JOHN HAGEE -- You *Don't* speak for our generation. Only for **your** bigoted PORTION of it!
Craig Chilton
An ***OPEN LETTER*** to Pastor John Hagee
Cornerstone Baptist Church
San Antonio, Texas
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
Dear Rev. Hagee:
On your "Cornerstone" broadcast today (4/18/04) on
TBN, you mentioned that you were born in 1940, and you were
speaking of today's generation of young people. And you said:
"You're not from my world, and I'm not from yours.
That's why MY generation thinks we need a Constitu-
tional Amendment to protect the sanctity of marriage,
that guarantees that -- in America -- the only marriage
to be recognized, is the marriage between a man and
a woman."
Guess what, Rev. Hagee? I was born in 1941, and I can
**ASSURE** you that your hateful bigotry does NOT speak for
***our*** generation. It speaks ONLY for ***your*** petty and
ignorant PORTION of our generation. WITHIN our generation,
there are **tens of millions** of fair-minded, sensible, and
egalitarian straight **allies** of the gays, along with the gays
themselves, that want NO PART of your exclusionary, bigoted,
and sociopathic hatefulness. And if you've been paying any
attention to the Gallup Polls, you *also* know that 83% of
Americans are Christians.
Approximately 50% of Americans today support same sex
civil unions/marriage. (And per CNN's exit polls of the Wis-
consin Primary, that number was ***61%***. And in that primary,
people of ALL parties were able to vote. It was a good cross-
section of the sentiments of that heartland state.) Do the math.
Whether it bothers you or not is immaterial. The facts are clear.
Tens of millions of American CHRISTIANS *support* same-sex
marriage. And that number probably exceeds a HUNDRED
million!
So stop LYING. (As a preacher, you should be aware that
there is a Commandment against that. And *also* as a preacher,
you should be aware that there is NO commandment against
same-sex marriage. And if you choose to start with LESSER
"prohibitions" than the Commandments, then may I suggest
you start with fortune-tellers? As least THEN, you would not
be directing your mindless hatefulness against several *million*
people and their individual liberties.)
You do NOT speak for America's middle-aged population.
Not even remotely.
Sincerely,
Craig Chilton
P.O. Box 3007
Waterloo, Iowa 50707-0007
E-mail: xana...@mchsi.com
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
Craig Chilton <xana...@mchsi.com>
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
INSIGHT on our Warmonger-in-Thief ---
http://homepage.mac.com/webmasterkai/kaicurry/gwbush/dishonestdubya.html
AND...
http://www.blackboxvoting.com/
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
Pangur Ban
> An ***OPEN LETTER*** to Pastor John Hagee Cornerstone Baptist Church
> San Antonio, Texas
>
> ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
>
> Dear Rev. Hagee:
>
> On your "Cornerstone" broadcast today (4/18/04) on TBN, you mentioned
> that you were born in 1940, and you were speaking of today's
> generation of young people. And you said:
>
> "You're not from my world, and I'm not from yours. That's why MY
> generation thinks we need a Constitu- tional Amendment to protect the
> sanctity of marriage, that guarantees that -- in America -- the only
> marriage to be recognized, is the marriage between a man and a
> woman."
>
> Guess what, Rev. Hagee? I was born in 1941, and I can **ASSURE** you
> that your hateful bigotry does NOT speak for ***our*** generation.
Hear! Hear! The nutter doesn't speak for me - and I too am of the same
generation.
> Tens of millions of American CHRISTIANS *support* same-sex marriage.
> And that number probably exceeds a HUNDRED million!
Hey!!! Don't omit us non-christians! Or don't I get counted with the
supporters of same-sex marriages just 'cause I am not christian? Not
fair! *egrin*
>
*snip*
> You do NOT speak for America's middle-aged population. Not even
> remotely.
RIGHT!
Pang
Craig Chilton
Pangur Ban <Pangu...@SatisHouse.org> wrote:
> Craig Chilton <xana...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>> An ***OPEN LETTER*** to Pastor John Hagee
>> Cornerstone Baptist Church
>> San Antonio, Texas
>>
>> ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
>>
>> Dear Rev. Hagee:
>>
>> On your "Cornerstone" broadcast today (4/18/04) on TBN, you
>> mentioned that you were born in 1940, and you were speaking of today's
>> generation of young people. And you said:
>>
>> "You're not from my world, and I'm not from yours. That's why MY
>> generation thinks we need a Constitutional Amendment to protect the
>> sanctity of marriage, that guarantees that -- in America -- the only
>> marriage to be recognized, is the marriage between a man and a
>> woman."
>>
>> Guess what, Rev. Hagee? I was born in 1941, and I can **ASSURE**
>> you that your hateful bigotry does NOT speak for ***our*** generation.
> Hear! Hear! The nutter doesn't speak for me -- and I too am of the
> same generation.
>> Tens of millions of American CHRISTIANS *support* same-sex
>> marriage. And that number probably exceeds a HUNDRED million!
> Hey!!! Don't omit us non-Christians! Or don't I get counted with the
> supporters of same-sex marriages just 'cause I am not Christian? Not
> fair! *egrin*
LOL!! No. By all means, you are a VERY welcome member of the
Egalitarian Community -- as are ALL fair-minded and sensible people,
regardless of their religious orientations.
(If course, my point to Hagee was that his agenda goes AGAINST
the grain of millions of FAIR-minded people of his OWN faith... as I'm
sure you realized.)
>*snip*
>> You do NOT speak for America's middle-aged population. Not even
>> remotely.
>RIGHT!
>
>Pang
Thanks for seconding this, Pang!
Varicose Brain
wrote:
>
> An ***OPEN LETTER*** to Pastor John Hagee
> Cornerstone Baptist Church
> San Antonio, Texas
If you really want to stick it to televangelist assholes like Hagee,
start digging into their finances.
Matt
>> supporters of same-sex marriages just 'cause I am not Christian? Not
>> fair! *egrin*
>
> LOL!! No. By all means, you are a VERY welcome member of the
> Egalitarian Community -- as are ALL fair-minded and sensible people,
> regardless of their religious orientations.
>
> (If course, my point to Hagee was that his agenda goes AGAINST
> the grain of millions of FAIR-minded people of his OWN faith... as I'm
> sure you realized.)
Here! Here! even as a Freemason and Protestant, my granddad, who is around
70'ish doesn't see issues like "same sex unions" as a problem; there are
bigger problems in society than what gay people do behind close doors. If gay
people want to get married, let them. If adults of the same sex wish to have
sex, then so be it. If heterosexual couples find it thrilling to be slapped
with slices of meat, then so be it. If both sides of the fence want to do
everything in the Karma Sutra, then so be it.
It seems that we have two types of people in the world; the nosy and the
rational. It seems that nosiness is synonymous with the Christian
Fundamentalist factions, heck! even the Muslim Fundamentalists aren't that bad!
considering that there has to be at least FOUR witnesses to prove that a
person is not only homosexual but also "committed sodomy as well", the chances
of being persecuted in a Muslim country is a lot lower than in the so-called
"land of the free".
Matt
Matt
Ever notice how these "holy men" always have the most expensive suites? I mean,
these are men of god, aren't they meant to take a vow of poverty? live a
simple and pure life?
Matt
Craig Chilton
Matt <kaiw...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> Varicose Brain wrote:
>> Craig Chilton <xana...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>>> An ***OPEN LETTER*** to Pastor John Hagee
>>> Cornerstone Baptist Church
>>> San Antonio, Texas
>> If you really want to stick it to televangelist assholes like
>> Hagee, start digging into their finances.
> Ever notice how these "holy men" always have the most
> expensive suites? I mean, these are men of God, aren't they
> meant to take a vow of poverty? Live a simple and pure life?
I've always regarded vows of poverty to be a bit extreme and
fanatical. REALISTIC and SENSIBLE though, would be to live a
normal, middle-class life. With the exception of just a few minor
luxuries or hobbies, though, for those who live high on the hog,
one needs to wonder if it ever crosses their minds what that
EXTRA personal money could do for TRULY impoverished people.
And take Robert Schuller's "Crystal Cathedral" complex in
Garden Grove, California. It's spectacular, yes -- but I think it
cost around $23 million. What if they'd only spent 1 or 2 million
instead, and ended up with a very NICE church... and then
spent the REST on schools and teachers in 3rd-world countries?
Doesn't Schuller's conscience ever bother him about things
like that?
Matt
Been there, nice, but not as nice as the St Pauls Cathedral in Wellington
which is along the lines of the a-typical Protestant minimalist styling.
http://www.faithcentral.net.nz/inclass/music/stpauls/
Its where the government has all their commemoration days; ANZAC day,
Remembrance Day etc. etc. The picture on the far left in the above link is Old
St Pauls which is now owned by the government.
Matt
Light Templar
> x-no-archive: yes> john w responded
>>
>> An ***OPEN LETTER*** to Pastor John Hagee
>> Cornerstone Baptist Church
>> San Antonio, Texas
>>
>> ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
>>
>> Dear Rev. Hagee:
>>
>> On your "Cornerstone" broadcast today (4/18/04) on
>> TBN, you mentioned that you were born in 1940, and you were
>> speaking of today's generation of young people. And you said:
>>
>> "You're not from my world, and I'm not from yours.
>> That's why MY generation thinks we need a Constitu-
>> tional Amendment to protect the sanctity of marriage,
>> that guarantees that -- in America -- the only marriage
>> to be recognized, is the marriage between a man and
>> a woman."
>>
>> Guess what, Rev. Hagee? I was born in 1941, and I can
>> **ASSURE** you that your hateful bigotry does NOT speak for
>> ***our*** generation. It speaks ONLY for ***your*** petty and
>> ignorant PORTION of our generation. WITHIN our generation,
>> there are **tens of millions** of fair-minded, sensible, and
>> egalitarian straight **allies** of the gays, along with the gays
>> themselves, that want NO PART of your exclusionary, bigoted,
>> and sociopathic hatefulness. And if you've been paying any
>> attention to the Gallup Polls, you *also* know that 83% of
>> Americans are Christians.
>
And since this is America, if they say they are Christians, then that is
what they are.
>
> However, if you pin them down on that belief and what it means to be
> a Christian, MOST reject the essentials of the Christian faith, what C
> S Lewis called "Mere Christianity".
Check your copy of the Constitution for where it says "Freedom of religion,
EXCEPT those whose religion I disagree with." Hint: You're probably not
going to find it.
--
I'd kill for a Nobel Peace Prize.
Steven Wright
Varicose Brain
>> If you really want to stick it to televangelist assholes like Hagee,
>> start digging into their finances.
>
>Ever notice how these "holy men" always have the most expensive suites? I mean,
>these are men of god, aren't they meant to take a vow of poverty? live a
>simple and pure life?
>
>Matt
It doesn't matter to them as long has the collection plate if full at
the end of the day.
Matt
>>**ASSURE** you that your hateful bigotry does NOT speak for
>>***our*** generation. It speaks ONLY for ***your*** petty and
>>ignorant PORTION of our generation. WITHIN our generation,
>>there are **tens of millions** of fair-minded, sensible, and
>>egalitarian straight **allies** of the gays, along with the gays
>>themselves, that want NO PART of your exclusionary, bigoted,
>>and sociopathic hatefulness. And if you've been paying any
>>attention to the Gallup Polls, you *also* know that 83% of
>>Americans are Christians.
>
>
> a Christian, MOST reject the essentials of the Christian faith, what C
> S Lewis called "Mere Christianity".
True. Just ask how many times they go to church a year as one indicator. Its
like the old saying, "the non-practising Christian" or the "atheist Jew" which
is what Karl Marx called himself.
matt
Craig Chilton
Nice. I'll have to ad that to my list of things to see when I
finally get to New Zealand. Which is still 2 trips away. My last
one was to Machu Picchu, Peru, last summer, and my nex one
will be to the 3 gorges in China -- BEFORE they get ruined by
the dam. And that means this year -- or nex year at the latest!
Craig Chilton
John Weatherly <john_wea...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Craig chilton <xana...@mchsi.com> wrote:
> Correction: "83 % of Americans.." CLAIM to be "Christians."
>
> However, if you pin them down on that belief and what it
> means to be a Christian, MOST reject the essentials of the
> Christian faith, what C.S. Lewis called "Mere Christianity".
>
>jw
*Claiming* is sufficient for the parameters of this letter.
The point being made is this: to no matter WHAT extent a
person practices or understands Christianity, Hagee does
NOT represent the tens of MILLIONS of them that want
nothing to do with his agenda of hate.
>> Approximately 50% of Americans today support same sex
>> civil unions/marriage. (And per CNN's exit polls of the Wis-
>> consin Primary, that number was ***61%***. And in that primary,
>> people of ALL parties were able to vote. It was a good cross-
>> section of the sentiments of that heartland state.) Do the math.
>> Whether it bothers you or not is immaterial. The facts are clear.
>> Tens of millions of American CHRISTIANS *support* same-sex
>> marriage. And that number probably exceeds a HUNDRED
>> million!
>>
>> So stop LYING. (As a preacher, you should be aware that
>> there is a Commandment against that. And *also* as a preacher,
>> you should be aware that there is NO commandment against
>> same-sex marriage. And if you choose to start with LESSER
>> "prohibitions" than the Commandments, then may I suggest
>> you start with fortune-tellers? As least THEN, you would not
>> be directing your mindless hatefulness against several *million*
>> people and their individual liberties.)
>>
>> You do NOT speak for America's middle-aged population.
>> Not even remotely.
>>
>> Sincerely,
>> Craig Chilton
>> P.O. Box 3007
>> Waterloo, Iowa 50707-0007
>>
>> E-mail: xana...@mchsi.com
B&J
"Matt" <kaiw...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:20040419232...@news.individual.net...
In their world, God is a CEO in a three piece suit and if you're one of his
boys, you gotta play the part.....
Wonder how many stock options he has in Heaven, Inc.????
IT @something.net Don
wrote:
> And take Robert Schuller's "Crystal Cathedral" complex in
>Garden Grove, California. It's spectacular, yes -- but I think it
>cost around $23 million.
The original plan was to cost around 8 to 10 million dollars at the
most. But remember, Jimmy Carter was president. The prime interest
rate went up to 22 percent while they were trying to keep the
cathedral debt-free. Inflation -- 30 percent of 10 million -- boosted
it to 13, and then 30 percent, you're up to 16 million, so they went
to 20.
However, in Los Angeles is the new Our Lady of the Angels Cathedral.
If you go for a visit, plan to spend a $12.00 fee to park in their
multi-level underground parking structure. It may be the largest
parking garage owned and operated by a church in the world.
The golden limestone Catholic Cathedral courtyard with gardens, shops,
stonework, and fountains is about the size of 3 football fields. The
contemporary nave is 333 feet long and 132 feet high. The Cathedral
has 25 enormous 47-foot long tapestries with depicting 135 almost
photographic figures of the saints.
The entire cost of the Cathedral was more than $160,000,000 dollars.
>What if they'd only spent 1 or 2 million
>instead, and ended up with a very NICE church... and then
>spent the REST on schools and teachers in 3rd-world countries?
Are you gonna call the Catholic Bishop or the Pope and suggest THAT to
THEM???
Can you build a "very NICE church" that seats 3000 people, including
television production facilities, audio system for 3000, etc. for one
million dollars? What about Sunday school? What about parking? What
about landscaping?
>Doesn't Schuller's conscience ever bother him about things
>like that?
Doesn't the Pope's conscience ever bother him about things like
that???
But the way, in 1955, the Reverend Robert Schuller and his wife,
Arvella, came with $500, a second-hand organ and a dream to bring The
Reformed Church of America to Southern California. Their Parish began
in a drive-in theater with the slogan, "Come as you are in the family
car."
When Jimmy Carter was president, runaway inflation nearly doubled the
cost of the Cathedral construction. It's quite a phenomenon that the
building was paid for before it even opened.
> Craig Chilton <xana...@mchsi.com>
Hey Craig, what can you build for 1million to seat 3000 people and
provide for a television audience of millions???
These comments are meant to offend everyone equally. If, for some reason you are not offended, please write me with a description of
yourself including your name, race, weight, religious views, political party, strong opinions, physical disabilities and anything else that you are
touchy about, and I will try to offend you in a future comment. Complaints should be emailed to: bit...@likeiactuallycare.com
Gomez Addams
really good big car that he can rely on to get him to visiting the sick etc.
He might even =drive= the sick somewhere. It does NOT have to be a Cadillac,
but there are very few full-size cars anymore. I drive a 2003 Mercury Grand
Marquis, this being my choice because I am a big guy, I have a large family
and had a wife that had to be driven all over God's creation to doctors
before she died. It gave me seats for 6, the family plus a person to watch
the kids while we were getting chemo etc.
It also is very helpful if someone =must= lie down. I have a friend who
is 6'2" tall and she had a hysterectomy followed by a gall bladder removal;
she had to lay down across the back seat curled into a fetal position from
the pain.
Before you judge someone, consider whether they have a good reason to
have what they have or not.
Before you are jealous of someone's position in life, ask yourself if
you're willing to go through what they did to put them in the position
they're in.
--
Gomez Addams, CEO, Addams Industries Unltd.
Man-eating Tigers Exterminated, Wine Tasted,
Looney Detection, Bridges Burned, Money Buried.
Peacenik
news:sip780lnmaqb6sifs...@4ax.com...
> x-no-archive: yes
> On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 22:07:54 GMT, xana...@mchsi.com (Craig Chilton)
> wrote:
> john w responded
> >
> > An ***OPEN LETTER*** to Pastor John Hagee
> > Cornerstone Baptist Church
> > San Antonio, Texas
> >
> >~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
> >
> >Dear Rev. Hagee:
> >
> > On your "Cornerstone" broadcast today (4/18/04) on
> >TBN, you mentioned that you were born in 1940, and you were
> >speaking of today's generation of young people. And you said:
> >
> > "You're not from my world, and I'm not from yours.
