Born female but chemically male - what is Paul's answer?
In My Fathers House
Literally men trapped in the bodies of women. We know it is caused by
physical circumstances - deficiency of the hormone 17-B-hydroxysteroid
dehydrogenase related to one's genes. They were born with this
problem. It has nothing to do with rejecting God or selfish desire.
So is it our Christian duty to hate them? I think not. And if
through nature or nurture someone winds up with a non-typical
preference I don't see why we should hate them for that either.
God bless,
House
Jude Alexander
"In My Fathers House" <hso...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:2ad62c21-ef04-46b2...@s21g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
The sex center in the brain of the hypothalamus is about half as small and
dense in female than males. 12 donated born male transsexual brains were
dissected and their hypothalamus was clearly almost the same as females.
I even had Pastor Dave claim it was the female hormones taken that shrunk
their hypothalamus! lol I mean, what comes out of these people are so
pathetic, so desperate to cling to their stupid dogma!
In My Fathers House
> "In My Fathers House" <hsot...@hotmail.com> wrote in messagenews:2ad62c21-ef04-46b2...@s21g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
There is an underlying assumption through which everything else is
filtered - that the Bible is true.
I think I was raised and trained to channel a mindset. It use to be
that every time I read the Bible and encountered something that didn't
make sense I told myself it's my fault. I think that is why the Bible
was so hard for me to read; a chore I forced myself to do. The
mindset was this is the perfect word of a perfect being and I'm a vile
evil being who can't understand the perfect so I cause all the
inconsistencies in what I read. In the last several months I've
noticed in certain sermons how there is a slight of hand. When my
pastor encounters a discrepancy in the Bible he then launches into a
long and energetic trip devoted to explaining why that part of the
Bible doesn't mean what it says. Usually it's not valid logic. It
typically uses fan waving. Most people don't remember the words of
the sermon. But they do remember the underlying message that the
Bible is true even when it looks like it isn't. And these fan waving
techniques become ingrained into those who listen week in and week
out. So after years of it when I encounter a weird discrepancy in the
Bible I can come up with many different methods to rationalize it
away. Oh it must be a language/translation error or local custom or
it's a metaphor or it was done to provide an example to us or I just
can't understand what is happening and I need to ask a pastor or
something else.
Now the Bible is easy to read but painful. I look at passages I have
seen dozens of time or even memorized and now I see what I could not
before even when it was right in front of me. I think it would be
good for Christians to use our brains but still turn to God for what
is beyond human reach. Maybe some day I will find a nice liberal
Church that does that.
God bless,
House
Chuck
"In My Fathers House" <hso...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:2ad62c21-ef04-46b2...@s21g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
Evidently you didn't understand the article, just like you don't understand
the biblical revelation of God's relationship to sinners.
It was the culture that distains women and the ineptness of the doctor's
delivering these boys, not God, who "trapped" them. They're born and
immediately put under a sack for the rest of their lives if they're women.
That's according to Muslim values. According to Christian values, they
would have been treated as the equal of any man. And when's the last time
you heard of anyone travelling from the US or Europe to Gaza City for
medical treatment? And if I'm not mistaken, in the article a "Dr. Jehad
Abudaia, a Canadian-Palestinian pediatrician and urologist practicing in
Gaza" says this problem is geographical, and thus cultural; the result of
the "in-breeding" typical in the area, and thus a consequence of choices
made according to cultural and/or religious beliefs. This is all man's
doing, not God's.
And you err yet AGAIN, by asking is it our "Christian duty" to hate these
boys, in implicitly suggesting it's a problem in here that Christians
suggest we do hate them.. It is our Christian duty to love sinners
unconditionally, because it is our Christian duty to love God, who loves all
unconditionally, and to "love your neighbor as yourself", which means to
love all men as children of the God.
But part of loving anyone is warning them when they are in danger, and
anyone who continues in unrepentant sin is in danger of hellfire.
Therefore, it is our Christian duty to do whatever we can to warn people who
live in the spiritual darkness that is able to cause people to live like
these people do; to help them extract themselves from the evils of the
cultures under which they labor, while helping them to preserve those
aspects of those cultures that are still good and God honoring. We need to
help these people come to understand that women are not cattle, to help them
begin to educate their mothers and daughters, to give them some say-so in
the kind of lives they live, to eliminate "honor" killings, to get rid of
the evil notion religion can and should be spread by terror and murder, to
trash their fatalistic understanding of God's will, to help them see that
"infidels" are not to be seen as a "sub-human" class, and for the entire
Muslim culture in the Middle East to become educated BEYOND the Quran! We
need to help these people come to Jesus and thus enter the 18th century!
It's been since the "Reconquista" begun in the 13th century, and completed
by Ferdinand and Isabella in the late 15th century that a Muslim last had a
creative idea (Mulsim philosophy flourished during the "Golden Age" if Islam
from the 8th to the 11th centuries[we owe the kalam cosmological argument
for God's existence to them, for example], and Aquinas, often thought to be
the flower of Christian philosophers during the "Dark Ages" of Europe, took
much of his philosophy directly from these Muslim philosophical schools!).
It's about time creativity was re-born in that world...in fact, a few
centuries past time. We all understand that it is due to the Christian
values you've called into question here that Western civilization encourages
creativity in that it encourages individual liberty and accountability,
draws a well defined line between good and evil, refuses to contenance evil
in any form even if that refusal involves substantial hypocrisy (do as I
say, not as I do), and discourages fatalism, and that this difference IS
the reason the Christian world is what it is today, and the Muslim world is
what it is today.
In short, House, you've done it yet again. You've taken a very complex
idea, over-simplified it, and then misapplied the over-simplification in
suggesting your post was a response to a problem that doesn't seem to exist
in the forum to which you posted it! If you want to rale against people who
hate "queers" and claim to be Christians, you'd be better off tracking down
Phelps' congregation and writing your confusions to them. Of course were
you to do something like that God may actually call upon you to make some
personal sacrifice in the name of Jesus Christ...like, say, surrender your
unbroken nose for His glory; whereas in here you can blather on in complete
safety and anonymity, making no sacrifices whatsoever for God. In here
you're free to moralize to your little heart's content, and do so without
cost to yourself; free to spread your "gospel" of "if you think it's right,
then it is...so long as I agree with you". It's really little wonder you
don't get much of a hearing from the followers of Jesus Christ.
Chuck
Jude Alexander
God bless,
House
Well, well, well as they say, we have practically the same experience. I
always thought, at first, it was my inability or lack of knowledge when I
could not explain or understand a biblical passage. Later, when I would
come across a difficult passage, I would just pray that God would let me
understand. Of course, this form of denial can last a long time. One just
assumes that there is a answer, just one that is not available. One just
assumes they can't judge the actions of the O.T. Isrealites when they killed
everybody they came in contact with taking "the promised land." Of course,
one would say, we're all God's creatures and if He deems some worthy of
death, who can question? Of course, now I know God never told one Isrealite
to kill one "pagan." The ancients, including Jews, believed that success
was a sign that God was behind them and failure the opposite.
