has been removed.
>>
>>(¯`·.¸Craig Chilton¸.·´¯) -- Liar and criminal
>>>Ray Fischer
>>
>>>>> Ah. So you think that people who SNEAKED across the border,
>>>>> automatically becoming criminals per THIS Federal law,
>>>
>>>> You just cannot stop lying, can you?
>>>
>>> You are real piece of work, Ray. LYING **as** you are being
>>
>> As has been pointed out many, many times, immigration violations
>> are not a criminal offense. In fact your own cite says as much.
>
> They ARE a criminal offense. See the federal LAW, below.
Pull your head out of your bigoted ass and read the thing, asshole.
Your claim is the usual patently false lie.
>> By your own cite, you are a liar.
>
> I never lie in my posts,
There is proof that you are a liar.
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
>Emerson Wainwright <emersonw...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Illegal immigration is, by definition, illegal.
>>
>> Is it WRONG?
>
> VERY wrong.
Why?
> Not even counting all the other negative aspects, the
>one thing that bothers me the most about it is the fact that as long as
>they remain here, the ILLEGAL aliens are figuratively giving a very hard
>slap in the face to the millions of LEGAL immigrants who followed the
That is purely your own insanity, bigot. You're not an immirgant,
legal or otherwise, and you don't get to speak for those who are.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
(¯`·.¸Craig Chilton¸.·´¯) -- Rx for RRR Cult's Loathsome Agendas: Extinction!
zRay Fischer <rfis...@sonic.net> wrote:
> (¯`·.¸Craig Chilton¸.·´¯) -- Rx for RRR Cult's Loathsome
>> Emerson Wainwright <emersonw...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> Illegal immigration is, by definition, illegal.
>>> Is it WRONG?
>> VERY wrong.
> Why?
I already said why. ---
[[[ READERS: Ray dishonstly OMITTED part of those facts,
so I have RESTORED that statement completely, below. ]]]
>> VERY wrong. Not even counting all the other negative aspects, the
>> one thing that bothers me the most about it is the fact that as long as
>> they remain here, the ILLEGAL aliens are figuratively giving a very hard
>> slap in the face to the millions of LEGAL immigrants who followed the
>> rules, obeyed the law, and worked hard to EARN their residency and
>> citizensip status.
>>
>> THAT *alone* would be more than enough reason for them all to go
>> back home, get at the back of the line, and do the process honestly
>> and RIGHT.
> You're not an immirgant, legal or otherwise, and you don't get to speak
> for those who are.
SO MUCH, then, for all of us who have been, and are, ALLIES
of the blacks, of the women, and of the gays, and support and defend
their access to across-the-board EQUAL rights, huh? Because not BEING
black, female, or gay, we can't speak for them, right?
(Once again, Ray has proven himself a hypocrite.)
Ray Fischer
had to correct his alterations.
(¯`·.¸Craig Chilton¸.·´¯) -- Advocate for RRR Cult's Loathsome Agendas: Extinction! <xan...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>zRay Fischer <rfis...@sonic.net> wrote:
>>>> Illegal immigration is, by definition, illegal.
>
>>>> Is it WRONG?
>
>>> VERY wrong.
>
>> Why?
>
> I already said why. ---
That you don't LIKE it is no justification for anything
>>> VERY wrong. Not even counting all the other negative aspects, the
>>> one thing that bothers me the most about it is the fact that as long as
>>> they remain here, the ILLEGAL aliens are figuratively giving a very hard
>>> slap in the face to the millions of LEGAL immigrants who followed the
>>
>> You're not an immirgant, legal or otherwise, and you don't get to speak
>> for those who are.
>
> SO MUCH, then, for all of us who have been, and are, ALLIES
You're a bigot and a liar, asshole. Your only ally is your own ego.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
(¯`·.¸Craig Chilton¸.·´¯) -- Rx for RRR Cult's Loathsome Agendas: Extinction!
> Agendas: Extinction! <xan...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>> Emerson Wainwright <emersonw...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> Illegal immigration is, by definition, illegal.
>>> Is it WRONG?
>> VERY wrong.
> Why?
I already said why. ---
[[[ READERS: Ray dishonstly OMITTED part of those facts,
so I have RESTORED that statement completely, below. ]]]
>> VERY wrong. Not even counting all the other negative aspects, the
>> one thing that bothers me the most about it is the fact that as long as
>> they remain here, the ILLEGAL aliens are figuratively giving a very hard
>> slap in the face to the millions of LEGAL immigrants who followed the
>> rules, obeyed the law, and worked hard to EARN their residency and
>> citizensip status.
>>
>> THAT *alone* would be more than enough reason for them all to go
>> back home, get at the back of the line, and do the process honestly
>> and RIGHT.
> You're not an immirgant, legal or otherwise, and you don't get to speak
> for those who are.
SO MUCH, then, for all of us who have been, and are, ALLIES
(¯`·.¸Craig Chilton¸.·´¯) -- Rx for RRR Cult's Loathsome Agendas: Extinction!
> (¯`·.¸Craig Chilton¸.·´¯) Rx for RRR Cult's Lathsome
> Agendas -- EXTINCTION! wrote:
>> Ray Fischer -- Criminal-coddler <rfis...@sonic.net> wrote:
>>>> Ah. So you think that people who SNEAKED across the border,
>>>> automatically becoming criminals per THIS Federal law,
>>> You just cannot stop lying, can you?
>> You are real piece of work, Ray. LYING **as** you are.