> > That's why MY generation thinks we need a Constitu-
> > tional Amendment to protect the sanctity of marriage,
> > that guarantees that -- in America -- the only marriage
> > to be recognized, is the marriage between a man and
> > a woman."
> >
> > Guess what, Rev. Hagee? I was born in 1941, and I can
> >**ASSURE** you that your hateful bigotry does NOT speak for
> >***our*** generation. It speaks ONLY for ***your*** petty and
> >ignorant PORTION of our generation. WITHIN our generation,
> >there are **tens of millions** of fair-minded, sensible, and
> >egalitarian straight **allies** of the gays, along with the gays
> >themselves, that want NO PART of your exclusionary, bigoted,
> >and sociopathic hatefulness. And if you've been paying any
> >attention to the Gallup Polls, you *also* know that 83% of
> >Americans are Christians.
>
And since a Christian is anyone who claims to be a Christian, that means
that 83% of Americans are Christians...
--
Peacenik
IT @something.net Don
wrote:
>
> An ***OPEN LETTER*** to Pastor John Hagee
> Cornerstone Baptist Church
> San Antonio, Texas
>
>~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
>
>Dear Rev. Hagee:
>
> On your "Cornerstone" broadcast today (4/18/04) on
>TBN, you mentioned that you were born in 1940, and you were
>speaking of today's generation of young people. And you said:
>
> "You're not from my world, and I'm not from yours.
> That's why MY generation thinks we need a Constitu-
> tional Amendment to protect the sanctity of marriage,
> that guarantees that -- in America -- the only marriage
> to be recognized, is the marriage between a man and
> a woman."
Ask him about a constitutional amendment to protect the sanctity of
marriage from DIVORCE!!!
During the time when Hagee was serving the Charismatic congregation at
Trinity Church (1976) in San Antonio, he divorced his wife, resigned
and married a young woman in the congregation, Diana Castro. Custody
of Hagee’s two children by his ex-wife, Martha, went to her.
In a letter to the church, Hagee admitted immorality, which later
became part of the court records in the custody battle. Martha later
also remarried and started another family. Not surprisingly, there is
a hiatus from 1976 to 1987 left out of Hagee’s web site biography.
How about a constitutional amendment making marriage PERMANANT, like
the vows...for better or for worse??? They could both be worked into
the same amendment...then let's see now many states would go along
with that!!!
D*
The reward for conformity is everyone likes you but yourself.
- - Rita Mae Brown
Bard Kesnit
message <news:cuTgc.505$gH6...@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net>...
> I will inject one observation into the discussion. A pastor needs a
>really good big car that he can rely on to get him to visiting the sick
>etc. He might even =drive= the sick somewhere. It does NOT have to be
>a Cadillac,
What is wrong with a mini-van or SUV? You have plenty of room - either
for a large family or to allow people to stretch out in the back. And
they cost a LOT less than a fancy car.
Bard Kesnit
walksalone
> Path: news.netfront.net!HSNX.atgi.net!newshosting.com!nx01.iad01.newshosting.com!newsfeed.news2me.com!newsfeed3.easynews.com!newsfeed1.easynews.com!easynews.com!easynews!feed.news.qwest.net!news.uswest.net.POSTED!not-for-mail
> From: john w <john_wea...@yahoo.com>
> Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.bible,alt.religion.christian,alt.religion.christian.baptist,alt.politics.usa.republican
> Subject: Re: JOHN HAGEE -- You *Don't* speak for our generation. Only for **your** bigoted PORTION of it!
> Reply-To: God in Heaven
> Message-ID: <sip780lnmaqb6sifs...@4ax.com>
> References: <4084f8bd...@netnews.mchsi.com>
> X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 2.0/32.646
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> Lines: 90
> Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2004 07:48:40 -0700
> NNTP-Posting-Host: 67.5.190.48
> X-Trace: news.uswest.net 1082385937 67.5.190.48 (Mon, 19 Apr 2004 09:45:37 CDT)
> NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2004 09:45:37 CDT
> Xref: news.netfront.net alt.politics.homosexuality:211071 alt.bible:331621 alt.religion.christian:523810 alt.religion.christian.baptist:309508 alt.politics.usa.republican:760585
>
> x-no-archive: yes
> On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 22:07:54 GMT, xana...@mchsi.com (Craig Chilton)
> wrote:
> john w responded
>>
>> An ***OPEN LETTER*** to Pastor John Hagee
>> Cornerstone Baptist Church
>> San Antonio, Texas
>>
>>~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
>>
>>Dear Rev. Hagee:
>>
>> On your "Cornerstone" broadcast today (4/18/04) on
>>TBN, you mentioned that you were born in 1940, and you were
>>speaking of today's generation of young people. And you said:
>>
>> "You're not from my world, and I'm not from yours.
>> That's why MY generation thinks we need a Constitu-
>> tional Amendment to protect the sanctity of marriage,
>> that guarantees that -- in America -- the only marriage
>> to be recognized, is the marriage between a man and
>> a woman."
>>
>> Guess what, Rev. Hagee? I was born in 1941, and I can
>>**ASSURE** you that your hateful bigotry does NOT speak for
>>***our*** generation. It speaks ONLY for ***your*** petty and
>>ignorant PORTION of our generation. WITHIN our generation,
>>there are **tens of millions** of fair-minded, sensible, and
>>egalitarian straight **allies** of the gays, along with the gays
>>themselves, that want NO PART of your exclusionary, bigoted,
>>and sociopathic hatefulness. And if you've been paying any
>>attention to the Gallup Polls, you *also* know that 83% of
>>Americans are Christians.
>
> Correction: "83 % of Americans.." CLAIM to be "Christians."
>
> However, if you pin them down on that belief and what it means to be
> a Christian, MOST reject the essentials of the Christian faith, what C
> S Lewis called "Mere Christianity".
>
> jw
>
>>
Craig Chilton
"Gomez Addams" <n...@good.address> wrote:
> I will inject one observation into the discussion. A pastor
> needs a really good big car that he can rely on to get him to
> visiting the sick etc. He might even =drive= the sick somewhere.
> It does NOT have to be a Cadillac, but there are very few full-size
> cars anymore. I drive a 2003 Mercury Grand Marquis, this being
> my choice because I am a big guy, I have a large family and had
> a wife that had to be driven all over God's creation to doctors
> before she died. It gave me seats for 6, the family plus a person to
> watch the kids while we were getting chemo etc.
<
> It also is very helpful if someone =must= lie down. I have a friend
> who is 6'2" tall and she had a hysterectomy followed by a gall bladder
> removal; she had to lay down across the back seat curled into a
> fetal position from the pain.
>
> Before you judge someone, consider whether they have a good
> reason to have what they have or not.
>
> Before you are jealous of someone's position in life, ask yourself if
> you're willing to go through what they did to put them in the position
> they're in.
I'm the originator of the "John Hagee" thread (from which
about half the responders for some arcane reason keeps varying
the subject line, thus spawning new threads, rather than simply
allowing the thread to progress concisely. Otherwise, I wouldn't
have needed to point that out.)
I'm a PK. My father was a minister, and we always lived in
an average. middle-class mode. He used to have a prestigious
pastorate heading a church in New York City (corner of 68th St.
and 1st Avenue, in Manhattan, across the street from the Sloan
Kettering cancer center), but we moved to a small town in upstate
New York's Mohawk Valley when I was 5, because he thought
that would be a better environment in which to raise kids.
So you can forget any "jealousy" aspect on MY part (although
I wasn't the one who brought up the opulence aspect, and my
original post doesn't deal at all with that).
But since it came up, my own feelings are that it doesn't matter
if a minister has a nice and reliable car. But one DOES need to
wonder why any minister would condone and pursue the wasting of
23 million dollars on something like a "Crystal Cathedral," when SO
much good could be done in impoverished parts of the world with
that amount of money.
>--
>Gomez Addams, CEO, Addams Industries Unltd.
>Man-eating Tigers Exterminated, Wine Tasted,
>Looney Detection, Bridges Burned, Money Buried.
Craig Chilton
Bard Kesnit <vtc...@hotmail.nospam..com> wrote:
> Gomez Addams wrote:
>> I will inject one observation into the discussion. A pastor needs a
>> really good big car that he can rely on to get him to visiting the sick,
>> etc. He might even =drive= the sick somewhere. It does NOT have
>> to be a Cadillac,
> What is wrong with a mini-van or SUV? You have plenty of room --
> either for a large family or to allow people to stretch out in the back.
> And they cost a LOT less than a fancy car.
Excellent point!
>Bard Kesnit
walksalone
presuming he had any answers posted the contrary evidence below.
Follow up set.
> Path: news.netfront.net!HSNX.atgi.net!newshosting.com!nx01.iad01.newshosting.com!newsfeed.news2me.com!newsfeed3.easynews.com!newsfeed1.easynews.com!easynews.com!easynews!feed.news.qwest.net!news.uswest.net.POSTED!not-for-mail
> From: john w <john_wea...@yahoo.com>
> Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.bible,alt.religion.christian,alt.religion.christian.baptist,alt.politics.usa.republican
> Subject: Re: JOHN HAGEE -- You *Don't* speak for our generation. Only for **your** bigoted PORTION of it!
> Reply-To: God in Heaven
> Message-ID: <sip780lnmaqb6sifs...@4ax.com>
> References: <4084f8bd...@netnews.mchsi.com>
> X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 2.0/32.646
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> Lines: 90
> Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2004 07:48:40 -0700
> NNTP-Posting-Host: 67.5.190.48
> X-Trace: news.uswest.net 1082385937 67.5.190.48 (Mon, 19 Apr 2004 09:45:37 CDT)
> NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2004 09:45:37 CDT
> Xref: news.netfront.net alt.politics.homosexuality:211071 alt.bible:331621 alt.religion.christian:523810 alt.religion.christian.baptist:309508 alt.politics.usa.republican:760585
> On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 22:07:54 GMT, xana...@mchsi.com (Craig Chilton)
> wrote:
> john w responded
snip
>>and sociopathic hatefulness. And if you've been paying any
>>attention to the Gallup Polls, you *also* know that 83% of
>>Americans are Christians.
> Correction: "83 % of Americans.." CLAIM to be "Christians."
Don't you just hate those sweeping generalizations, unless they are yours
that is. So, you know all the xians, & you are granted, by your gods, the
discernment as to who the true xian is, in spite of knowing next to nothing
[& yes, I am, being generous there based on your posting history] about
what might constitute a xian. Hint, you don't get to decide, that is just
another of your erroneous assumptions.
> However, if you pin them down on that belief and what it means to be
A thing you claim to be able to do, in spite of your version of your
fractured fairy tail. One that does not agree with history, real of church.
> a Christian, MOST reject the essentials of the Christian faith, what C
> S Lewis called "Mere Christianity".
Well, we can see what it did for you, & that would be grounds to reject the
whole thing. But being CS Lewis was not even a theologian, but a fourth
rate apologetic, why would anyone other than you give a rat's ass what he
said?
> jw
The jackadaw one today then, screech much, say nothing. Typical.
snip, apparently jw's frog pills kicked in & he went beddy bye.
walksalone who has no doubt that jw is willing to prove his ignorance on
any subject.
Craig Chilton
<Extraneous header data, that normally is viewable
on news readers by choice, deleted. (What was the
point of including THAT?!?)>
>>> Craig Chilton <xana...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>>> what C. S. Lewis called "Mere Christianity".
>> *Claiming* is sufficient for the parameters of this letter.
>> The point being made is this: to no matter WHAT extent a
>> person practices or understands Christianity, Hagee does
>> NOT represent the tens of MILLIONS of them that want
>> nothing to do with his agenda of hate.
>>>> Approximately 50% of Americans today support same sex
>>>> civil unions/marriage. (And per CNN's exit polls of the Wis-
>>>> consin Primary, that number was ***61%***. And in that primary,
>>>> people of ALL parties were able to vote. It was a good cross-
>>>> section of the sentiments of that heartland state.) Do the math.
>>>> Whether it bothers you or not is immaterial. The facts are clear.
>>>> Tens of millions of American CHRISTIANS *support* same-sex
>>>> marriage. And that number probably exceeds a HUNDRED
>>>> million!
>>>>
>>>> So stop LYING. (As a preacher, you should be aware that
>>>> there is a Commandment against that. And *also* as a preacher,
>>>> you should be aware that there is NO commandment against
>>>> same-sex marriage. And if you choose to start with LESSER
>>>> "prohibitions" than the Commandments, then may I suggest
>>>> you start with fortune-tellers? As least THEN, you would not
>>>> be directing your mindless hatefulness against several *million*
>>>> people and their individual liberties.)
>>>>
>>>> You do NOT speak for America's middle-aged population.
>>>> Not even remotely.
>>>>
>>>> Sincerely,
>>>> Craig Chilton
>>>> P.O. Box 3007
>>>> Waterloo, Iowa 50707-0007
>>>>
>>>> E-mail: xana...@mchsi.com
The above re-post under an *altered* subject header (thus
causing it to create a new thread) seems utterly pointless. The
original has been up for such a short time, it's still on all the
servers. And even if it weren't, it still could have been posted
there, via the original headers, thus continuing the original thread.
So, "Walksalone," what was your point of doing this?
ESPECIALLY since you didn't even CONTRIBUTE
anything to it?!?
(BTW, in case you an I are in agreement on this issue, this
isn't meant to be harsh. I'm simply wondering why you did
is, as discussed in the points above.)
DrDarwin Brainwasher PhD
bigoted PORTION of it!
From: xana...@mchsi.com (Craig Chilton)
From: xana...@mchsi.com (Craig Chilton)
Date: 18/04/2004 6:07 PM Eastern Daylight Time
Message-id: <4084f8bd...@netnews.mchsi.com
<snip garbage letter>
Polls consistently show at least 2/3 of Americans OPPOSE homosexual
''marriage''. You claimed 83 % of americans are christians, yet only 40 % of
those go to church. NO christian approves of homosexual ''marriage'', only
sick, perverted atheists that also approve of pornography, incest, polygamy,
group marriage, bestiality, pedophilia and other similar perversions.
John Hagee should be congratulated for not sticking to the ''politically
correct'' message but for his own beliefs and faith in God's Word, the Bible.
He is a hero and great pastor. You are just whining and attempting to
''legalize'' a perversion as though ''marriage''. You do not speak for MY
generation, btw im 20, you only speak for your own hateful, bigoted,
anti-christian buddies. You probably call those against pedophilia BIGOTED as
well. Your hypocrisy knows no bounds. YUCK!!!
E-mail: xana...@mchsi.com
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
Craig Chilton <xana...@mchsi.com>
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
INSIGHT on our Warmonger-in-Thief ---
http://homepage.mac.com/webmasterkai/kaicurry/gwbush/dishonestdubya.html
AND...
http://www.blackboxvoting.com/
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
"claims that believing the first cell originated by chance is like believing a
tornado could sweep through a junkyard filled with airplane parts and form a
Boeing 747" Sir Fred Hoyle
Pastor Dave
(Craig Chilton) spake thusly:
>> Before you are jealous of someone's position in life, ask yourself if
>> you're willing to go through what they did to put them in the position
>> they're in.
>
> I'm the originator of the "John Hagee" thread (from which
>about half the responders for some arcane reason keeps varying
>the subject line, thus spawning new threads, rather than simply
>allowing the thread to progress concisely. Otherwise, I wouldn't
>have needed to point that out.)
>
> I'm a PK.
What's a "PK"?
> But since it came up, my own feelings are that it doesn't matter
>if a minister has a nice and reliable car.
There's nothing wrong with having a nice, reliable car.
It should be reliable. It's harder to go to someone's
house to help them through a tough time, if one keeps
breaking down on the side of the road. :)
>But one DOES need to
>wonder why any minister would condone and pursue the wasting of
> 23 million dollars on something like a "Crystal Cathedral," when SO
>much good could be done in impoverished parts of the world with
>that amount of money.
Agreed.
--
ą Pastor Dave Raymond ą
"As for me, I have not hastened from being a pastor
to follow thee: neither have I desired the woeful day;
thou knowest: that which came out of my lips was right
before thee." - Jeremiah 17:16
Exchange between Marge and Geoffrey the butler
on "Fresh Prince" (both African American):
Marge: My brother, you have been oppressed,
repressed and suppressed. Don't you know
you can be free?
Geoffrey: I have known freedom. I don't like
the health plan.
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
Light Templar
> x-no-archive: yes
> wrote:
> john_w replied
>> On Mon, 19 Apr 2004 19:18:49 GMT,
>> Bard Kesnit <vtc...@hotmail.nospam..com> wrote:
>>> Gomez Addams wrote:
>>
>>
>>>> I will inject one observation into the discussion. A pastor
>>>> needs a really good big car that he can rely on to get him to
>>>> visiting the sick, etc. He might even =drive= the sick somewhere.
>>>> It does NOT have
>>>> to be a Cadillac,
>>
>>> What is wrong with a mini-van or SUV? You have plenty of room --
>>> either for a large family or to allow people to stretch out in the
>>> back. And they cost a LOT less than a fancy car.
>
> was asking for a "fancy, brand new car." Even if that's what he
> meant, that is not necessarily what he needs.
>
> A problem with the minivan and the SUV is that they are EXPENSIVE to
> operate, as in GAS GUZZLING.
If a person is willing to meet those expenses, then who am I to say what car
they should be driving?
>
> Another problem with SUVs and minivans is that they are dangerous to
> drive. Recent Consumer Reports have indicated that the bumpers on
> both the minivan and the SUV are so high that when they broadside the
> average sedan, they tend to hit/penetrate the side door/window, and
> the result is OFTEN fatal.
Not a concern. Been driving for 40 years, never had an accident.
>
> A full-sized 5-10 year old Buick or Pontiac would have MUCH of the
> modern high-tech equipment of a brand new car without being as
> dangerous to operate as the minivan or the SUV.
But not with the headroom, or cargo room that I need.
john w
On Mon, 19 Apr 2004 23:36:28 GMT, xana...@mchsi.com (Craig Chilton)
wrote:
john_w replied
BTW, is John Hagee a "Pentecostal?" My impression is that he is.