I've tried so many churches and couldn't find one that I felt really "at
home." That is probably my "fault" and I'm not saying that like I used to
do when I didn't understand some difficult biblical text. I have lost my
patience with games and ignorance, which is now epedemic.
Jude Alexander
In My Fathers House
> "In My Fathers House" <hsot...@hotmail.com> wrote in messagenews:2ad62c21-ef04-46b2...@s21g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
>
> >http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/12/17/gaza.gender.id/index.html
>
> > Literally men trapped in the bodies of women. We know it is caused by
> > physical circumstances - deficiency of the hormone 17-B-hydroxysteroid
> > dehydrogenase related to one's genes. They were born with this
> > problem. It has nothing to do with rejecting God or selfish desire.
> > So is it our Christian duty to hate them? I think not. And if
> > through nature or nurture someone winds up with a non-typical
> > preference I don't see why we should hate them for that either.
>
> > God bless,
>
> > House
>
> Evidently you didn't understand the article, just like you don't understand
> the biblical revelation of God's relationship to sinners.
When you see my name must you assume the worst?
> It was the culture that distains women and the ineptness of the doctor's
> delivering these boys, not God, who "trapped" them.
Why do you bring up the irrelevant? I cite the article because this
is something Paul would not have understood but we do. We know
exactly what causes it. It implies that Paul's explanation for such
things leaves something to be desired.
> They're born and
> immediately put under a sack for the rest of their lives if they're women.
> That's according to Muslim values. According to Christian values, they
> would have been treated as the equal of any man.
Actually I think the vast majority of human culture has a hard time
accepting people with this defect. Maybe someday we will reach a
point where we can but the path there is by dispelling ignorance with
understanding.
> And when's the last time
> you heard of anyone travelling from the US or Europe to Gaza City for
> medical treatment?
I don't follow that sort of thing. Usually researchers travel far and
are rare. Why do you ask?
> And if I'm not mistaken, in the article a "Dr. Jehad
> Abudaia, a Canadian-Palestinian pediatrician and urologist practicing in
> Gaza" says this problem is geographical, and thus cultural; the result of
> the "in-breeding" typical in the area, and thus a consequence of choices
> made according to cultural and/or religious beliefs.
1) The condition is not unknown in the rest of the world - just less
common.
2) The people who suffer from it did not make the choice.
3) The cultural "problem" is the Biblical practice of marrying
relatives which is supposedly endorsed by God.
> This is all man's
> doing, not God's.
How does that follow? Man didn't plan for this to happen. Humans
noticed that this suffering happened a lot and then as we developed
science we discovered why.
> And you err yet AGAIN, by asking is it our "Christian duty" to hate these
> boys, in implicitly suggesting it's a problem in here that Christians
> suggest we do hate them..
Nope. But there are Christians who hate men for being attracted to
men and women for being attracted to women. The existence of this
birth defect demonstrates that sexual identity is not black and white,
not simple.
> It is our Christian duty to love sinners
> unconditionally,
The people with this birth defect did not get it though their sin.
For all you know some might be Christian. Though that is less likely
in the study population the condition exists around the world.
> . . . because it is our Christian duty to love God, who loves all
> unconditionally, and to "love your neighbor as yourself", which means to
> love all men as children of the God.
So my point was my error? If you were to stop assuming the worst just
because you see my name you might notice that this is what I was
implying.
> But part of loving anyone is warning them when they are in danger, and
> anyone who continues in unrepentant sin is in danger of hellfire.
Being born with a condition is not sin. Having an impulse isn't a sin
either.
> Therefore, it is our Christian duty to do whatever we can to warn people who
> live in the spiritual darkness that is able to cause people to live like
> these people do; to help them extract themselves from the evils of the
> cultures under which they labor, while helping them to preserve those
> aspects of those cultures that are still good and God honoring.
So you are going to tell them they cannot marry who they want to?
[...]
> We all understand that it is due to the Christian
> values you've called into question here that Western civilization encourages
> creativity in that it encourages individual liberty and accountability,
> draws a well defined line between good and evil, refuses to contenance evil
> in any form even if that refusal involves substantial hypocrisy (do as I
> say, not as I do), and discourages fatalism, and that this difference IS
> the reason the Christian world is what it is today, and the Muslim world is
> what it is today.
I'm not interested in your anti-Muslim rant but what Christian values
have I called into question here?
> In short, House, you've done it yet again. You've taken a very complex
> idea, over-simplified it, and then misapplied the over-simplification in
> suggesting your post was a response to a problem that doesn't seem to exist
> in the forum to which you posted it!
Every member of ACC accept homosexuals for the way they are?
> If you want to rale against people who
> hate "queers" and claim to be Christians, you'd be better off tracking down
> Phelps' congregation and writing your confusions to them.
If I am so far off the mark then why are you offended by it?
> Of course were
> you to do something like that God may actually call upon you to make some
> personal sacrifice in the name of Jesus Christ...like, say, surrender your
> unbroken nose for His glory;
Pardon?
> . . . whereas in here you can blather on in complete
> safety and anonymity, making no sacrifices whatsoever for God.
Pardon?
> In here
> you're free to moralize to your little heart's content, and do so without
> cost to yourself;
Pardon?
> free to spread your "gospel" of "if you think it's right,
> then it is...
Why do you lie?
> . . . so long as I agree with you".
Why do you lie?
> It's really little wonder you
> don't get much of a hearing from the followers of Jesus Christ.
Why do you lie?
Chuck
"Jude Alexander" <what...@thispoint.why> wrote in message
news:hgfvr0$jog$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
"One working hypothesis behind transsexuality is that the normal sex
differentiation of certain hypothalamic networks is altered. We tested this
hypothesis by investigating the pattern of cerebral activation in 12
nonhomosexual male-to-female transsexuals (MFTRs) when smelling
4,16-androstadien-3-one (AND) and estra-1,3,5(10),16-tetraen-3-ol (EST).
These steroids are reported to activate the hypothalamic networks in a
sex-differentiated way."
Okay, let's review here: you reject out of hand that Dave's suggestion
could be anything but pathetic, desperate clinging to "stupid dogma",
because when you read something like the above you're so desperate to cling
to your pathetic dogma that there's nothing sinful about homosexuality, and
that it's determined by genetic makeup instead of environment, that you read
"it is reported" as if it meant "it is a fact" in the above. So you don't
see the above as merely a study that TENDS to SUPPORT the "working
hypothesis" of Berglund, et. al., and which needs a LOT further research
before it means much of anything.
Jude, it is the desperate flailing about for a physically determinative
cause of sexual orientation that would release the homosexual from any moral
culpability for their lifestyles, manifested by those who need on to be able
to find peace in their lives that is so pathetic, not the "show me" attitude
of those not so encumbered in their thinking. Further, if we can find the
footprint of God in nature, it is clear that homosexuality a) is an
abberation in the order of things, and b) is counter-productive to life. On
these two aspects of homosexuality there can be no argument. If then we
assign to the label "sin" the meaning "that which is counter-productive to
life" (and why would anyone object to that?), then you don't even NEED to
believe "the Bible is true" to understand that homosexuality is sinful.
Chuck
Jude Alexander
blah blah blah, I'm the only one who understands so sez Upchuck.