> As has been pointed out many, many times, immigration violations
> are not a criminal offense. In fact your own cite says as much.
They ARE a criminal offense. See the federal LAW, below. It's
not just the ones in Section 1325. It's ALSO the ones covered by
Section 1326 -- FELONS. (I've mentioned that section before, but
am including it in THIS post.)
> By your own cite, you are a liar.
I never lie in my posts, and I didn't in this one.
>> = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Ray Fischer
>zRay Fischer <rfis...@sonic.net> wrote:
>>>> Illegal immigration is, by definition, illegal.
>
>>>> Is it WRONG?
>
>>> VERY wrong.
>
>> Why?
>
> I already said why. ---
Farting a bigoted opinion isn't saying why it's wrong. It's only
saying why you don't LIKE it.
>>> Not even counting all the other negative aspects, the
>>> one thing that bothers me the most about it is the fact that as long as
>>> they remain here, the ILLEGAL aliens are figuratively giving a very hard
>>> slap in the face to the millions of LEGAL immigrants who followed the
That is pure opinion and coming from somebody who is not an immigrant.
>> You're not an immirgant, legal or otherwise, and you don't get to speak
>> for those who are.
>
> SO MUCH, then, for all of us who have been, and are, ALLIES
You're a bigot, asshole, and an ally of nobody but yourself.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
>Ray Fischer
>>>>> Ah. So you think that people who SNEAKED across the border,
>>>>> automatically becoming criminals per THIS Federal law,
>
>>>> You just cannot stop lying, can you?
>
>>> You are real piece of work, Ray. LYING **as** you are.
>
>> As has been pointed out many, many times, immigration violations
>> are not a criminal offense. In fact your own cite says as much.
>
> They ARE a criminal offense. See the federal LAW, below.
The law says that you are a liar.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
(¯`·.¸Craig Chilton¸.·´¯) -- Rx for RRR Cult's Loathsome Agendas: Extinction!
[[[ Ray's WHINES were already answered in
the previous post, so I'm repeating it.
(Maybe this time ge'll GET it -- but I won't
be holding my breath! ]]]
Ray Fischer <rfis...@sonic.net> wrote:
> (¯`·.¸Craig Chilton¸.·´¯) -- Rx for RRR Cult's Loathsome
> Agendas: Extinction! <xan...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>> Emerson Wainwright <emersonw...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> Illegal immigration is, by definition, illegal.
>>> Is it WRONG?
>> VERY wrong.
> Why?
I already said why. ---
[[[ READERS: Ray dishonstly OMITTED part of those facts,
so I have RESTORED that statement completely, below. ]]]
>> VERY wrong. Not even counting all the other negative aspects, the
>> one thing that bothers me the most about it is the fact that as long as
>> they remain here, the ILLEGAL aliens are figuratively giving a very hard
>> slap in the face to the millions of LEGAL immigrants who followed the
>> rules, obeyed the law, and worked hard to EARN their residency and
>> citizensip status.
>>
>> THAT *alone* would be more than enough reason for them all to go
>> back home, get at the back of the line, and do the process honestly
>> and RIGHT.
> You're not an immirgant, legal or otherwise, and you don't get to speak
> for those who are.
SO MUCH, then, for all of us who have been, and are, ALLIES
Ray Fischer
>
> [[[ Ray's WHINES were already answered in
Chilton is lying his bigoted ass off.
>Ray Fischer <rfis...@sonic.net> wrote:
>> (¯`·.¸Craig Chilton¸.·´¯) -- Rx for RRR Cult's Loathsome
>> Agendas: Extinction! <xan...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>>> Emerson Wainwright <emersonw...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>>>> Illegal immigration is, by definition, illegal.
>
>>>> Is it WRONG?
>
>>> VERY wrong.
>
>> Why?
>
> I already said why. ---
Because you're a bigot.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
(¯`·.¸Craig Chilton¸.·´¯) -- Rx for RRR Cult's Loathsome Agendas: Extinction!
[[[ Ray's WHINES were already answered in
the previous post, so I'm repeating it.
(Maybe this time ge'll GET it -- but I won't
be holding my breath! ]]]
Ray Fischer <rfis...@sonic.net> wrote:
> (¯`·.¸Craig Chilton¸.·´¯) -- Rx for RRR Cult's Loathsome
> Agendas: Extinction! <xan...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>> Emerson Wainwright <emersonw...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> Illegal immigration is, by definition, illegal.
>>> Is it WRONG?
>> VERY wrong.
> Why?
I already said why. ---
[[[ READERS: Ray dishonstly OMITTED part of those facts,
(¯`·.¸Craig Chilton¸.·´¯) -- Rx for RRR Cult's Loathsome Agendas: Extinction!
Ray Fischer <rfis...@sonic.net> wrote:
> (¯`·.¸Craig Chilton¸.·´¯) -- Help make the USA
> a Bigotry-FREE Zone! wrote:
>> Ray Fischer wrote:
>>>>>> Ah. So you think that people who SNEAKED across the border,
>>>>>> automatically becoming criminals per THIS Federal law,
>>>>> You just cannot stop lying, can you?
>>>> You are real piece of work, Ray. LYING **as** you are.
>>> As has been pointed out many, many times, immigration violations
>>> are not a criminal offense. In fact your own cite says as much.
>> They ARE a criminal offense. See the federal LAW, below.
> The law says that you are a liar.
Wrong. What part of the word, "felony," don't you understand.
If a person is in violation of Section 1326, that is a FELONIOUS criminal
act.
THIS is a FELONY ---