2nd, have you bothered to read the book Dr. Schuller wrote on that
very subject? The Crystal Cathedral? I apologize for forgetting the
title. Since my library was stolen, I no longer have the book.
I believe if you contacted the Crystal Cathedral, or even if you visit
your local Bible/Book store, you'd find it.
However, at the early stages of the building of the Crystal
Cathedral, my pastor / mentor, Dr. Jess Moody invited a group of
interested church members (including me) to a fund-raiser at which
Dr. Schuller spoke, asking for our help to build the Crystal
Cathedral.
Most of us were VERY skeptical about the money that was being spent.
However, after hearing him speak for an hour and field as many
questions as we had, I, and many in the audience, came away as
believers.
First, Dr. Schuller had a vision, which many of you will not
appreciate; that God would give any modern day "prophet" or "preacher"
a "vision."
Well, God gave Dr. Schuller a vision. It was this. God impressed upon
Dr. Schuller's heart that if there was anything up to an 8.0
earthquake in Los Angeles, it would literally LEVEL the city, leaving
NOTHING standing. Dr. Schuller received the message from God that the
one building that would remain would be a CHURCH. A beacon to God,
and to mankind that even a MAJOR earthquake (The "Big One") would NOT
level a Christian Church. Dr. Schuller wanted it to be beautiful,
unique, breathtaking, and all that to honor God, who should have
NOTHING LESS than the best.
PRAYERFULLY, Dr. Schuller began investigating just what kind of
building materials would withstand an 8.0 earthquake. He came up with
a building made of huge slabs of crystal, one of the hardest materials
on this planet.
Dr. Schuller was QUITE unsure about spending the MILLIONS it would
take, so as a DEVOUT Christian with a UNIQUE ministry, he prayed
DAILY, "God, if this isn't your plan, don't let it happen."
Dr. Schuller then began approaching the Christian business leaders he
knew
#1 would have the cash to lay out
#2 would want to build a church that would withstand "The Big One".
#3 would be willing to put the money into that, and NOT into "feeding
the hungry."
The money POURED in.
Dr. Schuller's own commitment was that nothing but the best would do
for building this beacon to God/Christ.
And the Crystal Cathedral was built. Can any of us "out give" God?
How many church "building projects" have been stopped half-way (I've
been involved in two) because the church didn't consult God first, and
the money didn't happen.
"Before you build a building, calculate the cost, so that you do not
get halfway done, and have to stop, and be embarrassed."
Dr. Schuller didn't build that church any more than we lead people to
Christ. God built that church, a BEAUTIFUL monument to Christ our
Lord, and I have NO problems with it.
Think what you will of Dr. Schuller, I've met him, and he has a secret
ministry that the judges and stone throwers don't even know about or
bother to investigate.
One of the questions that came up during our Q & A session with Dr.
Schuller was, "How do you justify NOT preaching the gospel during your
TV program every Sunday?"
Dr. Schuller's answer was, "God didn't give me that sort of ministry."
He went on to say, if you listen CAREFULLY, his message is Christian,
even if he doesn't give an altar call after each service. He
explained, "I preach so that people who are watching on TV will want
to come visit our church. They may not hear the gospel from their TV
sets every Sunday; there ARE other preachers who do that.
" If they come to my services at my church, they won't necessarily
hear a gospel message from my pulpit. However, I have (I forget the
number, something like 50) fully trained "Navigators" (highly trained
evangelists) stationed at the Exists who KNOW our membership. So if a
strange person gets up to leave the church after the service, one of
our Navigators will approach the person and present the gospel."
And it happens every Sunday.
jw
GOOD RIDDANCE on Nov. 2nd to Dishonest Warmonger-in-Thief G.W. Bush!
Cornerstone Baptist Church
San Antonio, Texas
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
Dear Rev. Hagee:
On your "Cornerstone" broadcast today (4/18/04) on
TBN, you mentioned that you were born in 1940, and you were
speaking of today's generation of young people. And you said:
"You're not from my world, and I'm not from yours.
That's why MY generation thinks we need a Constitu-
tional Amendment to protect the sanctity of marriage,
that guarantees that -- in America -- the only marriage
to be recognized, is the marriage between a man and
a woman."
Guess what, Rev. Hagee? I was born in 1941, and I can
**ASSURE** you that your hateful bigotry does NOT speak for
***our*** generation. It speaks ONLY for ***your*** petty and
ignorant PORTION of our generation. WITHIN our generation,
there are **tens of millions** of fair-minded, sensible, and
egalitarian straight **allies** of the gays, along with the gays
themselves, that want NO PART of your exclusionary, bigoted,
and sociopathic hatefulness. And if you've been paying any
attention to the Gallup Polls, you *also* know that 83% of
Americans are Christians.
Approximately 50% of Americans today support same sex
civil unions/marriage. (And per CNN's exit polls of the Wis-
consin Primary, that number was ***61%***. And in that primary,
people of ALL parties were able to vote. It was a good cross-
section of the sentiments of that heartland state.) Do the math.
Whether it bothers you or not is immaterial. The facts are clear.
Tens of millions of American CHRISTIANS *support* same-sex
marriage. And that number probably exceeds a HUNDRED
million!
So stop LYING. (As a preacher, you should be aware that
there is a Commandment against that. And *also* as a preacher,
you should be aware that there is NO commandment against
same-sex marriage. And if you choose to start with LESSER
"prohibitions" than the Commandments, then may I suggest
you start with fortune-tellers? At least THEN, you would not
be directing your mindless hatefulness against several *million*
people and their individual liberties.)
You do NOT speak for America's middle-aged population.
Not even remotely.
Sincerely,
Craig Chilton
P.O. Box 3007
Waterloo, Iowa 50707-0007
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
The above letter, posted a few months ago, is re-posted
as a reminder to all that in Hagee's most recent programs, his
hatefulness continues unabated. He'd make a good poster
boy for the bigotry that infests the RRR cult.
Byron Smith
> The above letter, posted a few months ago, is re-posted
> as a reminder to all that in Hagee's most recent programs, his
> hatefulness continues unabated. He'd make a good poster
> boy for the bigotry that infests the RRR cult.
I don't agree with all of John Hagee's theology, but apparently he got
the part concerning homosexuality right. If I had my way, every single
militant homosexual would be forcibly censored and shoved back into the
closet, where everything else is put that is too dirty or embarrassing
to see the light of day. The rest of the homosexuals would simply have
to be celibate, quiet, and behave. I can't do that obviously. But I can
preach the Gospel to them and pray that God will wash some of them clean
of their filthiness and iniquity and bring them to Christ.
--
Byron
Terrell D Lewis
"j w @yahoo.com>" <john_w<no> wrote in message
news:jlg9m0pk1hgjb65ls...@4ax.com...
> x-no-archive: yes
> On Wed, 06 Oct 2004 12:44:12 GMT, xana...@mchsi.com (GOOD RIDDANCE
> on Nov. 2nd to Dishonest Warmonger-in-Thief G.W. Bush!) wrote:
> copyright 2004 John Weatherly all rights reserved (keep it in the
> group)
> > An ***OPEN LETTER*** to Pastor John Hagee
> > Cornerstone Baptist Church
> > San Antonio, Texas
> >
> >~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
> >
> >Dear Rev. Hagee:
> >
> > On your "Cornerstone" broadcast today (4/18/04) on
> >TBN, you mentioned that you were born in 1940, and you were
> >speaking of today's generation of young people. And you said:
> >
> > "You're not from my world, and I'm not from yours.
> > That's why MY generation thinks we need a Constitu-
> > tional Amendment to protect the sanctity of marriage,
> > that guarantees that -- in America -- the only marriage
> > to be recognized, is the marriage between a man and
> > a woman."
> >
> > Guess what, Rev. Hagee? I was born in 1941, and I can
> >**ASSURE** you that your hateful bigotry does NOT speak for
> >***our*** generation. It speaks ONLY for ***your*** petty and
> >ignorant PORTION of our generation. WITHIN our generation,
> >there are **tens of millions** of fair-minded, sensible, and
> >egalitarian straight **allies** of the gays, along with the gays
> >themselves, that want NO PART of your exclusionary, bigoted,
> >and sociopathic hatefulness. And if you've been paying any
> >attention to the Gallup Polls, you *also* know that 83% of
> >Americans are Christians.
>
> America today. Let's see how many of those Christians will want to
> endorse same-sex marriage across the nation. Thus far, the majority
> have said, "no way, jose!"
>
Only those Christians ignorant enough to vote based on a single issue, on
other issues, the Republican Party falls way short, such as the treatment of
the poor, widowed, and fatherless (one of the main reasons God allowed
Israel to be led away into captivity), inequitable justice condemned in
scripture, worship of Mammon, and other things.
Not that the Democratic party has done any better on other issues. It's
really a matter of choosing between two evils ... which means no matter what
the Christian chooses, the Christian is choosing evil.
Terrell
Terrell D Lewis
> x-no-archive: yes
> Jesus, however, had a bigger game plan. He did NOT endorse her sin,
> and make it "ok" to henceforth earn the "bread money" on your back; He
> DID forgive her on the spot, and tell her to go and not do that sin
> anymore. Did she stop?
>
> Many (me and others) believe this woman was Mary Magdalene.
>
> And her endless devotion to the Lord who gave her life twice was
> apparent.
>
Reading between the lines again? There is no scriptural support for the
identification of this woman as Mary Magdalene.
Terrell
GOOD RIDDANCE on Nov. 2nd to Dishonest Warmonger-in-Thief G.W. Bush!
John Weatherly <joh...@yahoo.com> wrote:
== Archiving restriction SCRAPPED! ==
> Craig Chilton <xana...@mchsi.com> ("GOOD RIDDANCE on
> on Nov. 2nd to Dishonest Warmonger-in-Thief G.W. Bush!") wrote:
> Fortunately, we Christians represent the largest block of voters in
> America today. Let's see how many of those Christians will want to
> endorse same-sex marriage across the nation. Thus far, the majority
> have said, "no way, jose!"
ROTFL!!!! First off, per Gallup's respected polling, 87% of
Americans are christians. But FORTUNATELY, the vast majority of us
would rather attend a rat fight that have ANYTHING to do with the
loatsome and hateful bigotry of the PSEUDO-Christians (and actual
christians ignorant enough to have been *deluded*) of the RRR cult.
Cal Thomas -- syndicated journalist and one of the leaders of the
oligarchical RRR cult, publicly conceded 2 years ago that the fight
against gay rights was OVER.
And there was an *excellent* example of that earlier this year:
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
TO: All who are sufficiently socially-retarded, hateful,
and bone-ignorant enough to seek to DENY across-
the-board **equal** rights to ANY person based on
a matter so utterly TRIVIAL as how they choose to
have sex in *private* -- society is RAPIDLY growing
up, and in that maturation process, it is OUTGROWING
and REJECTING such mindless and loathsome agendas
as yours. As the article below PROVES, beyond a
shadow of a doubt.
Homohobia is for LOSERS.
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
On Jan. 28, 2004,
James Riske <james_riske@mail15_dot_com> wrote:
> Do prove that "straight allies almost certainly are in greater
> numbers than the gays".
(To which I responded as follows) ---
ROTFL!!!!! That's one of the **easiest** things in the world to
do!
The *highest* percentage of gays that anyone claims, in the
population, is 10%. So just for fun (and to YOUR advantage, in this
case), let's assume that figure is true. HOWEVER... recent polls
have shown that the percentage of people in America who would
be supportive of same-sex civil unions (but not "marriage,'
semantically-speaking... and really, that's the ONLY difference) is
now very close to 50%. Any straight person who would not object
to same-sex civil unions are ALLIES of the gays. And if we used
only 40% (and there are more allies than that, as I just said), then
we'd have the following:
Gays 10% -- 29,000,000 Americans
Straight Allies 30% -- 87,000,000 Americans
___ __________________
TOTAL Gays & Allies 40% -- 116,000,000 Americans
Ratio: 3-1. Three times more straight allies than gays.
AT LEAST!
Using more realistic numbers; 5% of population is gay, and 45%
of population favors the granting of the right of gays to have
same-sex civil unions, we have the following figures, which probably
approximate today's reality very closely:
Gays 5% -- 14,500,000 Americans
Straight Allies 45% -- 130,500,000 Americans
___ __________________
TOTAL Gays & Allies 50% -- 145,000,000 Americans
Ratio: 9-1. NINE times more straight allies than gays.
Using either set of figures, bigots who think that straight
allies of the GLTB Community are few in number, LOSE, big-time.
Three-to-one is the BEST they can do with such a claim, but that's
unrealistically low. Straight ALLIES of the gays vastly **outnumber**
the gays, themselves. By approximately NINE to one.
From:
http://www.abcnews.go.com/sections/us/Relationships/same_sex_marriage_poll_040121.html
________________________________________________
Views of Same-Sex Marriage and Civil Unions:
"Marriage" -- Make legal: 41% Keep Illegal: 55%
"Civil Unions" -- Make legal: 46% Keep Illegal: 51%
________________________________________________
This reliable ABC News Poll PROVES the idiocy of homophobic
bigots when they claim that gays have relatively few straight allies.
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
AND -- per CNN's exit polls at the Wisconsin Primary, fully
*** 61% *** of the people in that HEARTLAND (not "liberal" coastal)
state who took the time and effort to actually get out and VOTE --
said they they SUPPORT same sex civil unions/mariage. And that
was an **open** primary, in which people from ALL parties, including
Republicans, were allowed to vote. The Wisconsin Primary was held
more than a week AFTER the same-sex marriages had started in San
Francisco, so people were WELL aware of what they were supporting.
The loathsomely-hateful and infinitely-ignorant homophobic
agenda is ACCELERATING into the Drain of Extinction, where it
soon will very properly join the moldering bones of the agenda of
the segregationists, and be forgotten. ANOTHER form of bigotry
**rejected** forever -- and **good riddance** to it!
-- Craig Chilton <xana...@mchsi.com>
(REAL name and e-mail address, lest any bigot wrongly
think I'm hiding behind an a alias. The "alias," above,
is designed to be a visible MESSAGE, each time I post.)
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
Every time a person supports bigotry in public, and presents NO
relevant FACTS to back his/her stance in behalf of a loathsome
agenda against individual liberties and human rights, that person
has -- ironically -- further **damaged** the cause he/she supports.
And every time a fair-minded and sensible egalitarian opposes
such a bigot, publicly, and **presents** relevant FACTS that are
damaging to the bigot's agenda, that TOO is an additional nail in
the coffin lid of the agenda, and a push of that casket CLOSER
to the Drain of Extinction -- its well-deserved ultimate destination.
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
Kerry -- two medals: a silver and bronze star.
Bush? Well -- they don't give medals for
going AWOL, missing your medical and
getting grounded or falling off of a bar stool.
Kerry -- a hero, Bush -- a zero.
The Bush 'balanced' budget: 1.2 trillion and worsening...
The Bush 'economic' policy: - 3 million jobs and counting...
The Bush Iraq lie: - 1,052 GIs, and mounting...
Having Bush louse up my country: Worthless
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
INSIGHT on our Warmonger-in-Thief ---
http://homepage.mac.com/webmasterkai/kaicurry/gwbush/dishonestdubya.html
AND...
http://www.blackboxvoting.org/
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
ALSO worth a look:
http://anon.newmediamill.speedera.net/anon.newmediamill/pledge_acc/index.html
And... here's what happens to people like you & me:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/05/21/antiwar.soldier.ap/index.html
However, the same rules don't apply to the "Elite:"
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
Byron Smith
respectfully. That out of the way, please scroll down...
j w <john_w wrote:
> Don't forget--- while you're preaching hellfire-- that Jesus was a
> tolerant God.
I disagree. Perhaps it is merely the choice of words. Jesus had no
tolerance for sin. What He did have, is mercy, expressed wonderfully
through His grace, to forgive and restore and redeem--as per the example
you make reference to below.
Jesus was not very tolerant in Luke 13:1-5 for instance. His message
there was plainly, "repent or perish". Interesting that this passage is
followed closely by the healing of the woman of infirmity in the temple.
And He used this very incident to show the hypocrisy of the religious
leaders who had no mercy. Sin is pointed out and perfectly judged by
Christ here when He condemned the ruler of the synagogue, yet also His
mercy and God's grace is shown.
So I would have to ask you for a definition of tolerance, and who would
be its target and why.
Most people on the earth today are only one breath or one heartbeat away
from hell. Only the good grace of God keeps breath in their lungs and
blood pumping in their heart to keep them from the judgment they (and we
ALL) so richly deserve. In the end, every single one of those whom God
throws into hell will be forced to acknowledge His fairness and
rightness for doing so, and they'll have to do it while bowing the knee
and confessing with the tongue as well!
> You might want to learn some tolerance. You can't preach God's love to
> people whom you personally hate. You CAN hate their evil ways and not
> the sinner.
Ouch. Same as above concerning the word "tolerance" but I see where you
are coming from and I agree. (Hypocritically, but I agree nonetheless).
I should learn to speak the truth in love.
> When the woman was dragged before Him, having just been dragged from
> UNDER a man with whom she was committing adultery, the law required
> that she be executed on the spot, which is likely what YOU would have
> done.
In that time, under the Old Covenant and as an Israelite (if I were
Jewish and not gentile), yes. But see below.
Here's the thing: God gave that same law (under the old Covenant) so it
has to be righteous if its origin is God. And here is where we might
have a disagreement from what I've skimmed from one of your previous
posts (although I do not really understand your position is on this or
your reasonings---please explain): because Jesus is God, if He was
absent, it would have been perfectly righteous for them to have put her
to death. God's justice would have been satisfied by stoning, and her
blood would have been on her own head. However, I notice they didn't
bring the man, who should have been stoned with her. And from the
context of the story, they most likely would never have brought the
woman at all, if it wasn't for the fact that they were mortal enemies of
Jesus and would use any means available to trap or discredit Him (and
how on EARTH did they know about her activity in the first place? Makes
me wonder if it wasn't one of them who initiated the adultery to start
with, but Scripture does not say so I cannot know for certain---however,
it is interesting that Jesus said let him who has no sin cast the first
stone. But I might be reading too much into it, but certainly He was
correctly accusing every single one of them of being guilty of sin in
general, if not also a particular one guilty of this specific sin).