Jude Alexander
On Dec 18, 7:26 am, "Chuck" <shellstamf...@cox.net> wrote:
> "In My Fathers House" <hsot...@hotmail.com> wrote in
> messagenews:2ad62c21-ef04-46b2...@s21g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
>
> >http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/12/17/gaza.gender.id/index.html
>
> > Literally men trapped in the bodies of women. We know it is caused by
> > physical circumstances - deficiency of the hormone 17-B-hydroxysteroid
> > dehydrogenase related to one's genes. They were born with this
> > problem. It has nothing to do with rejecting God or selfish desire.
> > So is it our Christian duty to hate them? I think not. And if
> > through nature or nurture someone winds up with a non-typical
> > preference I don't see why we should hate them for that either.
>
> > God bless,
>
> > House
>
> Evidently you didn't understand the article, just like you don't
> understand
> the biblical revelation of God's relationship to sinners.
When you see my name must you assume the worst?
Oh, absolutely yes. Haven't you figured it out yet? Upchuck is the ONLY
one who understand complex ideas. Unfortuantely, he has to bring it under
submission to his stone-aged belief system! :-)
> It was the culture that distains women and the ineptness of the doctor's
> delivering these boys, not God, who "trapped" them.
Why do you bring up the irrelevant? I cite the article because this
is something Paul would not have understood but we do. We know
exactly what causes it. It implies that Paul's explanation for such
things leaves something to be desired.
Any smokescreen will do. Any tangent his superior brain comes up with is
still superior. :-)
> They're born and
> immediately put under a sack for the rest of their lives if they're women.
> That's according to Muslim values. According to Christian values, they
> would have been treated as the equal of any man.
Actually I think the vast majority of human culture has a hard time
accepting people with this defect. Maybe someday we will reach a
point where we can but the path there is by dispelling ignorance with
understanding.
Absolutely hard hearted, religionists with unlimited capacity for cognitive
dissonancewill NEVER "understand." Upchuck fits that description perfectly,
even more than most, since he's smart but stoopid at the same time. :)
> And when's the last time
> you heard of anyone travelling from the US or Europe to Gaza City for
> medical treatment?
I don't follow that sort of thing. Usually researchers travel far and
are rare. Why do you ask?
What does THAT have to do with anything except he's trying to insinuate that
all doctors from Gaza are less qualified than any American or European!!!
lol
> And if I'm not mistaken, in the article a "Dr. Jehad
> Abudaia, a Canadian-Palestinian pediatrician and urologist practicing in
> Gaza" says this problem is geographical, and thus cultural; the result of
> the "in-breeding" typical in the area, and thus a consequence of choices
> made according to cultural and/or religious beliefs.
1) The condition is not unknown in the rest of the world - just less
common.
2) The people who suffer from it did not make the choice.
3) The cultural "problem" is the Biblical practice of marrying
relatives which is supposedly endorsed by God.
There is contradiction in biblical text whether or not inbreeding of people
is condoned or not. Sometimes it is, sometimes it is not. Apparently, the
whole of the Jewish race was begun with brother and half sister. :) THAT is
not a racist comment. There was plenty of that going on with a whole lot of
people back when and still goes on today in particular types of religiously
dominated communities.
> This is all man's doing, not God's.
How does that follow? Man didn't plan for this to happen. Humans
noticed that this suffering happened a lot and then as we developed
science we discovered why.
It's always our fault. We're the faulty humans. The perceived "god of the
bible" is always right and never does any wrong or evil toward his creation.
:)
> And you err yet AGAIN, by asking is it our "Christian duty" to hate these
> boys, in implicitly suggesting it's a problem in here that Christians
> suggest we do hate them..
Nope. But there are Christians who hate men for being attracted to
men and women for being attracted to women. The existence of this
birth defect demonstrates that sexual identity is not black and white,
not simple.
"They" can't accept that because it directly contradicts their blankie, the
bible.
> It is our Christian duty to love sinners unconditionally,
The people with this birth defect did not get it though their sin.
For all you know some might be Christian. Though that is less likely
in the study population the condition exists around the world.
Do you meant that Chuckie loves you and me unconditionally? lol
> . . . because it is our Christian duty to love God, who loves all
> unconditionally, and to "love your neighbor as yourself", which means to
> love all men as children of the God.
So my point was my error? If you were to stop assuming the worst just
because you see my name you might notice that this is what I was
implying.
> But part of loving anyone is warning them when they are in danger, and
> anyone who continues in unrepentant sin is in danger of hellfire.
Being born with a condition is not sin. Having an impulse isn't a sin
either.
What's this new direction going? We're not talking about love but about
scientific discoveries being revealed as time goes by. The more time, the
less the bible makes scientific sense, not that it does as is today.
However, that fixed homosexuality exists in the higher animals PROVES that
such attractions do occur in nature without CHOOSING to be that way.
Again, biblioadolaters are REALLY the ones who are "choosing".... choosing
to live in denial of science. There are even sites on the internet that try
to prove that the "world wide flood" (which never happened) is what created
oil!
Don't you know only Upchuck can understand complex ideas and reduce them to
the most common denominator for discussion! :)
Pardon?
Pardon?
Pardon?
Why do you lie?
Why do you lie?
Why do you lie?
Chucky doesn't mean to lie. He's just a broken religionist.
In My Fathers House
[...]
>> When you see my name must you assume the worst?
>
> Oh, absolutely yes. Haven't you figured it out yet? Upchuck is the ONLY
> one who understand complex ideas. Unfortuantely, he has to bring it under
> submission to his stone-aged belief system! :-)
>> > free to spread your "gospel" of "if you think it's right,
>> > then it is...
>
>> Why do you lie?
>
>> > . . . so long as I agree with you".
>
>> Why do you lie?
>
>> > It's really little wonder you
>> > don't get much of a hearing from the followers of Jesus Christ.
>
>> Why do you lie?
>
> Chucky doesn't mean to lie. He's just a broken religionist.
I can understand Chuck assuming I misunderstood an article because
that is his bias. But there is no excuse for him to claim I spread a
false gospel, that I do not get along with other Christians or that I
advocate if you think it is right then it is as long as I agree.
He knows those things are not true.
Jude Alexander
I don't know how much these religionists "know." Denial is strong. Maybe,
on some subconscience level they know but won't look.
Jani
"In My Fathers House" <hso...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:d23e3a48-4d6b-4dc9...@13g2000prl.googlegroups.com...
> On Dec 18, 7:26 am, "Chuck" <shellstamf...@cox.net> wrote:
>> "In My Fathers House" <hsot...@hotmail.com> wrote in
>> messagenews:2ad62c21-ef04-46b2...@s21g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> >http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/12/17/gaza.gender.id/index.html
>>
>> > Literally men trapped in the bodies of women. We know it is caused by
>> > physical circumstances - deficiency of the hormone 17-B-hydroxysteroid
>> > dehydrogenase related to one's genes. They were born with this
>> > problem. It has nothing to do with rejecting God or selfish desire.
>> > So is it our Christian duty to hate them? I think not. And if
>> > through nature or nurture someone winds up with a non-typical
>> > preference I don't see why we should hate them for that either.