Now, because Jesus is God, and He was present for the "sentencing",
being greater than the accusers and even the Law they judged her by, His
judgment would be supreme. And nowhere in that passage that I know of
does He deny the justice of God by saying that the woman is innocent or
that she does not deserve death for her sin. What He does say is that He
does not accuse her of sin, and to go and sin no more. He acknowledges
both the fact of her sin and its just penalty all in a few statements,
then turns and extends her His grace in the form of divine mercy,
because He will bear her sins ultimately on the cross. So Jesus is put
to death by God for all the sins of His sheep, the Law is both fulfilled
and satisfied in Him, and grace and mercy overflow to each one of us who
are but worms and maggots in the holy sight of God.
So now, because of Jesus, my behavior would certainly be different. And
notice I said "forcibly censor" (blast, didn't quote myself here) not
"put to death" or "put in stocks" or "put in jail" or whatever. Censor
means exactly that, censor. If society refused to put up with this
foolishness (this sin, other sins, all sin) from the get-go, we wouldn't
have the problems of rampant sin like we do today. Problem is, that
requires regenerate believers in control of law enforcement with
morality and not relative reasoning as the foundation. Having said that,
I'm NOT a theonomist of any stripe except a spiritual one. Somethings
truly should be legislated against for the good of society, but only in
the ultimate perspective that God is the Final Judge, and within His
parameters we have liberty, but also moral responsibility.
> Jesus, however, had a bigger game plan. He did NOT endorse her sin,
> and make it "ok" to henceforth earn the "bread money" on your back; He
I'm sorry. Bread money? I don't quite follow you here...
> DID forgive her on the spot, and tell her to go and not do that sin
> anymore. Did she stop?
Absolutely. Not to be too grim, but she would have stopped either way.
The first way would have brought her physical death (the wages of sin is
death, and that is how God always deals with sin). But here suggests
that she was spiritually reborn and made new by Christ, becoming a
believer and follower of Him.
> Many (me and others) believe this woman was Mary Magdalene.
I do not, though I used to. I don't see how Scripture really supports
this idea. Could be, though. At the least, her identity is less
important than the spiritual truths revealed through her by example in
the Scriptures.
> And her endless devotion to the Lord who gave her life twice was
> apparent.
Yes, especially if (though I doubt) she was Mary Magdalene. Regardless,
there is no question to the sincerity or the intensity of her devotion.
The context at the very least portrays repentance and righteousness of
the woman from that time forward.
> God bless!
>
> j w
Sorry this was so long. But those are my thoughts (and misunderstandings
perhaps) so far.
--
Byron
Byron Smith
> how on EARTH did they know about her activity in the first place? Makes
> me wonder if it wasn't one of them who initiated the adultery to start
> with, but Scripture does not say so I cannot know for certain---however,
> it is interesting that Jesus said let him who has no sin cast the first
> stone. But I might be reading too much into it, but certainly He was
> correctly accusing every single one of them of being guilty of sin in
> general, if not also a particular one guilty of this specific sin).
Apparently I am reading too much into it, because John 8:9 says very
clearly that they departed from the eldest to the youngest. So
apparently Jesus was pointing out their sin in general here. My goof.
> means exactly that, censor. If society refused to put up with this
> foolishness (this sin, other sins, all sin) from the get-go, we wouldn't
> have the problems of rampant sin like we do today. Problem is, that
> requires regenerate believers in control of law enforcement with
Ack! Not necessarily so. It DOES require people who follow God's Law.
The ten commandments are excellent for this. They convict all of sin.
All are guilty before God. For the purpose of helping society, God's ten
commandments show what should have legislative force in society. But
really, the spirit of the Law is to love God supremely, and love your
neighbor as yourself. This is the whole law and the prophets from my
understanding. My goof here too.
-- Byron, talking to himself (sort of)
GOOD RIDDANCE on Nov. 2nd to Dishonest Warmonger-in-Thief G.W. Bush!
John Weatherly <joh...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Craig Chilton <xana...@mchsi.com> ("GOOD RIDDANCE on
>> John Weatherly <joh...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> == Archiving restriction SCRAPPED! ==
> For anyone without even the basic sense of common decency
> to respect my EXPRESSED choice to not archive MY posts, ...
CLUE, Loser: My response to you is MY post, and I have NO desire
for it *not* to be archived. You clearly are dumber than a dead rock!
> ... I respond no further. (ie, you violate my rights,... I stop talking to
> you.)
You rights were not violated, jerk. You prevented the archiving
of YOUR post, and that is your privilege. And I ensured that MY post
**could** be archived, and *that* was just as much MY privilege. So
try growing a brain. The neuron you have needs a lot of company.
> ... I stop talking to you.)
Gutless wonder.
What you probably **really** are bailing out for is the dog meat
I made of your ludicrous "arguments" in my last post.
Don't let the door...
(ROTFL!!!!!!!!!!!)
>> Americans are Christians. But FORTUNATELY, the vast majority of us
GOOD RIDDANCE on Nov. 2nd to Dishonest Warmonger-in-Thief G.W. Bush!
John Weatherly <joh...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Byron Smith <bsm...@gt.rr.com> wrote:
>> OK. First let me say that I disagree with you on a few things,
>> but respectfully.
> Good. Healthy disagreement (between two equally "armed"
> adults) is wonderful. ("iron sharpens iron") Keep it respectful,
> don't call names, keep it respectful, no cheap shots...
(And whatever you do, make sure that his words don't
get archived for posterity. He apparently is too ashamed
of his stance for that... )
>My sister once said,
>
>"If you don't believe in yourself/your opinions enough to have a
>hissing argument over them, don't bore me with your opinions."
>
>Simply do it graciously.
>
>(and bear in mind that I have a behavior disorder - bi-polar disorder;
>so if I "get out of hand", gently remind me)
>
>
> That out of the way, please scroll down...
>>
>>j w <john_w wrote:
>>> Don't forget--- while you're preaching hellfire-- that Jesus was a
>>> tolerant God.
>>
>>I disagree.
>
>Ok. Then you are wrong. ;-)
>
>smirk smirk
>
>Perhaps it is merely the choice of words.
>
>Perhaps. I meant to say, and I believe you will agree, Jesus' physical
>presence/arrival ANNOUNCED
>
>"PEOPLE!!!!! It's a NEW DAY in the Kingdom of God!!!
>
>That LONG -awaited moment HAS ARRIVED!
> Come ye sick!!
>Come ye tired!!
>Come ye widows!!
>Come ye orphans!!
>Come ye poor!!
>Come ye unemployed!!
>Come ye mentally ill! (me)
>Come ye homeless!!
>Come ye drug addicts!!
>Come ye prostitutes!!
>Come ye alcoholics!!
>Come ye perverts!!
>Come ye unloved!!
>
>
> All that is past!
>YOU are this day forgiven!!
>
>TODAY, THIS VERY NANO-SECOND begins the rest of your life!
>
>Jesus was announcing the Arrival of the Kingdom of God,
>
>NOT COMING,
>
>NOT PREVIEWS.
>
>Here and NOW!!
>
> Jesus had no
>>tolerance for sin.
>
>Correct. Yet my point was/is, He noted it when He observed it, and
>when it got out of hand,, even amongst His disciples. IF you know
>what you are reading, we see a NUMBER of squabbles amongst the
>disciples, and some in His presence. These men didn't stop being
>human merely from being "touching distance" from God in flesh.
>
>My OTHER point was, He didn't go house-to-house LOOKING in people's
>closets and bedrooms and on their rooftops for SIN!!!
>
>When He encountered it, when it was IN HIS FACE, He did something
>about it.
>
>He taught by EXAMPLE. IOW, one EXAMPLE sufficed for any point He
>wished to make. study His numerous sermons/mini-sermons (some were one
>sentence) RARELY repeat a theme, proving that God HATES repeating
>Himself.
>
>" I said it! If you didn't care enough to listen the 1st time, why
>would I repeat myself?"
>
>
>What He did have, is mercy, expressed wonderfully
>>through His grace, to forgive and restore and redeem--as per the example
>>you make reference to below.
>
>ABSOLUTELY. God's wrath tempered with God's love, applied with MERCY.
>YOU GOT IT!!!!!!!!!!!
>
>When He MUST, when we FORCE HIS HAND, God is QUITE capable of
>"lowering the boom."
>
>Reread how He dealt with Judas Iscariot. Judas sold our Lord for a
>handful of pocket change,
>
>God snapped Judas' neck like a toothpick and then smeared him all over
>a dirt lot. "It wasn't pretty."
>
> Moral? Don't mess with God! He punches MUCH harder!
>
> You smack God in the nose, He smacks you a DEATH blow.
>
>>
>>Jesus was not very tolerant in Luke 13:1-5 for instance. His message
>>there was plainly, "repent or perish".
>
>I think He was saying, "Just because you are alive and they are dead
>doesn't make you innocent. Consider what I just did to those people an
>object lesson. CLEAN UP YOUR ACT!!!"
>
>Jesus taught in parables. Sometimes He used an example from life, like
>the lesson He taught about rendering allegiance to our government with
>a coin.
>
>In this case, He used the deaths of men/people He had executed for
>their sins to say, "You may be next!"
>
> Interesting that this passage is
>>followed closely by the healing of the woman of infirmity in the temple.
>>And He used this very incident to show the hypocrisy of the religious
>>leaders who had no mercy.
>
>;-)
>
>You're there! You got it! The Pharisees and scribes LOVED to point
>out people's sins, but the Pharisees in particular, OPENLY sinned
>themselves by not showing mercy. They would laud the rich man who
>publicly gave (like the one in the story), yet turn around and ignore
>or worse-- abuse-- the poor widow who could only give a mite!
>
>He said, "You give the rich man the special table and the finest food
>(he gets the Porterhouse steak/lobster platter), and you make the
>widow stand in the far corner and give her a hot dog with no
>condiments.
>
> And as far as GOD is concerned, she gave MUCH more than he did!"
>
>
>And rather than embracing the long-awaited Messiah, they merely
>considered Him a threat.
>
>Their religion was only pious words. They were the creators of the
>expression, "Do as I say, not as I do."
>
>
> Sin is pointed out and perfectly judged by
>>Christ here when He condemned the ruler of the synagogue, yet also His
>>mercy and God's grace is shown.
>
>"the velvet covered fist."
>
>>
>>So I would have to ask you for a definition of tolerance, and who would
>>be its target and why.
>
>Tolerance is where Jesus went from place to place, where He found
>people, and preached and taught and answered questions, and accepted
>dinner invitations and partied.
>And rested and prayed.
>When He found sin during His travels, He ministered, lovingly. When
>people resisted, like the Pharisees did, He fought back in a loving
>way.
>
>He did NOT go house-to-house, looking in basements and closets and on
>rooftops and bedrooms for SIN.
>
>He gave people the right to their privacy.
>
>How much would you love Jesus today if His ministry on earth had been
>to marshall 20,000 soldiers and go house to house, searching for any
>evidence of SIN, and executing the "guilty" on the spot?
>
>He didn't come here to "clean things up' on the human level. He came
>here to die for our sins, so that we (you and I) wouldn' t have to die
>for our sins. He knew we couldn't/wouldn't stop sinning.
>
>[ on a separate note, why do you think He BOTHERED giving us several
>VERY SHORT lists of sins He simply cannot tolerate. Fornicating in on
>them, but gluttony isn't. Lying and stealing are on them, yet simple
>lust and coveting are not.
>
>THAT is the DEFINITION of "tolerance." He became a man so that He
>could later say, "I know... I understand... I've been there..."
>He has.
>
>Not to lord it over us! Not to tell us, "No excuses! You did it
>again! The ax falls!"
>
>But to tell us, "I love you, I understand, it's ok! Do your best, and
>I'll fill in the gap between you and my Father."
>
>He created us HUMAN. His death signifies that He is quite happy with
>us JUST as we are, IF we allow Him to move in and do a "remodeling
>job" on us.
>
>Am I making myself clear? I created an expression some 30 years ago.
>(I'm a writer by profession--at least when I worked).
>
>"I believe that we are MUCH tougher on ourselves than God is."
>
>Did you ever stop to think why we live to be 70 or 80 or 90? If we
>were a ball of evil, God would "take us out."
>
>We live to be 90, as an elder put it, "because it takes us 90 years to
>get it right."
>
>And MY God is ETERNALLY PATIENT.
>
>I get the sneaky hunch you may have a bit of the Calvinist in you. I
>abhor MUCH of his doctrine.
>
>Calvin never learned about God's Grace. Luther explained it this way:
>Jesus came to set us FREE!!
>
>>
>>Most people on the earth today are only one breath or one heartbeat away
>>from hell.
>
>Very true.
>
>Jonathan Edwards revisited.
>
>Only the good grace of God keeps breath in their lungs and
>>blood pumping in their heart to keep them from the judgment they (and we
>>ALL) so richly deserve.
>
>I couldn't agree more.
>
> Yet Jesus did NOT preach "Sinners in the hands of an angry God"
>(Jonathan Edwards)
>
> unless He had openly arrogant sinners heckling Him. (the Pharisees)
>
>Even the woman at the well--a 6-times WHORE-- He was kind and gentle
>with.
>
>She wasn't being AGRESSIVELY SINFUL "IN HIS FACE" so He wasn't
>aggressive with her.
>
>He JUDGED her, but it was GENTLE.
>
>"Woman! You have had F I V E husbands! And the man you are [ shacked
>up ] with now-- he's not your husband!"
>
>And the conversation progressed VERY gently from there.
>
>He wasn't out to GET HER ("Ah HAH! A filthy, slimy, SLUT!")
>
>or to POUND her into the CONCRETE ( "Take that, wench!" Let me find
>10 hypocrites to stone you!"")
>
> and leave a GREASE spot where she had been.
>
>No way!
>
>What would THAT have accomplished?
>
>He wanted to REDEEM her, and He did! THEN He used her to convert HER
>ENTIRE VILLAGE!
>
>
> In the end, every single one of those whom God
>>throws into hell will be forced to acknowledge His fairness and
>>rightness for doing so, and they'll have to do it while bowing the knee
>>and confessing with the tongue as well!
>
>I must stop you. That is Calvinist BUNK. Jesus doesn't cast anyone
>into hell. We choose that for ourselves. And Calvin had it DEAD wrong
>when he taught that ONLY A FEW SELECT PERSONS can be saved.
>
>Christianity is NOT an exclusive club for ONLY those who part their
>hair the right way.
>
>"For whosoever believes..."
>"God does not want that ANY should perish!"
>
>>
>>> You might want to learn some tolerance. You can't preach God's love to
>>> people whom you personally hate. You CAN hate their evil ways and not
>>> the sinner.
>>
>>Ouch. Same as above concerning the word "tolerance" but I see where you
>>are coming from and I agree.
>
>Good. I think with some "fringe" allowed, we agree.
>
>
> (Hypocritically, but I agree nonetheless).
>
>Here, you lost me. My hypocrisy, or yours?
> (and I think you used the wrong word.
>
> "Hyper" is over-critical; "hypo" is under-critical.
>
>You said "hypo" as in you aren't critical enough.
>
>
>>I should learn to speak the truth in love.
>
>Just promise to do your best. I make the same offer.
>
>>
>>> When the woman was dragged before Him, having just been dragged from
>>> UNDER a man with whom she was committing adultery, the law required
>>> that she be executed on the spot, which is likely what YOU would have
>>> done.
>>
>>In that time, under the Old Covenant and as an Israelite (if I were
>>Jewish and not gentile), yes.
>
>That's what I meant. I meant, it is my judgment that given the present
>attitude you are expressing, transplant you back to 31 AD, you'd have
>been picking up stones.
>
>I am NOT saying I wouldn't be helping you find the big ones.
>
> This is NOT about ME at the moment (to deflect 100 detractors who'll
>say, "what about YOU, John?") This is a discussion of YOU at this
>moment.
>
>
>But see below.
>>
>>Here's the thing: God gave that same law (under the old Covenant) so it
>>has to be righteous if its origin is God.
>
>No. I don't recall any scripture that says the law is righteous. It
>was intended as a GUIDE to righteousness.
>The law can only GUIDE us to righteousness, and tell us the standard.
>
>By your thinking, Satan is righteous, since he originally emanated
>from a righteous God. See the error?
>
> And here is where we might
>>have a disagreement from what I've skimmed from one of your previous
>>posts (although I do not really understand your position is on this or
>>your reasonings---please explain):
>
>Since you have asked me nicely, and not judged, or condemned, I'll be
>happy to try again. And you don't need to agree; just be nice about
>it.
>
>
> because Jesus is God,
>
>Yes. Many don't quite get that. "God in flesh."
>
> All that Almighty God (F/S/H-S) can be-- in flesh-- Jesus Christ is.
>Meaning He had some of the "frailties" that are inherent to mankind.
>Needing food, needing rest, needing to wash, to relieve Himself.
>Too many want Him on the wall with a nice white face and long flowing
>hair. He is not that. He is HUMAN, breathing, pink (brown) skin.
>He sweats, He belches, etc.
>
>if He was
>>absent, it would have been perfectly righteous for them to have put her
>>to death.
>
>ABSOLUTELY!!!! At that time, that was still the law. And it was GOD's
>law. And even if He HAD been there (follow me) it would have been
>PERFECTLY OK to have killed her in His presence.
>
>What Christ did with this act of mercy was to ANNOUNCE,
>
>"It's a new day, folks! We don't have summary executions for sin
>anymore.!" Why? Because there was no reason to murder HER for her
>sin that day, when in a few days hence (comparatively) HE was going
>to be executed IN HER PLACE!!!
>
>There was therefore NO reason to execute her. He was her Passover
>Lamb!
>
>By sparing her, He embarrassed the Pharisees and the Jews
>(unbelieving)
>He announced the Kingdom
>He announced "a new card game has arrived."
>And He showed that the NEW LAW/ the NEW COVENANT would be based on
>LOVE and MERCY, NOT "sacrifice."
>
>"God prefers mercy to sacrifice."
>
>
> God's justice would have been satisfied by stoning, and her
>>blood would have been on her own head.
>
>Absolutely.
>
> However, I notice they didn't
>>bring the man, who should have been stoned with her.
>
>;-)
>
>You noticed that, did you? The seminary discussions I've been in on
>THIS one!!!
>
>One notion was that one of the men in her "line" that day had been a
>Pharisee who "slept with her" and then practiced "coitus interruptus"
>as he had her arrested "in the act." Or worse yet, like Onan, he
>enjoyed himself "completely", THEN had her dragged before Jesus.
>
>But I agree that likely, she was arrested and dragged before Jesus,
>likely by customers or former customers, MERELY to embarrass Jesus.
>They couldn't IMAGINE the milktoast, pansy, pacifist Jesus ordering
>her death.
>
>Boy, did they miscalculate THAT one!
>
>The Lord got VERY aggressive, but did it quietly. Nor did He turn His
>divine wrath on HER. But THEM.
>
>Who knows what he wrote in the dirt?
>
>I've heard it said that he listed all the sins being committed in that
>group that day,and when they all realized that He could see inside
>each of them, they were disgusted; with themselves.
>
>As in, if He TRULY cleaned house that day, as they were demanding,
>Jerusalem would have been left a ghost city, with One Resident.
>
>
> And from the
>>context of the story, they most likely would never have brought the
>>woman at all, if it wasn't for the fact that they were mortal enemies of
>>Jesus and would use any means available to trap or discredit Him
>
>ABSOLUTELY.
>
> (and
>>how on EARTH did they know about her activity in the first place?
>
>;-)
>
>How do YOU think they knew what she had been doing?
>
>If she were a temple whore, which is likely, though not certain, (the
>gentiles didn't care if the prostitutes were Jews--nor did the Jews)
>
>it is VERY likely that half her "customers" from the night before, or
>from an hour earlier, were in that crowd.
>
>
>Makes
>>me wonder if it wasn't one of them who initiated the adultery to start
>>with,
>
>hehehehe.. Yep. We're on the same page.
>
>
> but Scripture does not say so I cannot know for certain---however,
>>it is interesting that Jesus said let him who has no sin cast the first
>>stone.
>
>Being God, He knows our innermost being. So of course He knew their
>sins. Also note that He didn't choose to PUBLICLY embarrass them as
>they had the woman.
>
> But I might be reading too much into it, but certainly He was
>>correctly accusing every single one of them of being guilty of sin in
>>general, if not also a particular one guilty of this specific sin).
>
>Absolutely. Of course, none of those men could have been a temple
>prostitute, unless unhappy women had arranged for men to be at the
>temple, or ???
>
>>
>>Now, because Jesus is God, and He was present for the "sentencing",
>>being greater than the accusers and even the Law they judged her by, His
>>judgment would be supreme.
>
>Well, most of them didn't know or care that He was God, yet He
>OBVIOUSLY commanded Authority and Respect. I don't see much arguing
>with Jesus AFTER He spoke with someone.
>
>Do you see any words after, "Give Caesar his due; also give God His
>due!"
>
>How does one "one-up" that?
>
>
> And nowhere in that passage that I know of
>>does He deny the justice of God by saying that the woman is innocent or
>>that she does not deserve death for her sin.
>
>Correct. He DOES allude to her sin by saying, "Go. Sin no more!"
>(don't do this anymore)
>
> He OBVIOUSLY isn't telling her to never commit another sin, since God
>knows we cannot be without sin.
>
>
>What He does say is that He
>>does not accuse her of sin, and to go and sin no more. He acknowledges
>>both the fact of her sin and its just penalty all in a few statements,
>>then turns and extends her His grace in the form of divine mercy,
>>because He will bear her sins ultimately on the cross.
>
>Yes.
>
>And as I alluded earlier, you have shown me a new angle on something.
>He spared her life because there was no point in her dying for her
>sin. Jesus invented Double Jeopardy. She didn't have to die for her
>sin, because HE had taken on that task; HE would die for her sin.
>
>AGAIN, that show of Divine Mercy was an early example of the "New Day"
>of the Kingdom come.
>
>
> So Jesus is put
>>to death by God for all the sins of His sheep, the Law is both fulfilled
>>and satisfied in Him, and grace and mercy overflow to each one of us who
>>are but worms and maggots in the holy sight of God.
>
>10000000000 % correct.
>
>One TINY nit. We WERE maggots and worms before the death of Christ.
>NOW God sees us as PERFECT, since we have put on the perfection of His
>Son.
>
>>
>>So now, because of Jesus, my behavior would certainly be different.
>
>That was my point, and my hope. I am DELIGHTED to see that transition.
>
>I have been called a "wimp" many times. I disagree.
>
> I have simply learned a deeper meaning of God's Amazing Grace, that
>saved a wretch like me.
>
>
> And
>>notice I said "forcibly censor" (blast, didn't quote myself here)
>
>In fact, in rereading this, you didn't use that phrase, so you have
>lost me here.
>
>not
>>"put to death" or "put in stocks" or "put in jail" or whatever. Censor
>>means exactly that, censor. If society refused to put up with this
>>foolishness (this sin, other sins, all sin) from the get-go, we wouldn't
>>have the problems of rampant sin like we do today.
>
>Here, I have to disagree. Since MUCH of our sin today is behind closed
>doors, how do you regulate it?
>
>And since so many of the "Religious Right" (of which I am one) keep
>pointing at porn as being "the ultimate evil" that is ruining our
>society, we need to take a 2nd look at even THAT..
>
>The definition of "porn" used to be "community standards"; that is the
>US Supreme Court definition; that is, it used to be.
>
>Since the computer and the Internet have now put every imaginable form
>of porn and sex club at the anonymous reach of anyone with a phone and
>a credit/debit card, the "community" standard for porn now applies to
>one household.
>
>Should the Supreme Court go where God never went? Behind the closed
>doors of your home?
>
>I don't think so.
>
>The sin we see so rampant is because the state of mankind is sin.
>And the Bible says it will get worse before it gets better.
>
>And it will continue to get worse until He returns. And I believe in a
>Literal 2nd Coming because I see the signs.
>
>
> Problem is, that
>>requires regenerate believers in control of law enforcement with
>>morality and not relative reasoning as the foundation.
>
>THAT requires a system of government called a "theocracy", meaning God
>rules the nation. God doesn't rule America,no matter how much some
>wish He did.
>
>This is a pluralistic society, where a Hindu or a Buddhist or an
>atheist or a homosexual has every right you or I have.
>
>And where Satan worshippers have as many rights as Christians.
>
>
> Having said that,
>>I'm NOT a theonomist of any stripe except a spiritual one.
>
>Sorry. You have used a word I am not familiar with. And it's not in
>the online dictionary.
>
>Define "theonomist," please.
>
> Somethings
>>truly should be legislated against for the good of society,
>
>Depends on the society, and on what you want to outlaw.
>
>If you are a tee-totaler, and you want to outlaw alcoholic beverages
>again, I am against you. And how would you enforce that?
>
>if you are against certain sex practices, how do you monitor what
>happens behind closed/locked doors?
>
>What would you outlaw? We cannot impose morality with laws. What we
>CAN do is write laws to protect society, like from murderers, and
>rapists, and bank robbers, and child stealers/misusers.
>
>But we already have such laws, and our prisons are overflowing with
>people who didn't agree with those laws. Of course, that is pathology
>at its worst.
>
>What would you like to outlaw?
>
>
> but only in
>>the ultimate perspective that God is the Final Judge, and within His
>>parameters we have liberty, but also moral responsibility.
>
>Correct.
>
>Have you yet come to the place where you have discovered real, true,
>good, Christian, scriptural "situation ethics?"
>
>I hear/read too many people (including in here) who believe that we're
>all supposed to be a cookie-cutter example of what THEY consider
>"Christian."
>
>I like how Kathi Lee Gifford (yum yum) put it. God went to all the
>trouble of creating each of us TOTALLY uniquely. Not one single
>person, not one single Christian, is EXACTLY like anyone else. Even
>the scientists admit that when they start cloning, they do NOT get an
>"exact copy". ALL they have replicated is the gene pool.
>
>So God creates each of us unique, and then we spend the rest of our
>lives trying to be like somebody else, and tearing each other down for
>our differences.
>
>No! That's NOT how He meant it to be!
>
>>
>>> Jesus, however, had a bigger game plan. He did NOT endorse her sin,
>>> and make it "ok" to henceforth earn the "bread money" on your back; He
>>
>>I'm sorry. Bread money? I don't quite follow you here...
>
>Sorry. An attempt at metaphor. I have been in on discussions where of
>all things, WHY the woman was sexing around became an issue.
>
>I said, "in those days, as poor as many were -- -the widow's mite--
>some Jewish housewife who couldn't afford the household groceries that
>day, may have been entertaining for enough extra $$$ to feed her
>hungry kids. She may even have been a widow, earning her rent or food
>money with her body."
>
>>
>>> DID forgive her on the spot, and tell her to go and not do that sin
>>> anymore. Did she stop?
>>
>>Absolutely.
>
>My point was, she may have stopped screwing around for $$$. But there
>are other sins. She was only told to stop doing THAT. And no one can
>be certain that she did.
>
>THAT was my ONLY point. Did she? The text SUGGESTS she did not; I see
>no final resolution of that.
>
> Not to be too grim, but she would have stopped either way.
>
>Not necessarily.
>
>>The first way would have brought her physical death (the wages of sin is
>>death, and that is how God always deals with sin). But here suggests
>>that she was spiritually reborn and made new by Christ, becoming a
>>believer and follower of Him.
>
>I agree. My "disagreement" was merely for the sake of the discussion.
>But I must re-emphasize here, she didn't stop "sinning". She stopped
>THAT sin.
>
>>
>>> Many (me and others) believe this woman was Mary Magdalene.
>>
>>I do not, though I used to.
>
>Don't get hung up, as several others did. I didn't mean that as a
>definitive statement. It was an "aside", an "I wonder..." with an
>arched eyebrow and a rub of the jaw.
>
>
> I don't see how Scripture really supports
>>this idea.
>
>Again, it was a discussion in seminary. Nothing more. Believe it or
>not, students and profs "wonder" a LOT. It teaches you to think on
>your own, and to use the Bible study tools you're learning in
>practical exercises.
>
>FAR more valuable than the "facts" I got in seminary were the lessons
>I learned on how to study the Bible all by myself, with only the HS as
>a guide.
>
>WOW! What one can learn by simply
>1. set aside a time to study
>2. prayerfully study
>3. OPEN yourself to LEARNING something new.
>4. realize you won't learn new things if you hold onto the old with a
>death grip.
>5. Simply ask the Spirit to protect your "vitals" as you open
>yourself,
>6. and then be sure that every idea that comes into your head passes
>the "filter" of scripture.
>
>Could be, though. At the least, her identity is less
>>important than the spiritual truths revealed through her by example in
>>the Scriptures.
>
>If you are familiar with the Medieval Morality Play,
>"Everyman",
>
>the whore represents "EverySinner", or man himself.
>
>She tells us all that "all have sinned; none is innocent." The wages
>of [[ all spiritual whores: all mankind ]] is death.
>
>But God doesn't spill our blood. He loves us so much He commits
>suicide to rescue our mangy, maggoty carcasses from the pit.
>
>THAT is the concept that Calvin missed and Luther grasped so firmly.
>
>Why would God take form and die in my place, merely to rise the third
>day, pick up a baseball bat, and wait for me to screw up ONE MORE
>TIME?
>
> He wouldn't. He didn't.
>
>>
>>> And her endless devotion to the Lord who gave her life twice was
>>> apparent.
>>
>>Yes, especially if (though I doubt) she was Mary Magdalene. Regardless,
>>there is no question to the sincerity or the intensity of her devotion.
>
>That and ONLY that last point was the ONLY thing I was trying to
>communicate.
>
>>The context at the very least portrays repentance and righteousness of
>>the woman from that time forward.
>
>Deep bow! On THAT we agree!
>
>smile.
>
>jw
>>
>>> God bless!
>>>
>>> j w
>>
>>Sorry this was so long.
>
>Uh! don't go there! As long as you are respectful, and friendly,
>we're on the same page.
>
>And to be sure you understand me, the ONLY issues I get feisty about
>are "life and death."
>
>When you (people) begin questioning/denying the virgin birth, when
>people ridicule the Trinity, when a guy just yesterday extends his
>middle finger at Yhwh, I cock my fists.
>
>Those are life-and-death issues.
>
>What color your hair is, what kind of car you drive, whether your wife
>is of the same race, whether you use the NIV or the NASB or KJV,
>whether you worship on Saturday or Thursday,
>
>who cares?
>
>Whether you understand how to get to heaven is my only concern.
>
>If you are born again,
>
>and yet you have a very special place of honor on your mantelpiece for
>your left tennis shoe from high school tennis,
>
>I could care less.
>
>
>But those are my thoughts (and misunderstandings
>>perhaps) so far.
>
>As far as I am concerned, you are fine, our misunderstandings are (
>= ) that important to me, and our communication thus far has been
>EXCELLENT.
>
>God bless, and write back very soon.
>
>(also don't be afraid of correcting me; people are; however others
>have noted that if you can show me scripture and a reasonable
>argument, I'm open.)
>
>jw
>
>God bless!
>
>j w
IT @something.net Don
wrote:
>GOOD RIDDANCE on Nov. 2nd to Dishonest Warmonger-in-Thief G.W. Bush! wrote:
>> The above letter, posted a few months ago, is re-posted
>> as a reminder to all that in Hagee's most recent programs, his
>> hatefulness continues unabated. He'd make a good poster
>> boy for the bigotry that infests the RRR cult.
>
>I don't agree with all of John Hagee's theology, but apparently he got
>the part concerning homosexuality right.
Ask him about adultery. Ask him about divorce.
>If I had my way, every single
>militant homosexual would be forcibly censored and shoved back into the
>closet
So you are not really an American, are ya?
Here's a word for you...
C-O-N-S-T-I-T-U-T-I-O-N
>The rest of the homosexuals would simply have
>to be celibate, quiet, and behave.
Nah, you're not an American at all. Please tell us under what
opressive government you were born?
>I can't do that obviously. But I can
>preach the Gospel to them and pray that God will wash some of them clean
>of their filthiness and iniquity and bring them to Christ.
Why don't you preach to your pastor who is assending his chosen career
ladder. Talk to him about honesty and pride. Why don't you preach to
John Hagee about the same thing, but add a little sermon on ADULTERY
and Christians who DIVORCE.
"Most xtian have logic disorder. They believe the Bible is inerrant
and they believe insects have 4 legs and all 4 legged creatures can fly.
Some fowls are four-footed (Lev. 11:20-21); creeping insects have four legs (Lev. 11:22-23);"
---Lorrenx
GOOD RIDDANCE on Nov. 2nd to Dishonest Warmonger-in-Thief G.W. Bush!
John Weatherly <joh...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Craig Chilton <xana...@mchsi.com> ("GOOD RIDDANCE on
> Nov. 2nd to Dishonest Warmonger-in-Thief G.W. Bush!") wrote:
>> John Weatherly <joh...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> Byron Smith <bsm...@gt.rr.com> wrote:
>>>> OK. First let me say that I disagree with you on a few things,
>>>> but respectfully.
>>> Good. Healthy disagreement (between two equally "armed"
>>> adults) is wonderful. ("iron sharpens iron") Keep it respectful,
>>> don't call names, keep it respectful, no cheap shots...
>> (And whatever you do, make sure that his words don't
>> get archived for posterity. He apparently is too ashamed
>> of his stance for that... )
> If you are curious about why I choose to not archive,
> you might ... ask.
Why should I *have* to ask? YOU are the one who was WHINING
because I **never** restrict the archiving of MY *response* posts.
The onus is on *you*. I couldn't care less if you choose not to see
YOUR posts archived, but I'll be damned if I'll self-censor MY posts
from posterity just because you choose to do that to *yours.*
> Since you didn't bother to ask, I am now going to assume that you
> aren't REMOTELY interested in my reasoning...
>
> Come back and ask with some respect, and you might get a
> rational answer.
Why? I showed you no disrespect. I simply do NOT self-censor
MY posts. What you choose to do with yours is your business, and
I have no control over that. Nor would I want any.
I'll admit to being curious as to why you choose to do that, but
if you don't tell me, I'll live. Until then, I'll just assume that --
even though you apparently have no fear of expressing your
opinions in real time -- you probably are fearful, for some arcane
reason, to allow posterity have access to your comments.
(Since you had no responses to anything said below this point,
I'm deleting the remainder of this post.)
Byron Smith
> x-no-archive: yes
> On Thu, 07 Oct 2004 23:54:16 GMT, Byron Smith <bsm...@gt.rr.com>
> wrote:
> copyright 2004 John Weatherly all rights reserved (keep it in the
> group)
> My OTHER point was, He didn't go house-to-house LOOKING in people's
> closets and bedrooms and on their rooftops for SIN!!!
>
> When He encountered it, when it was IN HIS FACE, He did something
> about it.
True. But it would only take thirty seconds (or less!) within earshot of
the sermons of Christ to be confronted with the truth of God in all its
fullness and righteousness. I agree that He didn't go "house-to-house
LOOKING ... for SIN!!!" as you put it, but He didn't have to. All He had
to do was to proclaim God the Father and His truth, and the sin of all
that society would be apparent: hypocrisy, lying, cruelty, you name
it---Jesus probably touched on it.
> He taught by EXAMPLE. IOW, one EXAMPLE sufficed for any point He
> wished to make. study His numerous sermons/mini-sermons (some were one
> sentence) RARELY repeat a theme, proving that God HATES repeating
> Himself.