>>
>> > God bless,
>>
>> > House
>>
>> Evidently you didn't understand the article, just like you don't
>> understand
>> the biblical revelation of God's relationship to sinners.
>
> When you see my name must you assume the worst?
Looks like you've all mis-read it. These aren't 'men trapped in women's
bodies', as can be seen from the fact that they have *male* physical
characteristics such as facial hair. They're males. They were raised as
girls because their testes were hidden inside the body, and the external
genitalia *appeared* to be female - a very common error with intersex
babies, especially when the penis is small enough to be mistaken for a
clitoris.
>
>> It was the culture that distains women and the ineptness of the doctor's
>> delivering these boys, not God, who "trapped" them.
>
> Why do you bring up the irrelevant? I cite the article because this
> is something Paul would not have understood but we do. We know
> exactly what causes it. It implies that Paul's explanation for such
> things leaves something to be desired.
>
>> They're born and
>> immediately put under a sack for the rest of their lives if they're
>> women.
>> That's according to Muslim values. According to Christian values, they
>> would have been treated as the equal of any man.
They were treated perfectly well, as girls, while it was thought that they
*were* girls.
> Actually I think the vast majority of human culture has a hard time
> accepting people with this defect. Maybe someday we will reach a
> point where we can but the path there is by dispelling ignorance with
> understanding.
Yep, reading some basic facts about pseudohermaphroditism would be a start,
as would resisting the temptation to go off on anti-Muslim rants. No, Paul
would not have understood the condition, but we have the ability to do so.
Be nice if people used that ability, eh?
Jani
®
(30) "He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not
gather with me scatters.
Mark 9:40 NIV
(40) for whoever is not against us is for us.
The man who was "not against Christ" in Mark 9:38-39, was for
Him. He operated in Jesus name, and did work for Jesus. Thus,
when you're not against Christ, you are for Him, and that means
you are doing His work, and are publicly claiming to operate by
the authority of His name. Someone who admits he is not a
believer in or follower of Christ, and who is not doing His work
in His name, is not "neutral". That person is against Christ.
Both verses prove you are either for or against Christ. Those
who are not with Him are against Him. Those who are not against
Him are for Him, and are making that known by doing His work and
claiming the authority of His name. In either case, you are
either for or against Christ. There is no "neutral".
Yes, the Bible irrefutably teaches that all unregenerate people
are against God, not "neutral":
Romans 8:7-9 NIV
(7) the sinful mind is hostile to God. It does not submit to
God's law, nor can it do so.
(8) Those controlled by the sinful nature cannot please God.
(9) You, however, are controlled not by the sinful nature but by
the Spirit, if the Spirit of God lives in you. And if anyone does
not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Christ.
John 7:7 NIV
(7) The world cannot hate you, but it hates me because I testify
that what it does is evil.
Romans 3:10-19 NIV
(10) As it is written: "There is no one righteous, not even one;
(11) there is no one who understands, no one who seeks God.
(12) All have turned away, they have together become worthless;
there is no one who does good, not even one."
(13) "Their throats are open graves; their tongues practice
deceit." "The poison of vipers is on their lips."
(14) "Their mouths are full of cursing and bitterness."
(15) "Their feet are swift to shed blood;
(16) ruin and misery mark their ways,
(17) and the way of peace they do not know."
(18) "There is no fear of God before their eyes."
(19) Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those
who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and
the whole world held accountable to God.
Thus, people like Jani, who come in here and feign they are
"neutral", are liars. She has admitted she is not a believer in
or follower of Christ, and she is not doing His work or claiming
to operate by the authority of His name. Therefore she is
against Him, and scatters. That she tries to cloak her ministry
of scattering under the claim she's "neutral", is a lie. As an
unbeliever, Jani has no God-given capacity to pass judgment
either on spiritual truths or believers (1 Cor. 2).
--
Have you heard Christ died for our sins, and God raised Him
from the dead? Did you know God saves you from hell and
gives you eternal life through faith in this finished work alone,
not your merits (Jn. 3:16; 1 Cor. 15:1-3; Eph. 2:8-10; 2 Thess.
1:8-9)? This is so man cannot boast, and God alone gets the
glory (Eph. 2:8-9).
______________________________________________
www.faithguard.org
www.twitter.com/faithguard
www.facebook.com/faithguard
______________________________________________
In My Fathers House
[...]
> Looks like you've all mis-read it.
Hey Jani, nice to see you.
> These aren't 'men trapped in women's
> bodies', as can be seen from the fact that they have *male* physical
> characteristics such as facial hair.
I'm trying to make the point that it's not simple. As I understand it
when deprived of the required chemical the penis forms as a vagina.
> They're males.
Yes, genetically and chemically. But before puberty they are female
to the eye. Appearances can be deceptive.
> They were raised as
> girls because their testes were hidden inside the body, and the external
> genitalia *appeared* to be female - a very common error with intersex
> babies, especially when the penis is small enough to be mistaken for a
> clitoris.
Which just goes to show it's not simple. As I understand the
biological program makes either a penis or a vagina depending on what
chemicals are present. One thing is clear - it's not because this
person rejected God or is spiritually lacking.
[...]
> > Actually I think the vast majority of human culture has a hard time
> > accepting people with this defect. Maybe someday we will reach a
> > point where we can but the path there is by dispelling ignorance with
> > understanding.
>
> Yep, reading some basic facts about pseudohermaphroditism would be a start,
> as would resisting the temptation to go off on anti-Muslim rants. No, Paul
> would not have understood the condition, but we have the ability to do so.
> Be nice if people used that ability, eh?
Yes. And with luck some day we will know how to screen for it and
perhaps introduce the required chemicals so that we can prevent it.
Till then all we can do is try to make those who suffer from it feel
welcome. Thus my interest in getting my fellow Christians to drop the
sexual identity intolerance. But Chuck has assured me that there are
no Christian posters here who have that problem.
Take care,
House
I
<whatever>
JESUS said "... For he who is not against us is for us." Mark 9:40
--
Your uneducated EISEGESIS is not exegesis. This is what happens when you
refuse to use your God-given mind as directed
by Jesus in the Greatest Commandment.
Jani
"In My Fathers House" <hso...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:0ad8c9d7-4b94-45e6...@g22g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On Dec 18, 2:49 pm, "Jani" <j...@jani.adsl24.co.uk> wrote:
> [...]
>> Looks like you've all mis-read it.
>
> Hey Jani, nice to see you.
Hey House, likewise :)
>> These aren't 'men trapped in women's
>> bodies', as can be seen from the fact that they have *male* physical
>> characteristics such as facial hair.
>
> I'm trying to make the point that it's not simple. As I understand it
> when deprived of the required chemical the penis forms as a vagina.
Nope. The penis and the clitoris are analogous organs, not penis and vagina.
These children are boys, with undescended testes and no actual female organs
at all - what the midwife sees, and assumes is a clitoris and outer labia,
is actually an undersized penis and the flesh of the empty scrotal sac. And
parents don't generally go poking around in their babies' genitalia to make
sure the midwife got it right. Now, one area where Chuck does sort of have a
point, is the matter of ignorance - if people aren't knowledgeable about the
structure of their own sex organs, thanks to religious prudery, they're not
going to know what 'normal' is, in the first place.