>
> " I said it! If you didn't care enough to listen the 1st time, why
> would I repeat myself?"
Hmmmm. Now that you mention it.. I never thought of that before.
> God snapped Judas' neck like a toothpick and then smeared him all over
> a dirt lot. "It wasn't pretty."
>
> Moral? Don't mess with God! He punches MUCH harder!
>
> You smack God in the nose, He smacks you a DEATH blow.
That is rather a more gruesome picture than I would use personally, but
I agree wholeheartedly. You don't mess with God. And one thing I
absolutely, positively ***HATE*** is the fact that people in general are
happy to exalt man and abase man. My pastor preached a sermon on this,
and he called it (quite correctly) "God Abuse". Or, now that I think of
it, it was a part of a sermon.
> I get the sneaky hunch you may have a bit of the Calvinist in you. I
> abhor MUCH of his doctrine.
> Calvin never learned about God's Grace. Luther explained it this way:
> Jesus came to set us FREE!!
Not to sidetrack this discussion, but just in the interest of full
disclosure and integrity:
I confess to being a five-point Calvinist in doctrine. I'm not open
about it (for obvious reasons, as people misunderstand and abuse
accordingly) but I'm not ashamed of it either.
However, I did not get my "Calvinism" so-called from Calvin or Luther,
but from Scripture. I'm not really all that familiar with either Calvin
or Luther. The doctrine that bears the name Calvinism predates Calvin by
several centuries, at least, going back to Augustine, and before him,
Paul the Apostle, and before him, Jesus Christ Himself.
I'm not sure what parts of Calvinism in general or Calvin's doctrine in
particular you abhor, so let me just say this: Spurgeon gives a good
presentation of full five-point Calvinism balancing the grace and
sovereignty of God with the responsibility of man to repent and believe,
while still giving God all the glory and redeemed man all of God's grace
in Christ.
Jesus Christ Himself said, you shall know the truth and the truth shall
set you free. Our freedom is in Him, and His grace is in us, and His
Holy Spirit indwells us, and God the Father claims us for His own.
> Yet Jesus did NOT preach "Sinners in the hands of an angry God"
> (Jonathan Edwards)
>
> unless He had openly arrogant sinners heckling Him. (the Pharisees)
>
> Even the woman at the well--a 6-times WHORE-- He was kind and gentle
> with.
>
> She wasn't being AGRESSIVELY SINFUL "IN HIS FACE" so He wasn't
> aggressive with her.
>
> He JUDGED her, but it was GENTLE.
>
> "Woman! You have had F I V E husbands! And the man you are [ shacked
> up ] with now-- he's not your husband!"
>
> And the conversation progressed VERY gently from there.
>
> He wasn't out to GET HER ("Ah HAH! A filthy, slimy, SLUT!")
>
> or to POUND her into the CONCRETE ( "Take that, wench!" Let me find
> 10 hypocrites to stone you!"")
>
> and leave a GREASE spot where she had been.
>
> No way!
>
> What would THAT have accomplished?
>
> He wanted to REDEEM her, and He did! THEN He used her to convert HER
> ENTIRE VILLAGE!
Good points.
>
> In the end, every single one of those whom God
>
>>throws into hell will be forced to acknowledge His fairness and
>>rightness for doing so, and they'll have to do it while bowing the knee
>>and confessing with the tongue as well!
>
> I must stop you. That is Calvinist BUNK. Jesus doesn't cast anyone
> into hell. We choose that for ourselves. And Calvin had it DEAD wrong
> when he taught that ONLY A FEW SELECT PERSONS can be saved.
This is a lot more than I want to go into, but let me try to clarify
something:
NEVER should the Calvinist or any other Christian try to throw away the
"Whosoevers" of Scripture. They're in there for a reason, and if it's in
God's Word I believe it wholeheartedly. I do not believe for a moment
that God will turn away someone who sincerely repents and believes and
calls upon His name, and I never have.
However, here is to clarify just a little where I am coming from:
1. First of all, God DOES cast people into Hell... Korah and his
rebellious lot were swallowed alive in divine judgment; Christ talks
also about being cast into Hell (who is doing the casting? why,
obviously the One who has authority and right to execute wrath, God
Himself!).
2. Secondly, NO ONE AT ANY TIME will EVER be able to blame God for their
eternal torment in Hell. Their sin brings their judgment. God is just
and fair, and His judgment is based purely on Truth and His own
righteousness.
3. Which brings me to the point, why is Hell eternal? Because God gave
the Law and the Law is good not evil (Romans 7:12-13, for one) but also
impossible (Romans 7:23-8:1). God gave the law for two reasons at least:
to show His own Holy standard, and to bring us to a state of full
condemnation under sin (Romans 3:10) because none are righteous, so that
the ONLY hope of righteousness and salvation are by faith in Jesus
Christ. God has ordained Jesus Christ ALONE as Lord and Saviour, there
are no others and there is no other way. We stand totally condemned
under the law, so that we can hear the Gospel which points us to Christ
and Him alone as our hope and our salvation.
But without Christ, we are eternally without hope, because there is
nothing we can do to match the sinless perfect sacrifice of Jesus
Christ, which is eternally redemptive for those who believe. So outside
of Christ are the eternally doomed and hopeless, because without faith
it is impossible to please Him.
>>Ouch. Same as above concerning the word "tolerance" but I see where you
>>are coming from and I agree.
>
>
> Good. I think with some "fringe" allowed, we agree.
>
>
> (Hypocritically, but I agree nonetheless).
>
> Here, you lost me. My hypocrisy, or yours?
> (and I think you used the wrong word.
No, I used the right word. I was speaking of my own hypocrisy. I know to
tell the truth in love, but do not do it. However, because I agree it
should be done, and I don't do it like I should, this renders me guilty
of hypocrisy.
> "Hyper" is over-critical; "hypo" is under-critical.
>
Didn't know that about "hypo". Thanks. That's what I am, under-critical
of myself.
>>Here's the thing: God gave that same law (under the old Covenant) so it
>>has to be righteous if its origin is God.
>
> No. I don't recall any scripture that says the law is righteous. It
> was intended as a GUIDE to righteousness.
> The law can only GUIDE us to righteousness, and tell us the standard.
Romans 7:9-12 basically. The Law is a guide to righteousness because it
in and of itself is Holy. In other words, the only way to be perfectly
righteous in God's sight is to be perfectly holy, and the only way to be
perfectly holy is to follow the standard of holiness, which is the Law.
Of course, no one can do that, so ALL fall guilty under the Law and are
condemned. So no one can truly withstand God's justice in its purest
form. It would blast us all away with more force than a hydrogen bomb,
leaving only a towering mushroom cloud of righteous wrath and
indignation behind in our place. I am speaking, of course, here only of
living without faith in Christ, which would require perfect obedience to
the Law, which can be safely stated that no one outside of Christ has
kept, so all are guilty.
However, God Himself approves of the Law and calls it Holy because Jesus
Christ kept it perfectly and fulfilled the Law. He did not do away with
it. His righteousness is perfect and untainted with sin even in thought.
And as believers with faith in Christ His righteousness is imputed to
us, bought and paid for with His own blood. He is the substitutionary
sacrifice, who both redeems us by His righteousness, and pays the
penalty for our sins taking them upon Himself.
But like the rich young ruler who asked what he must do to be saved...
Jesus said you know the commandments (and listed certain ones, probably
the ones he could admit to have kept perhaps), keep them. He said he
did, and had since his youth. So here both of them stamp their approval
on the Law itself, and that it's of God.
Then Jesus gently nailed Him with a well-focused and revealing question.
I'm sure His tone was soft, but His request had all the delicacy of
being impaled with a six foot spike. He told him to sell all that he had
and come, follow Him. Right there the idolatry of the rich young ruler
was revealed, and his covetousness. He didn't truly desire or seek God
and the things of God.
OK. I'm rambling. I'm tired and will have to give this more thought.
> By your thinking, Satan is righteous, since he originally emanated
> from a righteous God. See the error?
I think so. But I'm not entirely sure. Because God created Satan, and
everything that originates from God must be good, Satan must then be
righteous...that is the reasoning, right? OK, if that's so, yes
definitely that cannot be so, if it was so simply stated.
But notice what Scripture says. In Ezekiel 28:15, which I believe speaks
of the King of Tyrus, but I believe spiritually refers to Satan, because
the language used there is spiritual and heavily uses metaphor if merely
referring to a man alone, but I believe Scripture's purpose was to show
his (the king's) likeness to Satan. And the verse says he was perfect in
all his ways until the day that iniquity (disobedience to God;
rebellion; sin) was found in him. Satan was originally created Lucifer,
and was perfect in all his ways until his iniquity and rebellion.
Likewise, the Law is perfect and Holy and God, because it agrees with
God. Its origin is of God, its content from God, and its focus is God.
The ultimate measure of Holiness can only be God Himself. And God gave
the Law to us as a righteous standard of human worship and obedience to
God, and conduct in society and behavior to others. But it brings death
and condemnation upon us because we cannot help but fall guilty under it
and have no hope whatsoever. The law itself is good, and points out our
rebellion and iniquity against God. And it also brings crashing to the
earth every false hope and false religion because it allows no
imperfections in obedience, no forgiveness, no mercy, just perfect (and
deadly as the condemnation of hell) justice. God crushes our false hopes
and religions, so that we have no solution of our own, and then presents
His one and only solution: Jesus Christ. And He redeems us not by doing
away with the Law but fulfilling it and then crediting us with His
righteousness, and "debiting" Himself with our sins. But at no time does
He condemn the Law or trample it, but He satisfies the righteous wrath
of God, and gives us sweet mercy and grace bought and paid for with His
own blood.
>> because Jesus is God,
>
> Yes. Many don't quite get that. "God in flesh."
Oops. My bad. I didn't ask the right question. Somewhere you say (I
think) that Jesus is not the Old Testament God. But surely He is,
because He says that if you've seen Him, you have seen the Father, and
also, that before Abraham was, I AM. I don't think you're trying to say
His identity is different, or deny the Trinity, right? Because though He
is a different person, He is the same God, because there is only one God
in essence. And God cannot change: Jesus Christ is the same yesterday,
today, and forever. God's standard of righteousness hasn't changed from
the Old Testament. If anything, the judgment and vindication of His
righteousness is fiercer in the NT than in the OT, because He will no
longer accept animal sacrifices or the ritual law, because they pointed
to Christ who was coming, and were merely symbols of a coming and
greater reality. And He will not accept substitutes to faith in Christ
because we are condemned by His Law, and He has ordained one, namely
Jesus Christ alone, as the name above all names whereby we must be
saved. And it is fiercer because He will judge all by the Man He has
ordained, Jesus Christ (Acts 17:31). And from reading Revelation, that
judgment upon sinners is grievous.
> But I agree that likely, she was arrested and dragged before Jesus,
> likely by customers or former customers, MERELY to embarrass Jesus.
> They couldn't IMAGINE the milktoast, pansy, pacifist Jesus ordering
> her death.
I can't see Jesus as milquetoast, pansy, or pacifist (at least, purely
pacifist). I like what a friend of mine told me: Jesus is the manliest
man ever to walk the face of the earth, because only He could take on
the burden of our sins without adding any unrighteousness of His own, of
which He of course had none and never will have.
> Boy, did they miscalculate THAT one!
Amen!
> The Lord got VERY aggressive, but did it quietly. Nor did He turn His
> divine wrath on HER. But THEM.
>
> Who knows what he wrote in the dirt?
>
> I've heard it said that he listed all the sins being committed in that
> group that day,and when they all realized that He could see inside
> each of them, they were disgusted; with themselves.
>
> As in, if He TRULY cleaned house that day, as they were demanding,
> Jerusalem would have been left a ghost city, with One Resident.
>
>
> And from the
>
>>context of the story, they most likely would never have brought the
>>woman at all, if it wasn't for the fact that they were mortal enemies of
>>Jesus and would use any means available to trap or discredit Him
>
>
> ABSOLUTELY.
>
> (and
>
>>how on EARTH did they know about her activity in the first place?
>
>
> ;-)
>
> How do YOU think they knew what she had been doing?
>
> If she were a temple whore, which is likely, though not certain, (the
> gentiles didn't care if the prostitutes were Jews--nor did the Jews)
>
> it is VERY likely that half her "customers" from the night before, or
> from an hour earlier, were in that crowd.
>
>
> Makes
>
>>me wonder if it wasn't one of them who initiated the adultery to start
>>with,
>
>
> hehehehe.. Yep. We're on the same page.
>
>
> but Scripture does not say so I cannot know for certain---however,
>
>>it is interesting that Jesus said let him who has no sin cast the first
>>stone.
>
>
> Being God, He knows our innermost being. So of course He knew their
> sins. Also note that He didn't choose to PUBLICLY embarrass them as
> they had the woman.
>
> But I might be reading too much into it, but certainly He was
>
>>correctly accusing every single one of them of being guilty of sin in
>>general, if not also a particular one guilty of this specific sin).
>
>
> Absolutely. Of course, none of those men could have been a temple
> prostitute, unless unhappy women had arranged for men to be at the
> temple, or ???
>
>
>>Now, because Jesus is God, and He was present for the "sentencing",
>>being greater than the accusers and even the Law they judged her by, His
>>judgment would be supreme.
>
>
> Well, most of them didn't know or care that He was God, yet He
> OBVIOUSLY commanded Authority and Respect. I don't see much arguing
> with Jesus AFTER He spoke with someone.
>
> Do you see any words after, "Give Caesar his due; also give God His
> due!"
>
> How does one "one-up" that?
>
>
> And nowhere in that passage that I know of
>
>>does He deny the justice of God by saying that the woman is innocent or
>>that she does not deserve death for her sin.
>
>
> Correct. He DOES allude to her sin by saying, "Go. Sin no more!"
> (don't do this anymore)
>
> He OBVIOUSLY isn't telling her to never commit another sin, since God
> knows we cannot be without sin.
>
>
> What He does say is that He
>
>>does not accuse her of sin, and to go and sin no more. He acknowledges
>>both the fact of her sin and its just penalty all in a few statements,
>>then turns and extends her His grace in the form of divine mercy,
>>because He will bear her sins ultimately on the cross.
>
>
> Yes.
>
> And as I alluded earlier, you have shown me a new angle on something.
> He spared her life because there was no point in her dying for her
> sin. Jesus invented Double Jeopardy. She didn't have to die for her
> sin, because HE had taken on that task; HE would die for her sin.
>
> AGAIN, that show of Divine Mercy was an early example of the "New Day"
> of the Kingdom come.
>
>
> So Jesus is put
>
>>to death by God for all the sins of His sheep, the Law is both fulfilled
>>and satisfied in Him, and grace and mercy overflow to each one of us who
>>are but worms and maggots in the holy sight of God.
>
>
> 10000000000 % correct.
>
> One TINY nit. We WERE maggots and worms before the death of Christ.
> NOW God sees us as PERFECT, since we have put on the perfection of His
> Son.
OK. I have to give you that one. I was really focusing on being the
recipient of God's grace in our natural state, which as I said above,
could certainly be described as lousy. However, as you correctly point
out, that is past tense once we are believers in Christ. His
righteousness is not just freely given to us but imputed to our
account...we are completely identified by it through His grace.
>
>>So now, because of Jesus, my behavior would certainly be different.
>
>
> That was my point, and my hope. I am DELIGHTED to see that transition.
>
> I have been called a "wimp" many times. I disagree.
>
> I have simply learned a deeper meaning of God's Amazing Grace, that
> saved a wretch like me.
Rebound Nit. You are no longer a wretch. You have been saved by grace.
You are made a child of God by Jesus Christ, and though we don't like to
use the word, a saint, because of His ownership and transformation of
us. We all now belong to Him.
> Here, I have to disagree. Since MUCH of our sin today is behind closed
> doors, how do you regulate it?
OK. I think I see where you are coming from. There should be basic moral
standards, based on the Word of God. But for those who cannot accept the
Word of God, we can say "Love your neighbor" in whatever phraseology
they want.
I lean Libertarian in my views of government and law enforcement versus
bill of rights and states rights. But I have no other foundation than
the Bible when I preach if I'm doing it right. (which sometimes I screw
up and have to get back on track).
> And since so many of the "Religious Right" (of which I am one) keep
> pointing at porn as being "the ultimate evil" that is ruining our
> society, we need to take a 2nd look at even THAT..
Pornography is evil because it involves lust which involves covetousness
which involves idolatry. It is the final commandment of the Law that
slays us for our unrighteousness----everyone has coveted; everyone has
demanded something not rightfully theirs, at least in their hearts. And
by breaking this commandment, we are guilty of breaking all, and
bringing the whole force of the Law down upon us. I'm certainly not
without fault here specifically, without even speaking of the guilt of
covetousness in general.
> The definition of "porn" used to be "community standards"; that is the
> US Supreme Court definition; that is, it used to be.
>
> Since the computer and the Internet have now put every imaginable form
> of porn and sex club at the anonymous reach of anyone with a phone and
> a credit/debit card, the "community" standard for porn now applies to
> one household.
>
> Should the Supreme Court go where God never went? Behind the closed
> doors of your home?
One quibble here. Government and I cannot see into anyone else's
bedroom. Government doesn't have the right to, and neither do I, unless
of course the health of society itself is at stake (which in the case of
homosexuality, and unmarried heterosexual activity, which are both forms
of fornication) and there the issue gets tangled for me. Because, as
much as I want government to realize I am not merely a resource under
its direct control and use, I also cannot escape the righteous judgments
of God on my life. If I became guilty of adultery, for example, I would
probably suffer real-life consequences. God sees and judges every
sin---not always in this life, true, but God brings to pass a lot more
judgment in THIS life than several groups of people, my own Baptists
among them, seem willing or able to admit.
> I don't think so.
>
> The sin we see so rampant is because the state of mankind is sin.
> And the Bible says it will get worse before it gets better.
Which is kind of strange that you say that (and I agree). But to the
atheist, let's say, and to most others on the planet, it's getting
better and better, at least as far as sin and the pleasures of sin go.
> And it will continue to get worse until He returns. And I believe in a
> Literal 2nd Coming because I see the signs.
No disagreement there. And I might add, not for your benefit but for
those reading this, He's not returning to make a second attempt at
reconciliation. He is coming back as the Judge. And there is no hope for
mercy outside of faith in Him BEFORE He returns.
>>I'm NOT a theonomist of any stripe except a spiritual one.
>
>
> Sorry. You have used a word I am not familiar with. And it's not in
> the online dictionary.
>
> Define "theonomist," please.
http://www.amprpress.com/political_polytheism.htm
Quote:
Theonomy means God's law and a theonomist is a person who believes in
God's law as opposed to being antinomian, that is against the law.
I am a spiritual theonomist. I am subject to God's law individually.
Christians are subject to the Law of God corporately. I do not believe
in taking the entire Law (ritual, dietary, etc.) and turning it into a
civic code for our nation (or any other) when it was very specifically
ordained by God Himself, through the prophet Moses, and very
particularly targeted Israel and Israel alone. And I do not see the
dietary and ritual laws as binding today, because of such scriptures as
Peter's vision, the finished work of Christ, and Christ's own admonition
to abide in Him, not in the Law. I'm not an antinomian either: in fact,
I believe the Holy Spirit of God and my own God-given conscience will
require more out of me than the moral law, the ten Commandments, by
themselves, because God's Spirit is inside me, He will convince me to
live by the Spirit of the Law, and not just the letter. And I'm not
perfect; I'm just a work in progress and I still sin. However, I no
longer have any excuse to sin, because I know better by knowing the Word
of God, and too, God has promised to provide a means of escape to every
temptation. I am left without excuse if I sin.
>
> Somethings
>
>>truly should be legislated against for the good of society,
>
>
> Depends on the society, and on what you want to outlaw.
>
> If you are a tee-totaler, and you want to outlaw alcoholic beverages
> again, I am against you. And how would you enforce that?
No, I am not. I don't believe drinking is a sin. Drunkenness clearly is.
But I personally do not believe I have been given liberty by the Spirit
to drink, and I do not take liberty to drink alcohol, because I believe
I could not handle it without falling into drunkenness.
> if you are against certain sex practices, how do you monitor what
> happens behind closed/locked doors?
I can still be against sin ("certain sex practices") without having to
be for government totalitarianism. There are some things I believe
government should enforce, such as marriage being between a man and a
woman, only. To do otherwise is to go contrary to God's Word and His
established order. We cannot establish marriage by passing a law. It has
already been ordained and is defended by God. These other types of
"marriage" are simply various forms of rebellion and insanity, which in
and of themselves are judgments of God upon our sin, and reflect the
downward spiral of sin and judgment Paul writes so eloquently concerning
in Romans chapter 1. I am amazed to say that I can see Romans 1 fleshed
out today in America before my very eyes.
> What would you outlaw? We cannot impose morality with laws. What we
> CAN do is write laws to protect society, like from murderers, and
> rapists, and bank robbers, and child stealers/misusers.
>
> But we already have such laws, and our prisons are overflowing with
> people who didn't agree with those laws. Of course, that is pathology
> at its worst.
>
> What would you like to outlaw?
I'd like to outlaw everything I dislike. Cold donuts at the donut shop.
Diet red creme soda (Blech!). Metrosexual clothing for men.
(Double-blech!!).
No, seriously, I think I would outlaw too much and fall into a
self-righteousness. But what I really want is spoken of in Ecclesiastes
8:11, "Because sentence against an evil work is not executed speedily,
therefore the heart of the sons of men is fully set in them to do evil."
I would like to see timely justice in the enforcement of basic moral
legislation against evil, such as lying, stealing, murdering,
kidnapping, rebellion, sedition, treason, etc. This is a topic for a
different thread, and someone else would have to do most of the talking,
because my understanding in this area is rather limited.
>
> but only in
>
>>the ultimate perspective that God is the Final Judge, and within His
>>parameters we have liberty, but also moral responsibility.
>
>
> Correct.
>
> Have you yet come to the place where you have discovered real, true,
> good, Christian, scriptural "situation ethics?"
>
> I hear/read too many people (including in here) who believe that we're
> all supposed to be a cookie-cutter example of what THEY consider
> "Christian."
>
> I like how Kathi Lee Gifford (yum yum) put it. God went to all the
> trouble of creating each of us TOTALLY uniquely. Not one single
> person, not one single Christian, is EXACTLY like anyone else. Even
> the scientists admit that when they start cloning, they do NOT get an
> "exact copy". ALL they have replicated is the gene pool.
>
> So God creates each of us unique, and then we spend the rest of our
> lives trying to be like somebody else, and tearing each other down for
> our differences.
>
> No! That's NOT how He meant it to be!
That is an interesting point. Yes, God seems to value uniqueness and
individuality in the Christian. Of course, we are all part of the body
of Christ as believers. And we have Him as our object of worship and
devotion. But we are members individually.
>
> WOW! What one can learn by simply
> 1. set aside a time to study
> 2. prayerfully study
> 3. OPEN yourself to LEARNING something new.
> 4. realize you won't learn new things if you hold onto the old with a
> death grip.
> 5. Simply ask the Spirit to protect your "vitals" as you open
> yourself,
> 6. and then be sure that every idea that comes into your head passes
> the "filter" of scripture.
I couldn't snip this. I think that's good advice.
> Could be, though. At the least, her identity is less
>
>>important than the spiritual truths revealed through her by example in
>>the Scriptures.
>
>
> If you are familiar with the Medieval Morality Play,
> "Everyman",
Only in passing reference.
> the whore represents "EverySinner", or man himself.
>
> She tells us all that "all have sinned; none is innocent." The wages
> of [[ all spiritual whores: all mankind ]] is death.
>
> But God doesn't spill our blood. He loves us so much He commits
> suicide to rescue our mangy, maggoty carcasses from the pit.
>
> THAT is the concept that Calvin missed and Luther grasped so firmly.
This is where I simply don't follow you fully. In the doctrine of
salvation, both were in agreement so I have heard. Both believed in the
(so-called) Limited Atonement. God died only for the elect (limited in
scope, not in power) and his sacrifice is 100% effective, as opposed to
dying for all men and saving only a few (unlimited in scope, perhaps,
but definitely limited in power). That is not to get sidetracked. Most
do not believe this doctrine, but I believe the Bible teaches it, but it
has the least scriptural support of the five points of Calvinism and is
probably not worth stressing. I'd far rather stress man's responsibility
to repent and believe in Christ, because only faith in Christ will save
from God's righteous wrath upon sin, and bring us grace through Christ.
> And to be sure you understand me, the ONLY issues I get feisty about
> are "life and death."
>
> When you (people) begin questioning/denying the virgin birth, when
> people ridicule the Trinity, when a guy just yesterday extends his
> middle finger at Yhwh, I cock my fists.
>
> Those are life-and-death issues.
Amen. I am in full agreement. A no-tolerance personal policy on
blasphemy is a good expression of Christian faith and character. In
fact, a "Christian" who is not bothered by such is either backslidden or
still lost I would think, and ought to examine his "Christianity".
And you are right. The man was threatening to extend his middle finger
at God if God failed His "obligation" to him, but in truth, he has
already shot God the finger in his heart, and obligated Him to endorse
his personal sin to boot by saving him from judgment (apparently, from
what I skimmed of the post---didn't read it carefully and slept since then).
These are the same people who accuse God of being cruel and unfair,
which, just like Ezekiel 18:25, Scripture asks, "are not your ways
unequal?" (God's righteous judgment is to cast them into hell unless
they repent!)
Well, that's pretty much it. I am too tired to write a better response,
so you'll have to live with that.
I think we agree on most things. Our disagreements are minor in most
points. And I wasn't looking for disagreements, but I was trying to see
where you were coming from.
Man, I don't have the energy for this newsgroup!
--
Byron
GOOD RIDDANCE on Nov. 2nd to Dishonest Warmonger-in-Thief G.W. Bush!
> Craig Chilton <xana...@mchsi.com> ("GOOD RIDDANCE on
> Nov. 2nd to Dishonest Warmonger-in-Thief G.W. Bush!") wrote:
>> John Weatherly <joh...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> == Archiving restriction SCRAPPED! ==
>>> For anyone without even the basic sense of common decency
>>> to respect my EXPRESSED choice to not archive MY posts, ...
>> CLUE, Loser:
> The key to communication is to NOT start with insults.
YOUR key, maybe. but when someone EARNS an accurate
descriptor, as you just did, I won't hesitate to apply it. You claimed
that I didn't have a "basic sense of common decency." Sorry, but I
very much DO. Your lie therefore makes you a "loser" in terms of
being dishonest.
I never said you couldn't prevent the archiving of *your* posts.
Knock yourself out! Do it to your hearts content! That's your
privilege. JUST as it is MY privilege to **scrap** such a restriction
when making MY responses. Which is ALL that I did.
> Speaking of brains, try getting one.
Read the above, and then take your own advice.
> And your RESPONSE to my post was to disrespect my right
> to not archive.
Nope. It was a case of my exercising MY right to allow MY
response to you to BE archived. Try and comprehend the obvious
difference.
> And without your even knowing why I don't.
You're obviously not *volunteering* it, but that TOO is *your*
business, isn't it? What you choose to write, and whether or not
you choose archiving, in YOUR posts, is YOUR business. And
the same applies in my case, for MY posts, whether or not they
are in response to you, or to anyone else.
> Apparently, you also missed my prominent copyright; that ALONE
> should give you a clue. However, you are what you called me:
> CLUELESS.
Wrong again! **Everything** posted in here is de facto
copyrighted. Did you FILE it, and pay the appropriate FEE, to
have it **formally** copyrighted? If not, then my posts are every
bit as copyrighted as yours are, and saying that they are doesn't
mean squat. They ALREADY are, without that, minimally and
non-formally. (So you might want to think about your own clue-
lessness before accusing others of it.)
> Loser.
Pretty desperate to prove that of *yourself*, aren't you?
Well, no prob -- you're succeeding admirably.
As I told you before ---
>> My response to you is MY post, and I have NO desire
>> for it *not* to be archived. You clearly are dumber than a
>> dead rock!
>>> ... I respond no further. (ie, you violate my rights,... I stop
>>> talking to you.)
>> You rights were not violated. You prevented the archiving
>> of YOUR post, and that is your privilege. And I ensured that MY post
>> **could** be archived, and *that* was just as much MY privilege.
((( Since no further responses on your part appeared in the
remainder of the post, the rest of it is deleted for brevity. )))
Byron Smith
> That is rather a more gruesome picture than I would use personally, but
> I agree wholeheartedly. You don't mess with God. And one thing I
> absolutely, positively ***HATE*** is the fact that people in general are
> happy to exalt man and abase man. My pastor preached a sermon on this,
Ack! I meant to type, "exalt man and abase God"
--
Byron
Byron Smith
> Likewise, the Law is perfect and Holy and God, because it agrees with
Holy and Good...
--
Byron, fast of finger and pressing Send keys, but slow to proofread (I
kinda skip that part and it usually returns to haunt me... in this case,
I just became an accidental heretic).
Andrealphus
> Byron Smith wrote:
>> Likewise, the Law is perfect and Holy and God, because it agrees with
>
> Holy and Good...
You would think that your God could prevent you from butchering his message
so badly. LOL!
--
Brigham Young on interracial marriage:
"Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the
white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed
of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This
will always be so."
GOOD RIDDANCE on Nov. 2nd to Dishonest Warmonger-in-Thief G.W. Bush!
> Craig Chilton <xana...@mchsi.com> ("GOOD RIDDANCE
> on Nov. 2nd to Dishonest Warmonger-in-Thief G.W. Bush!") wrote:
>> John Weatherly <joh...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> Craig Chilton <xana...@mchsi.com> ("GOOD RIDDANCE on
>>> Nov. 2nd to Dishonest Warmonger-in-Thief G.W. Bush!") wrote:
>>>> John Weatherly <joh...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>> Byron Smith <bsm...@gt.rr.com> wrote:
>>>>>> OK. First let me say that I disagree with you on a few things,
>>>>>> but respectfully.
>>>>> Good. Healthy disagreement (between two equally "armed"
>>>>> adults) is wonderful. ("iron sharpens iron") Keep it respectful,
>>>>> don't call names, keep it respectful, no cheap shots...
>>>> (And whatever you do, make sure that his words don't
>>>> get archived for posterity. He apparently is too ashamed
>>>> of his stance for that... )
>>> If you are curious about why I choose to not archive,
>>> you might ... ask.
>> Why should I *have* to ask? YOU are the one who was WHINING
>> because I **never** restrict the archiving of MY *response* posts.
>> The onus is on *you*. I couldn't care less if you choose not to see
>> YOUR posts archived, but I'll be damned if I'll self-censor MY posts
>> from posterity just because you choose to do that to *yours.*
> What I objected to was the VERY arrogant note you put on the
> post about my ridiculous non-archiving, and your suggestion that it
> was for some dark motive; it's not; it's a professional issue.
Which I observe you still haven't bothered to expain, as you
indicated you would. Hard to imagine any "professional issue" that
would cause one not to worry about posting in real time, but would
fear being read by posterity.
And as for my "arrogant note" that you CLAIMED caused your
overreaction... if you look back at my first response to you, you'll
see that I made **no such mention** of your archiving. All I did was
put in a notation that said, "== Archiving restriction SCRAPPED! == "
and nothing else. Which did nothing more than to let it be known
that *I* do NOT restrict the archiving of *my* posts.
After which *you* went ballistic.
To which I *then* responded.
Now, do you suppose you possibly could be *honest* enough to
acknowledge that sequence? (And if not, the readers can easily
enough can see that for themselves.)
> And if my motives are no big deal, why make an issue of lying
> about them?
I don't lie in any of my posts. I *speculated* on your apparent
motives. As is quite clear in the last paragraph, below.
> It was YOU who made an issue of it.
Wrong. See above.
<remaining childish whining flushed>
>>> Since you didn't bother to ask, I am now going to assume that you
>>> aren't REMOTELY interested in my reasoning...
>>>
>>> Come back and ask with some respect, and you might get a
>>> rational answer.
>> Why? I showed you no disrespect. I simply do NOT self-censor
>> MY posts. What you choose to do with yours is your business, and
>> I have no control over that. Nor would I want any.
>>
>> I'll admit to being curious as to why you choose to do that, but
>> if you don't tell me, I'll live. Until then, I'll just assume that --
>> even though you apparently have no fear of expressing your
>> opinions in real time -- you probably are fearful, for some arcane
>> reason, to allow posterity have access to your comments.
James Riske
>
>
> I don't lie in any of my posts.
hahahahahahaha
hahaha
hahahaha
Craig Chilton is a proven liar, this fact is well documented and
irrefutable.
Just take a look at the moniker Craig uses for proof that he is a
bald-faced liar, can he prove George W. Bush is a thief?
Of course not.
If it could be proven that GWB is a thief then GWB would not be in
office, quite simple really.
Sure Craig will go on about how so many different sites and friends of
his can prove that GWB is a thief but none of it can ever hold any real
weight, just the fact that GWB is still in office today is proof of that.
Go on Craig, tell us how GWB is a thief and then explain to us why he is
still in office.
Craig Chilton is a liar.
So noted.
--
"The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do
nothing."--Edmund Burke
GOOD RIDDANCE on Nov. 2nd to Dishonest Warmonger-in-Thief G.W. Bush!
James Riske wrote:
> Craig Chilton <xana...@mchsi.com> ("GOOD RIDDANCE on
>> I don't lie in any of my posts.
> Craig Chilton is a proven liar...
Wrong. And so you are a liar -- as usual.
> Just take a look at the moniker Craig uses for proof that he is a
> bald-faced liar, can he prove George W. Bush is a thief?
Yep. See SIG! Fully-documented, and exposed on network
TV to all of America.
> If it could be proven that GWB is a thief then GWB would
> not be in office, quite simple really.
NOT with the power of his ill-gotten presidency behind him, and
the backing of his dishonest partisan CRONIES in the U.S. Supreme
Court.
> So noted.
ROTFL!!!! The **only** thing noted is that you remain a total
moron, and just keep right on proving it.
Now -- FIRST, I'm **restoring** the previous post that omitted
almost all of. And THAT will immediately be followed by the
proof of Bush's thievery of the 2000 Election, in the SIG.
Riske: As usual, a mindless tool.
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
Wrong. See above.
<remaining childish whining flushed>
-- Craig Chilton <xana...@mchsi.com>
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
REPUBLICAN DIRTY TRICKS
BOMBSHELL !!!
If THIS scandal gets swept under the rug, it'll be completely
inexplicable. THIS one is MAJOR!!!
ABC News documented it on its evening news tonight
(Thanksgiving Day, 11/23/2000).
Capitalized words in the quotes below are not "shouts." They
denote inflective emphasis of those words as they were spoken
in the report.
= = = = = = = = = = = =
NARRATOR: "At the time, it SEEMED spontaneous -- angry
residents denied the right to see their votes recounted. But the
REALITY is, it was an ORCHESTRATED Republican protest.
And MOST were not even FROM here."
<<<Camera crew questions a female protester... >>>
REPORTER: "Are you local? Are you... ?"
NARRATOR: "Her guide, a Republican public relations officer,
cut THAT conversation short."
<<< Her guide takes her by the elbow and whisks
her away from the crew before she can say more
than a few words in response. >>>
NARRATOR: "And SO it has been, ALL week long. A public
relations effort that has not ALWAYS been so public. Camped out in a
motor home, in the middle of the media staging area, you would THINK
they would want to TALK about their mission."
<<< Reporter attempts to talk to a man in the RV, who
responds to him only briefly from behind the door,
before closing it in the reporter's face. >>>
MAN IN RV: "It's a Bush operation."
REPORTER: "It's a BUSH operation?