>
>> They're males.
>
> Yes, genetically and chemically. But before puberty they are female
> to the eye. Appearances can be deceptive.
A lot of children are pretty much androgynous in general appearance before
puberty - we use things like hair length and clothing styles/colours to
distinguish between boys and girls.
>> They were raised as
>> girls because their testes were hidden inside the body, and the external
>> genitalia *appeared* to be female - a very common error with intersex
>> babies, especially when the penis is small enough to be mistaken for a
>> clitoris.
>
> Which just goes to show it's not simple. As I understand the
> biological program makes either a penis or a vagina depending on what
> chemicals are present.
The 'raw materials' are the same, at an early foetal stage, and then they
differentiate, usually into either a complete male system or a complete
female system. But you're right, it's not a simple process; surprising how
often it *doesn't* go wrong, when you think about it.
One thing is clear - it's not because this
> person rejected God or is spiritually lacking.
Well, there we can agree, certainly.
> [...]
>> > Actually I think the vast majority of human culture has a hard time
>> > accepting people with this defect. Maybe someday we will reach a
>> > point where we can but the path there is by dispelling ignorance with
>> > understanding.
>>
>> Yep, reading some basic facts about pseudohermaphroditism would be a
>> start,
>> as would resisting the temptation to go off on anti-Muslim rants. No,
>> Paul
>> would not have understood the condition, but we have the ability to do
>> so.
>> Be nice if people used that ability, eh?
>
> Yes. And with luck some day we will know how to screen for it and
> perhaps introduce the required chemicals so that we can prevent it.
Since there's such a high incidence in this one area, it would be useful if
researchers from other countries collaborated with the Gaza people to
investigate further .... rather than yelling about how primitive these
Muslims are, with their cousin marriages and defective babies.
> Till then all we can do is try to make those who suffer from it feel
> welcome. Thus my interest in getting my fellow Christians to drop the
> sexual identity intolerance. But Chuck has assured me that there are
> no Christian posters here who have that problem.
Of course not. I've never seen any intolerance at all towards gays or
transsexuals or intersex people here *eyeroll*
Jani
®
Jani <ja...@jani.adsl24.co.uk> wrote:
> Of course not. I've never seen any intolerance at all towards gays or
> transsexuals or intersex people here *eyeroll*
>
> Jani
Why do you come into a Christian group? To promote
homosexuality? You are not for Christ, you are against Him, and
scatter.
Chuck
On Dec 18, 9:14 am, "Jude Alexander" <whate...@thispoint.why> wrote:
[...]
>> When you see my name must you assume the worst?
>
> Oh, absolutely yes. Haven't you figured it out yet? Upchuck is the ONLY
> one who understand complex ideas. Unfortuantely, he has to bring it under
> submission to his stone-aged belief system! :-)
[...]
>> > free to spread your "gospel" of "if you think it's right,
>> > then it is...
>
>> Why do you lie?
>
>> > . . . so long as I agree with you".
>
>> Why do you lie?
>
>> > It's really little wonder you
>> > don't get much of a hearing from the followers of Jesus Christ.
>
>> Why do you lie?
>
> Chucky doesn't mean to lie. He's just a broken religionist.
House: I can understand Chuck assuming I misunderstood an article because
that is his bias.
Chuck: bias, as used above: a belief supported by repeated observations.
House: But there is no excuse for him to claim I spread a
false gospel, that I do not get along with other Christians or that I
advocate if you think it is right then it is as long as I agree.
Chuck: I have a very good reason for saying what I said. Using your word
as I've defined it above, it's "bias".
House: He knows those things are not true.
Chuck: House, I don't know how many times you need to be reminded of this
glaringly obvious truth, but you're not in a position to speak to what I
know. And the above wasn't even a lucky guess.
I
>> Of course not. I've never seen any intolerance at all towards gays or
>> transsexuals or intersex people here *eyeroll*
>
> Why do you come into a Christian group? To promote homosexuality?
Ignorant Randy Young � thinks transgendered persons are "homosexual"
JESUS said "... For he who is not against us is for us." Mark 9:40
I
> Nope. The penis and the clitoris are analogous organs, not penis and
> vagina. These children are boys, with undescended testes and no actual
> female organs at all - what the midwife sees, and assumes is a clitoris
> and outer labia, is actually an undersized penis and the flesh of the
> empty scrotal sac.
.....
>> Till then all we can do is try to make those who suffer from it feel
>> welcome. Thus my interest in getting my fellow Christians to drop the
>> sexual identity intolerance. But Chuck has assured me that there are
>> no Christian posters here who have that problem.
>
> Of course not. I've never seen any intolerance at all towards gays or
> transsexuals or intersex people here *eyeroll*
One of my childhood friends was transgendered. I met up with his parents a
few years back. He still has major problems with acceptance by others.
These are the people that fundamentalism ignores.
--
MY BLOG - MARK T - my thoughts on Christianity & links
http://www.blognow.com.au/strooth/
MY SOUNDCLICK PAGE- download my original songs in mp3 format
http://www.soundclick.com/marktindall
In My Fathers House
> "In My Fathers House" <hsot...@hotmail.com> wrote in messagenews:da917c3d-64cd-4854...@k32g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
> On Dec 18, 9:14 am, "Jude Alexander" <whate...@thispoint.why> wrote:
> [...]
>
>
>
>
>
> >> When you see my name must you assume the worst?
>
> > Oh, absolutely yes. Haven't you figured it out yet? Upchuck is the ONLY
> > one who understand complex ideas. Unfortuantely, he has to bring it under
> > submission to his stone-aged belief system! :-)
> [...]
> >> > free to spread your "gospel" of "if you think it's right,
> >> > then it is...
>
> >> Why do you lie?
>
> >> > . . . so long as I agree with you".
>
> >> Why do you lie?
>
> >> > It's really little wonder you
> >> > don't get much of a hearing from the followers of Jesus Christ.
>
> >> Why do you lie?
>
> > Chucky doesn't mean to lie. He's just a broken religionist.
>
> House: I can understand Chuck assuming I misunderstood an article because
> that is his bias.
>
> Chuck: bias, as used above: a belief supported by repeated observations.
Nope, a belief held ~in spite of~ repeated observations to the
contrary.
> House: But there is no excuse for him to claim I spread a
> false gospel, that I do not get along with other Christians or that I
> advocate if you think it is right then it is as long as I agree.
>
> Chuck: I have a very good reason for saying what I said. Using your word
> as I've defined it above, it's "bias".
You don't like me so you slander me. Chuck if the things you said
about me were true you would have no ~reason~ to say them. It's not
an insult to call a Buddhist "Buddhist".
> House: He knows those things are not true.
>
> Chuck: House, I don't know how many times you need to be reminded of this
> glaringly obvious truth, but you're not in a position to speak to what I
> know. And the above wasn't even a lucky guess.
You have seen overwhelming evidence that those things are not the
case. You use the accusations as insults. Is there some special
condition you suffer from that prevents you from understanding what is
right in front of you?
In My Fathers House
[...]
> > As I understand it
> > when deprived of the required chemical the penis forms as a vagina.
>
> Nope. The penis and the clitoris are analogous organs, not penis and vagina.
> These children are boys, with undescended testes and no actual female organs
> at all - what the midwife sees, and assumes is a clitoris and outer labia,
> is actually an undersized penis and the flesh of the empty scrotal sac. And
> parents don't generally go poking around in their babies' genitalia to make
> sure the midwife got it right.
Then my title was wrong.
> Now, one area where Chuck does sort of have a
> point, is the matter of ignorance - if people aren't knowledgeable about the
> structure of their own sex organs, thanks to religious prudery, they're not
> going to know what 'normal' is, in the first place.
IMO Christianity has a bit of a problem in that department as well.
We do tend to oppose sex education and promote both ignorance and
fear.
[...]
> > Yes. And with luck some day we will know how to screen for it and
> > perhaps introduce the required chemicals so that we can prevent it.
>
> Since there's such a high incidence in this one area, it would be useful if
> researchers from other countries collaborated with the Gaza people to
> investigate further .... rather than yelling about how primitive these
> Muslims are, with their cousin marriages and defective babies.
We certainly have no room to sneer on this side of the pond. We have
our share of birth defects, many of them genetic.
> > Till then all we can do is try to make those who suffer from it feel
> > welcome. Thus my interest in getting my fellow Christians to drop the
> > sexual identity intolerance. But Chuck has assured me that there are
> > no Christian posters here who have that problem.
>
> Of course not. I've never seen any intolerance at all towards gays or
> transsexuals or intersex people here *eyeroll*
It's all a figment of my imagination.
Jude Alexander
"I" <I@backagain00000000033> wrote in message
news:4b2d4559$2...@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
> Randy Young "�" <pulpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> Of course not. I've never seen any intolerance at all towards gays or
>>> transsexuals or intersex people here *eyeroll*
>
>>
>> Why do you come into a Christian group? To promote homosexuality?
>
> Ignorant Randy Young � thinks transgendered persons are "homosexual"
Is that true? What ignorance! Perhaps, Randy should watch a little
Discovery & History Channel just every great once and awhile instead of 700
Club!
I can't count the number of times Fundies have asked that I check out both
positive and negative takes on a particular biblical text but how many of
them do the same??? OBVIOUSLY, Randy doesn't read any scientific articles
on the subject if he things transgendered are homosexual. Some of them
change gender, i.e. male to female and continue to be with females! But
ignorant inerrantists think on the level of stone aged men who think that
everything revolves around gender, much like children incapable of any
insight other than was SEEMS apparent.
The sky DOES look like a dome and the stars DO look like tiny lights! Wasn't
THAT apparent knowledge at one time?
Chuck
"Jani" <ja...@jani.adsl24.co.uk> wrote in message
news:hgh0uj$17qj$1...@energise.enta.net...
All the above is true expect for the "Looks like you've all mis-read it"
part. I didn't mis-read it, as should have been obvious had you read my
post before House hacked it up.
"It was the culture that distains women and the ineptness of the doctor's
delivering these boys, not God, who "trapped" them."
I assumed any reader of my post would understand that a culture isn't really
capable of physically trapping a male in a female body, but at most has the
potential to trap a physical male in the role of a female according to some
very questionable values and lackluster medical science and practice being
the norm. Sounds like I assumed too much.
>
>>
>>> It was the culture that distains women and the ineptness of the doctor's
>>> delivering these boys, not God, who "trapped" them.
>>
>> Why do you bring up the irrelevant? I cite the article because this
>> is something Paul would not have understood but we do. We know
>> exactly what causes it. It implies that Paul's explanation for such
>> things leaves something to be desired.
>>
>>> They're born and
>>> immediately put under a sack for the rest of their lives if they're
>>> women.
>>> That's according to Muslim values. According to Christian values, they
>>> would have been treated as the equal of any man.
>
> They were treated perfectly well, as girls, while it was thought that they
> *were* girls.
Perfectly well? What does that mean? You think Muslims treat their women
"perfectly well"? That women shouldn't be taught to read, or allowed to
have a driver's license, or make decisions for themselves, or choose who
they will marry, or wear a pair of jeans without their father killing them,
or have a right to vote in a democracy, or a hundred of the other
"niceities" that go along with being a woman under sharia law and Middle
Eastern customs?
There is something truly wrong in a culture where a beard has to begin to
blossom through the eyehole of a burka before anyone starts to suspect a
misdiagnosis at birth may have been made!
>
>> Actually I think the vast majority of human culture has a hard time
>> accepting people with this defect. Maybe someday we will reach a
>> point where we can but the path there is by dispelling ignorance with
>> understanding.
>
> Yep, reading some basic facts about pseudohermaphroditism would be a
> start, as would resisting the temptation to go off on anti-Muslim rants.
I see. My "rant" concerned the inequality with which women are treated in
Islam by devout Muslims. You can characterize that as "anti-Muslim" if you
wish, but it is also the truth. Why should anyone wish to defend something
like the treatment women recieve under sharia law? A Muslim woman was just
in the news recently as I recall, Jani, condemned to stoning because she
survived a gang rape, or so the reported facts of the case would suggest.
You feel like defending that?
> No, Paul would not have understood the condition, but we have the ability
> to do so. Be nice if people used that ability, eh?
And they do in the West, which was the point of my post. You're also
ignoring the Palestinian doctor's medical opinion that in-breeding promotes
the condition, which makes the frequency of it a cultural consequence, and
it would be nice if we were not so blinded by our prejudices that we refused
to look at all the facts, and instead went about selecting them as one does
at a buffet table, to suit those prejudices.
I don't select my facts like that when I write a post. Because they are
posts, and not essays or books on a subject, they will, of course, not
include all the facts there are that relate to the subject, but I do not
select the ones I include to make some point that would be overthrown had I
selected other facts. I'm sorry the same can't be said for this post of
yours.
Chuck
In My Fathers House
> "I" <I@backagain00000000033> wrote in message
>
> news:4b2d4559$2...@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
>
>
> >>> Of course not. I've never seen any intolerance at all towards gays or
> >>> transsexuals or intersex people here *eyeroll*
>
> >> Why do you come into a Christian group? To promote homosexuality?
>
> > Ignorant Randy Young ® thinks transgendered persons are "homosexual"
>
> Is that true?
I don't know but you will need to find evidence in a different
thread. I started this one by comparing transgendered (which we
understand fairly well) with homosexuality (the underling cause of
which we have not completely cracked) because IMO we shouldn't hate
either. When (R) responds to it here it's what I introduced.
In My Fathers House
[...]
> All the above is true expect for the "Looks like you've all mis-read it"
> part. I didn't mis-read it, as should have been obvious had you read my
> post before House hacked it up.
Of course. Mis-reading is something only other people suffer from.
Actually my misunderstanding of the condition pre-dates my reading of
this article. I'm grateful that Jani set me strait.
> "It was the culture that distains women and the ineptness of the doctor's
> delivering these boys, not God, who "trapped" them."
>
> I assumed any reader of my post would understand that a culture isn't really
> capable of physically trapping a male in a female body . . .
Well don't be so sure as Stover, JILL and (R) often read these
messages. =)
[...]