MAN IN RV: "Yep."
REPORTER: "What goes ON inside this trailer?"
MAN IN RV: "Oh... can't talk to you right now."
<<< Man closes door in reporter's face >>>
NARRATOR: "In ALL, an army of 75 operatives came to Miami
to SHAPE public opinion. 'To help the media,' they said."
<<< Reporter walks alongside one of them, trying to
interview him... >>>
REPUBLICAN OPERATIVE: "And we provide a service for you
for surrogates who you'll want to speak to..."
<<< Scene shifts to an outdoor crowd of protestors, many
armed with professionally-printed signs identical to the
earlier Democratic campaign signs -- except that instead
of "Gore Lieberman," *these* read "Sore Loserman."
Several of them were wearing *printed* signs on their
backs that read, "Enough is Enough." >>>
NARRATOR: "But they ALSO got involved in leading demon-
strations. And were EVEN willing to dress up in seasonal outfits
to provide so-called 'protestor color,' for local news reports."
<<< Camera shows a person dressed in a turkey costume,
with another person next to him/her holding a 3' x 4' sign
reading, "STUFF THE TURKEY NOT THE BALLOT BOX."
Many protestors gathered around them, holding *printed*
signs reading, "Gore. Let our MILITARY VOTE." >>>
NARRATOR: "In the end, it apparently made a difference.
'Intimidation,' some called it."
DAVID LEAHY, Miami-Dade Election Supervisor:
"If what I had envisioned [had] worked out, and there were no
objections, we'd be up there now, counting."
= = = = = = = = =
NOTE: THAT statement by Leahy is KEY!!! Later, he tried to
to backpedal on it! But FORTUNATELY, the truth was
already out -- with THIS statement (above).
= = = = = = = = =
NARRATOR: "They are not. And that Bush operations
trailer -- has moved on. [This is] Bill Redecker, ABC News, Miami."
= = = = = = = = = = = =
The above is an exact transcription of the report, which I had
videotaped from the broadcast. VERY surprisingly, since this is such
an OBVIOUS subversion of the election process, ABC News has NOT
yet put this report on its abcnews.com website -- even though this
evening's OTHER stories ARE detailed there. (????)
If Gore loses this election, there will be three key factors:
(1) Nader threw the election. (A circumstance, but a legal one.)
(2) A fouled-up ballot in Palm Beach County, and no *concerted*
attempt to obtain a county-wide revote to correct that.
(Legal, but very unfortunate.)
(3) The above DIRTY TRICK. (Probably legal, according to the
LETTER of the law. But it STINKS to high heaven, and proves
that the lessons of Watergate were LOST on the Republicans,
who just PROVED themselves to be lower than snakes.)
What a SHAME for America if BUSH should win, in light of this.
And if he DOES, we should remind him for the next 4 years that -- not
only did he get in via the dinosaur of the electoral college (since
he LOST the POPULAR vote) -- his thugs LITERALLY *stole* the
election through the employment of a VERY sleazy trick.
= = = = = = = = = = = =
CONCLUDING COMMENT, by Craig Chilton, on 2-9-2001 --
(And as we know NOW, his inauguration was the
result of all of the above, AND via judicial fiat on the part
of the U.S. Supreme Court. Bush is not even REMOTELY
the ELECTED President. GORE *is.*
Bush is the APPOINTED President.
And the Court ran roughshod OVER the will of the people, to do
that. The REPUBLICAN-appointed, PARTISAN Justices, ONLY,
accomplished that INFAMOUS, SHAMEFUL and INEXCUSABLE deed.
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
James Riske
> On Sat, 09 Oct 2004 17:29:51 -0400,
> James Riske wrote:
>
>> Craig Chilton <xana...@mchsi.com> ("GOOD RIDDANCE on
>> Nov. 2nd to Dishonest Warmonger-in-Thief G.W. Bush!") wrote:
>
>
>
>>> I don't lie in any of my posts.
>
>
>> Craig Chilton is a proven liar...
>
>
> Wrong. And so you are a liar -- as usual.
False, your lies are well documented on google, you just lied again when
you called me a liar, post proof to back your claims Craig.
>
>
>> Just take a look at the moniker Craig uses for proof that he is a
>>bald-faced liar, can he prove George W. Bush is a thief?
>
>
> Yep. See SIG! Fully-documented, and exposed on network
> TV to all of America.
False, there is nothing documented to prove that GWB is a thief, nothing
at all, only the unsupported claims of liberals who can't stand losing
an election (or anything else for that matter).
Your unsupported claims and those of your fellow liberals are completely
worthless.
Translation: Craig Chilton is a liar.
>
>
>> If it could be proven that GWB is a thief then GWB would
>>not be in office, quite simple really.
>
>
> NOT with the power of his ill-gotten presidency behind him, and
> the backing of his dishonest partisan CRONIES in the U.S. Supreme
> Court.
This is America Craig, if GWB can be proven to be a thief then he would
most certainly be impeached.
What part of this don't you understand Craig?
Oh wait, you are a liberal, you don't understand what it means to be an
American.
Translation: Craig Chilton is a liar.
>
>
>> So noted.
>
>
> ROTFL!!!! The **only** thing noted is that you remain a total
> moron, and just keep right on proving it.
I just proved you to be a liar once again, I'll keep repeating that you
are a liar until you understand, liar.
>
<snip>
Mindless babblings of a humiliated liberal.
GOOD RIDDANCE on Nov. 2nd to Dishonest Warmonger-in-Thief G.W. Bush!
James Riske spewed...
...nothing but mindless drivel and lies. Situation normal.
___________________
/| /| | |
||__|| | Do not feed the |
/ O O\__ trolls. Thank you. |
/ \ | --Mgt. |
/ \ \|__________________|
/ _ \ \ ||
/ |\____\ \ ||
/ | | | |\____/ ||
/ \|_|_|/ | _ ||
/ / \ |____| ||
/ | | | --|
| | | |____ --|
* _ | |_|_|_| | \-/
*-- _--\ _ \ | ||
/ _ \\ | / `
* / \_ /- | | |
* ___ c_c_c_C/ \C_c_c_c____________
<previous post restored, below> ---
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
James Riske wrote:
> Craig Chilton <xana...@mchsi.com> ("GOOD RIDDANCE on
> Nov. 2nd to Dishonest Warmonger-in-Thief G.W. Bush!") wrote:
>> I don't lie in any of my posts.
> Craig Chilton is a proven liar...
Wrong. And so you are a liar -- as usual.
> Just take a look at the moniker Craig uses for proof that he is a
> bald-faced liar, can he prove George W. Bush is a thief?
Yep. See SIG! Fully-documented, and exposed on network
TV to all of America.
> If it could be proven that GWB is a thief then GWB would
> not be in office, quite simple really.
NOT with the power of his ill-gotten presidency behind him, and
the backing of his dishonest partisan CRONIES in the U.S. Supreme
Court.
> So noted.
ROTFL!!!! The **only** thing noted is that you remain a total
moron, and just keep right on proving it.
Now -- FIRST, I'm **restoring** the previous post that omitted
almost all of. And THAT will immediately be followed by the
proof of Bush's thievery of the 2000 Election, in the SIG.
Riske: As usual, a mindless tool.
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
John Weatherly <joh...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Craig Chilton <xana...@mchsi.com> ("GOOD RIDDANCE
> on Nov. 2nd to Dishonest Warmonger-in-Thief G.W. Bush!") wrote:
>> John Weatherly <joh...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> Craig Chilton <xana...@mchsi.com> ("GOOD RIDDANCE on
>>> Nov. 2nd to Dishonest Warmonger-in-Thief G.W. Bush!") wrote:
James Riske
<snip>
Of course Craig Chilton could only snip my entire reply that exposes him
as a bald-faced liar.
He could not deal with the facts, he was challenged to back his claims
that George W. Bush is a thief, Craig failed to back his words with any
real evidence.
Go on Craig, prove to us that George W. Bush is a thief, come on Craig,
whatsamatta liar, can't back your claims again?
Failing to take personal responsibility for your lies on usenet again?
Running from yet another challenge to put your money where your mouth is
again?
Craig Chilton is a documented liar, he has been exposed once again and
is clearly running like hell from taking personal responsibility for his
lies on usenet.
And I'm certain this wont be the last time...
GOOD RIDDANCE on Nov. 2nd to Dishonest Warmonger-in-Thief G.W. Bush!
> Craig Chilton <xana...@mchsi.com> ("GOOD RIDDANCE on
> Nov. 2nd to Dishonest Warmonger-in-Thief G.W. Bush!") wrote:
>> John Weatherly <joh...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> Craig Chilton <xana...@mchsi.com> ("GOOD RIDDANCE on
>>> Nov. 2nd to Dishonest Warmonger-in-Thief G.W. Bush!") wrote:
>>>> John Weatherly <joh...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>> Craig Chilton <xana...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>>>>>> John Weatherly <joh...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>> == Archiving restriction SCRAPPED! ==
>>>>> For anyone without even the basic sense of common decency
>>>>> to respect my EXPRESSED choice to not archive MY posts, ...
>>>> CLUE, Loser:
>>> The key to communication is to NOT start with insults.
>> YOUR key, maybe. but when someone EARNS an accurate
>> descriptor, as you just did, I won't hesitate to apply it.
> As you can't seem to get beyond your obsession with beginning each
> post with a futile attempt to alpha -male your superiors (me), don't
> bother to continue responding.
No "obsession." If you didn't like the descriptor that you earned
for yourself, you shouldn't have earned it the first place with your
silly whining about what I do with MY posts with respect to archiving.
(Readers can see all of that for themselves, below.)
<remaining childish whines flusehed>
>>> Loser.
GOOD RIDDANCE on Nov. 2nd to Dishonest Warmonger-in-Thief G.W. Bush!
<rom...@romath.net> wrote:
> Craig Chilton <xana...@mchsi.com> ("GOOD RIDDANCE on
> wrote as Gospel Truth in these here little old Usenet News'FROUPS:
[ ... ]
>> No "obsession." If you didn't like the descriptor that you earned
>> for yourself, you shouldn't have earned it the first place with your
>> silly whining about what I do with MY posts with respect to archiving.
>> (Readers can see all of that for themselves, below.)
>>
>><remaining childish whines flusehed>
> Xanadu:
>
> The individual you posted to is so infatuated with seeing his
> name in print, he will do ANYTHING in order to keep his name
> on the forefront and in the limelight.
>
> He will deny it, of course, calling me a liar, or his oft-used
> childish 'liar-liar-pants-on-fire' or claim 'pk', call me a false
> Christian, 'nursr ratchet', the ice queen',a demoniac, or a bitch
> again.... or accuse me of 'trying to alpha-male him'.
>
> Numerous people, myself included, have tried being nice to him,
> and have also met him MORE than half way. As a result, we
> were ALL treated with contempt, and had his vitriol spewed
> back at us. Many of us decided to either flatly ignore him, or
> simply reply when it was absolutely necessary.
>
> Welcome to the Club, pahdnah!!!!!! :O)
>-------------------------------------------------------
> JESUS IS THE ROCK
>God doesn't call the qualified; He qualifies the called
>-------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for the above! That pretty much backs the suspicions
I already had about him, in terms if his apparently being quite an
IRRATIONAL person.
Some major clues that he'd given me, to that end:
(1) His loony whining because I don't choose to prevent
MY responses from being archived just because HE
chooses to do so with *his*.
(2) His fear of his posts being archived, but lack of same
to have his posts read by everyone in real time.
(3) His claim that he would "explain" the above-described
irrationality -- but subsequently has not done so.
(4) His discordant style of writing that wanders erratically.
(5) And finally -- that silly "alpha-mile" nonsense pretty
much put the icing on the cake.
(Do you suppose he's posting from a cackle factory,
somewhere? He seems like a good candidate for one.)
ujb
"j w
>
> x-no-archive: yes
> On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 00:04:16 -0400, rom...@romath.net wrote:
> copyright 2004 John Weatherly all rights reserved (keep it in the
> group)
> >On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 23:53:54 GMT, xana...@mchsi.com (GOOD RIDDANCE
> >on Nov. 2nd to Dishonest Warmonger-in-Thief G.W. Bush!) done went and
> >wrote as Gospel Truth in these here little old Usenet News'FROUPS:
> >
> >>
> >> No "obsession." If you didn't like the descriptor that you earned
> >>for yourself, you shouldn't have earned it the first place with your
> >>silly whining about what I do with MY posts with respect to archiving.
> >>(Readers can see all of that for themselves, below.)
> >>
> >><remaining childish whines flusehed>
> >
> >
> >Xanadu:
> >
> >The individual you posted to is so infatuated with seeing his name in
> >print, he will do ANYTHING in order to keep his name on the forefront
> >and in the limelight.
>
> pot kettle, oh psychotic one.
> >
> >He will deny it, of course, calling me a liar, or his oft-used
> >childish 'liar-liar-pants-on-fire' or claim 'pk', call me a false
> >Christian, 'nursr ratchet', the ice queen',a demoniac, or a bitch
> >again.... or accuse me of 'trying to alpha-male him'.
>
> You are all of the above.
>
> >
> >Numerous people, myself included, have tried being nice to him, and
> >have also met him MORE than half way.
> And I have been nice to you in return, going MORE than your half-way.
> For nothing. When I wasn't willing to kiss your ass and let you
> control the group, you began persecuting me.
>
> That's just fine. Your time is coming. I can hear the fat lady
> rehearsing/warming up.
>
> >As a result, we were ALL treated with contempt, and had his vitriol
> >spewed back at us.
>
> pot kettle, from the one with the nastiest attitude in the Baptist
> group.
>
> >Many of us decided to either flatly ignore him, or simply reply when
> >it was absolutely necessary.
>
> And many of us have decided to ignore YOU except when it's absolutely
> necessary
>
> You continue obsessed with me. Get a life, while you can afford one.
>
> >
> >Welcome to the Club, pahdnah!!!!!! :O)
>
> Yes, you will adopt anyone as friend who despises. me
>
> When did you become Satan's buddy, Elaine?
>
> And you wouldn't see my name 1/4th as much if you weren't ADDICTED to
> gossiping about me.
Your jimmy also likes to talk about you too. You are my hero johnny!
When I think of all the things you've done in your wonderful life you
are a real live celebrity to me in the Christian groups. Let us now go
over all you've done, and all you are pal;
John D. Weatherly, the actor, professional writer, movie critic,
professional artist, pastor, porno author, sex partner of about 50 in 50
years, dumpster diver, textual critic, scholarly friend of many
scholars, aficionado of cursing, victim of the courts, poster in the pre
teen sex group, poster to swingers news group, poster to the incest news
group, wanting to take women behind the barn and teach them a few
things, and of course the keeper of the secrets of the Dead Sea Scrolls.
Yes johnny with all of your credits you are but the property of us your
public!
Love,
jimmy
GOOD RIDDANCE on Nov. 2nd to Dishonest Warmonger-in-Thief G.W. Bush!
John Weatherly <joh...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Craig Chilton <xana...@mchsi.com> ("GOOD RIDDANCE on
> Nov. 2nd to Dishonest Warmonger-in-Thief G.W. Bush!) done went and
> wrote as Gospel Truth in these here little old Usenet News'FROUPS:
>> <rom...@romath.net> wrote:
[ ... ]
> You need not comment.
TOUGH, fruitcake loser. I just DID. And boy, did he ever
have YOUR number!
> Do you think I give a rat's behind what you think of me?
Naw. You're 'WAY too stupid for that.
GOOD RIDDANCE on Nov. 2nd to Dishonest Warmonger-in-Thief G.W. Bush!
<rom...@romath.net> wrote:
> Craig Chilton <xana...@mchsi.com> (GOOD RIDDANCE
> on Nov. 2nd to Dishonest Warmonger-in-Thief G.W. Bush!) done went and
> wrote as Gospel Truth in these here little old Usenet News'FROUPS:
>>> Craig Chilton <xana...@mchsi.com> wrote:
[ ... ]
> Hey, you're more than welcome, sir.
:)
>> Some major clues that he'd given me, to that end:
>>
>> (1) His loony whining because I don't choose to prevent
>> MY responses from being archived just because HE
>> chooses to do so with *his*.
> If you refuse to agree with him 'you're WRONG', and that's it!! :O)
FACTS tend to mean nothing to loons of his ilk.
>> (2) His fear of his posts being archived, but lack of same
>> to have his posts read by everyone in real time.
> I know some people don't archive, for legitimate reasons..... his,
> however, I suspect, because of previous activities elsewhere.....
He said something about its being for some sort of "professional"
reason. (Maybe because he's a professional LOON?) And figures that
he's got a better shot at being elected dogcatcher, a few years hence,
if people can't look up his old posts? (Dogcatching is a "profession,"
isn't it?)
>> (3) His claim that he would "explain" the above-described
>> irrationality -- but subsequently has not done so.
> That's most likely because he has no explanation.
Wouldn't surprise me a bit.
>> (4) His discordant style of writing that wanders erratically.
> You noticed that too, huh? Yet according to him, everyone
> ELSE is out of step and 'needing mental help'...
Cackle factories' residents are sort of like inmates in prison,
that way -- living in denial. There's not a crazy one in the funny
farm... nor a guilty one in the prison...
>> (5) And finally -- that silly "alpha-mile" nonsense pretty
>> much put the icing on the cake.
> He loves to resort to the famous 'you're trying to alpha-male me!'
> flotsam every chance he gets, unfortunately.
Yeah. I got a real kick out of that!
>> (Do you suppose he's posting from a cackle factory,
>> somewhere? He seems like a good candidate for one.)
> Hehehe!! Now you watch, Craig -- he will most likely try to claim you
> have 'diagnosed him over the internet' and threaten to sue you! :O)
Only if he wants me to laugh REALLY hard at him. :)
>-------------------------------------------------------
> JESUS IS THE ROCK
>God doesn't call the qualified; He qualifies the called
>-------------------------------------------------------
-- Craig Chilton <xana...@mchsi.com>