> You can characterize that as "anti-Muslim" if you
> wish, but it is also the truth.
I think there are many human rights violations and you touched on
some. But I am turned off at how you spin it about religion. I don't
want to talk about the human rights violations while you poison the
conversation with that. They are important and deserve to be
discussed but not turned into a pawn for a religious agenda.
> Why should anyone wish to defend something
> like the treatment women recieve under sharia law?
I don't think anybody defended that. Why don't you ask Jani first
what she meant before you jump to conclusions?
[...]
> > No, Paul would not have understood the condition, but we have the ability
> > to do so. Be nice if people used that ability, eh?
>
> And they do in the West, which was the point of my post.
Then we don't need all the rest about how one religion is better than
another.
> You're also
> ignoring the Palestinian doctor's medical opinion that in-breeding promotes
> the condition, which makes the frequency of it a cultural consequence, and
> it would be nice if we were not so blinded by our prejudices that we refused
> to look at all the facts, and instead went about selecting them as one does
> at a buffet table, to suit those prejudices.
Why do you say she is ignoring it? The practice of marrying your
relatives is strait out of the Bible.
> I don't select my facts like that when I write a post.
LOL!
> Because they are
> posts, and not essays or books on a subject, they will, of course, not
> include all the facts there are that relate to the subject, but I do not
> select the ones I include to make some point that would be overthrown had I
> selected other facts. I'm sorry the same can't be said for this post of
> yours.
Oh really? Do tell.
glenn
>
clip to point
> Is there some special condition you suffer from that prevents you
> from understanding what is right in front of you?
Yes, it's called "rejection of Truth" and Paul addressed it specifically.
"... because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be
saved. And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they
should believe a lie: That they all might be damned who believed not the
truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness..."
2 Thes 2:10-12.
Chuck Stamford chooses to believe what he WISHES to believe, regardless
if it is true or not. Then he uses his genius to construct illogical
arguments using logical fallacies, wrong assumptions and alternate
definitions of terms to defend what he wishes to believe.
Chuck does not love Truth: What Chuck loves is argument -- or more
accurately, the APPEARANCE of intelligent conversation and discussion
_as long as_ it supports the position he wishes to believe.
Argument (aka "discussion") with Chuck is spitting into the wind.
Glenn
In My Fathers House
[...]
> Chuck Stamford chooses to believe what he WISHES to believe, regardless
> if it is true or not.
Which is why he got along so well with Vera, (R), Stover and the rest
of the gang.
> Then he uses his genius to construct illogical
> arguments using logical fallacies, wrong assumptions and alternate
> definitions of terms to defend what he wishes to believe.
What maters is which side you are on and how much enthusiasm you have
for the party line.
> Chuck does not love Truth: What Chuck loves is argument -- or more
> accurately, the APPEARANCE of intelligent conversation and discussion
> _as long as_ it supports the position he wishes to believe.
>
> Argument (aka "discussion") with Chuck is spitting into the wind.
I don't know, sometimes it's fun when his run-ons stretch past 50
words each.
glenn
> [...]
>> Chuck Stamford chooses to believe what he WISHES to believe, regardless
>> if it is true or not.
>
> Which is why he got along so well with Vera, (R), Stover and the rest
> of the gang.
>
>> Then he uses his genius to construct illogical
>> arguments using logical fallacies, wrong assumptions and alternate
>> definitions of terms to defend what he wishes to believe.
>
> What maters is which side you are on and how much enthusiasm you have
> for the party line.
Yes, if one is so enthusiastic for the party line that one can "lie in
the name of Jesus" then one is a card carrying member of the secret
club, welcomed with open arms! Griz, my Czar!
>
>> Chuck does not love Truth: What Chuck loves is argument -- or more
>> accurately, the APPEARANCE of intelligent conversation and discussion
>> _as long as_ it supports the position he wishes to believe.
>>
>> Argument (aka "discussion") with Chuck is spitting into the wind.
>
> I don't know, sometimes it's fun when his run-ons stretch past 50
> words each.
>
Fun? When you end up with spit in your face?
Well, I will admit (when suffering from acute boredom) I occasionally
read one or two of his posts... LOL, as long as they are NOT to me!
OK, you may continue your marathon of witty repartee with Chuckles... so
the rest of us who comprehend your grand strategy may have an occasional
chuckle.
Chuck
On Dec 19, 1:25 pm, "Chuck" <shellstamf...@cox.net> wrote:
> "In My Fathers House" <hsot...@hotmail.com> wrote in
> messagenews:da917c3d-64cd-4854...@k32g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
> On Dec 18, 9:14 am, "Jude Alexander" <whate...@thispoint.why> wrote:
> [...]
>
>
>
>
>
> >> When you see my name must you assume the worst?
>
> > Oh, absolutely yes. Haven't you figured it out yet? Upchuck is the ONLY
> > one who understand complex ideas. Unfortuantely, he has to bring it
> > under
> > submission to his stone-aged belief system! :-)
> [...]
> >> > free to spread your "gospel" of "if you think it's right,
> >> > then it is...
>
> >> Why do you lie?
>
> >> > . . . so long as I agree with you".
>
> >> Why do you lie?
>
> >> > It's really little wonder you
> >> > don't get much of a hearing from the followers of Jesus Christ.
>
> >> Why do you lie?
>
> > Chucky doesn't mean to lie. He's just a broken religionist.
>
> House: I can understand Chuck assuming I misunderstood an article because
> that is his bias.
>
> Chuck: bias, as used above: a belief supported by repeated observations.
House: Nope, a belief held ~in spite of~ repeated observations to the
contrary.
Chuck: Say what you want, House, your falsehoods are known to those who
have read them often.
In My Fathers House
> "In My Fathers House" <hsot...@hotmail.com> wrote in messagenews:844be40a-1564-4c2f...@g4g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
Only if they are named Chuck, Dave, Vera, Stover or Maybe. Now what
do those people have in common - besides hating me and thinking that I
have lied?
Chuck
House: Only if they are named Chuck, Dave, Vera, Stover or Maybe. Now what
do those people have in common - besides hating me and thinking that I
have lied?
Chuck: That you slander them daily.
Jude Alexander
"glenn" <gamc...@spiritone.com> wrote in message
news:4b2d8dd9$0$47170$39ce...@news.twtelecom.net...
Damn, you nailed him good! lol For poor Chuck, it's ALWAYS about being
intellectually superior, about thinking of himself as the ONLY honest
intellect on ACC.
Jude Alexander
"Chuck" <shells...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:LojXm.680$8e4...@newsfe03.iad...
Only in YOUR mind, Chuck. I see House as amusingly humoring you and playing
you, and THAT is what is really going on but you're too arrogant to be able
to look behind that "screen" (of arrogance) to see it.
Jude Alexander
Chuck, you obviously have not problem exaggerating to the point of lying.
I
>> Chuck: Say what you want, House, your falsehoods are known to
>> those who have read them often.
>
> Only if they are named Chuck, Dave, Vera, Stover or Maybe. Now
> what do those people have in common - besides hating me and thinking >
> that I have lied?
Answer: They are all raving looney fundamentalists.
--
The most pronounced characteristics [of fundamentalists] are the following:
(a) a very strong emphasis on the inerrancy of the Bible, the absence from
it of any sort of error;
(b) a strong hostility to modern theology and to the methods, results and
implications of modern critical study of the Bible;
(c) an assurance that those who do not share their religious viewpoint are
not really 'true Christians' at all.
- James Barr "Fundamentalism" (SCM Press:1977) p.1
glenn
Chuck, you have again given an example of the rejection of truth in
order to make a false accusation.
Telling the truth about you is not slander -- regardless of how it may
upset your tummy.
Telling the truth about Randy(R), Vera, Dave or Stover is not slandering
them.
When you describe an honest description as slander, you are lying. When
you accuse someone of slander when they have told the truth, you have
become a false witness, a false accuser.
You need to stand in front of a mirror and spend some time looking into
your own eyes -- hopefully you may see yourself as others see you, and
hopefully you might recognize the truth about yourself.
good luck
I
>> Chuck does not love Truth: What Chuck loves is argument -- or more >>
>> accurately, the APPEARANCE of intelligent conversation and discussion _as
>> long as_ it supports the position he wishes to believe.
>> Argument (aka "discussion") with Chuck is spitting into the wind.
>
> Damn, you nailed him good! lol For poor Chuck, it's ALWAYS about being
> intellectually superior, about thinking of himself as the ONLY honest
> intellect on ACC.
Chuck's posturing has been noted by many. I particularly like his
"foolosophers".
Randy �
In newsgroup "alt.christnet.christianlife",
Article <4b2e7401$0$52309$39ce...@news.twtelecom.net>,
Subject: Re: Born female but chemically male - what is
Paul's answer?
glenn <gamc...@spiritone.com> wrote:
>> Chuck: That you slander them daily.
[]
>Telling the truth about Randy(R), Vera, Dave or Stover is not slandering
>them.
But you don't tell the truth, so it is.
1) It is not a Satanic lie that the Bible teaches there is
only one God Being (JHVH).
2) It is not a Satanic lie that JHVH says there is "no other"
God or Savior beside Him: "none".
3) It is not a Satanic lie that the Bible teaches the Father,
Son, and Holy Ghost are God.
4) It is not a Satanic lie that Jesus explained how He, being
a distinct person from the Father, is yet one God with the
Father ("I and the Father are one"), or that the Jews clearly
understood that by making such statement, He was claiming to
be that God, or that they only believed in only one God
(JHVH).
Glenn is a blasphemer and idolater. A blasphemer because he
denies Jesus is the same one God being as is the Father, and
an idolater because he worships more than one God.
I
>>Telling the truth about Randy(R), Vera, Dave or Stover is not slandering
>>them.
>
> But you don't tell the truth
Telling the truth about Randy Young � .....
Repetition of the OCD kind seems to be Randy Young �'s life
considering his DUPLICATED emails from this newsgroup posters at
- http://groups.google.com.au/group/faithguard?hl=en
- http://www.faithguard.org/
- http://www.hopeguard.org/
- http://pulpitfire.blogspot.com/
4 907 posts in each of the four sites which is a TOTAL: of 19 628 DUPLICATED
posts on his sites!!!!!
Randy Young � also spams this newsgroup with the same replies over and over
every day.
Ask yourself what normal person does such a thing.
Randy Young � thinks this daily abuse is "guarding the faith". I quote from
http://groups.google.com.au/groups/profile?hl=en&enc_user=DiLFqxQAAAABcCxRJnfNjIMMZ6pfmxxyOPANdqfI6prRsqjc7uCt1A
#######################################################
There's little I enjoy more than coming into these groups to guard the faith
#######################################################
IS "guarding the faith" abusing Christians and calling Christian women
"whores" on this newsgroup and reporting them to their ISPs over trivial
matters??????
My ISP calls Randy Young's daily rants "ABUSE". I quote:
############################################
I just got an email from your ISP saying it was returned for innappropriate
language. ... talking about the headers where Randy is calling *[Christian
women] whores.
MAILER...@tpg.com.au to me
show details 8:04 PM (3 minutes ago)
Your message has been prevented from delivery because it contains language
that is not appropriate. TPG reserves the right to protect its staff and
members from this type of abuse.
You are encouraged to re-write your message before sending it again. A copy
of your original message is below.
##############################################
RANDY YOUNG �'s HATE SPEECH ADVOCATING SPOUSAL RAPE ......
#########################################
Newsgroups: alt.christnet.prayer
From: Randy <pulpi...@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2006 17:00:42 -0500
Local: Wed, Sep 27 2006 9:00 am
Subject: Re: Daily prayer needed
On Tue, 26 Sep 2006 18:13:40 GMT,
in article <o5eSg.3763$pq4.3...@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com>,
...
I don't need to, because she believes what 1 Corinthians 7 says when
it says the husband's body belongs to the wife, and not to himself,
and the wife's body belongs to the husband, and not herself, and that
benevolence is "due" as a command of God for the promotion of holy
living. The only way you can commit "rape" in a marriage, is if you
deny what the Bible teaches when it says the husband's and wives'
bodies belong to each other, but not to themselves, and the fact God
has commanded benevolence, calling it "due", in favor of the laws and
customs of those who deny the authority of the Bible.
###############################################
--
Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from
religious conviction." ---Blaise Pascal
In My Fathers House
> "In My Fathers House" <hsot...@hotmail.com> wrote in messagenews:b6834bc2-5966-4b12...@y10g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
Please provide an example of one thing I have said about any of them
that is demonstrably false.
Chuck
House: Please provide an example of one thing I have said about any of them
that is demonstrably false.
Chuck: Just one? You keep telling people I hate you when I've told you
repeatedly I don't.
Chuck
"Jude Alexander" <what...@thispoint.why> wrote in message
news:hglasu$f6g$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
Well, Jude, I didn't initially include you in the category slanderer, but if
you want in that bad...
Jude Alexander
lol Actually, I want nothing from you. Sorry.
In My Fathers House
> > > have read them often.
>
> > House: Only if they are named Chuck, Dave, Vera, Stover or Maybe. Now what
> > do those people have in common - besides hating me and thinking that I
> > have lied?
>
> > Chuck: That you slander them daily.
>
> House: Please provide an example of one thing I have said about any of them
> that is demonstrably false.
>
> Chuck: Just one? You keep telling people I hate you when I've told you
> repeatedly I don't.
Come on Chuck. When you see my name on a post you suddenly have a
chip on your shoulder the size of Alaska. Get real.
Please provide an example of one thing I have said about any of them
that is demonstrably false.
Allow me. When (R) called Mark an idiot I changed the header asking
why (R) was talking to myself. Wow I am such a liar to do the type of
thing that (R) and Vera do every single day. Well I do feel bad about
that lapse. But at least I have not blamed them for a disease simply
because they quoted facts from the World Health Organization.
Oh oh oh I know! There was that time when I promised to get you some
data before a certain deadline and I didn't complete the research in
time so Mark provided it instead. Wow, yes I see what you mean. My
falsehoods are well known. Meanwhile my critics can change my words
around while adding or deleting at will and pretend like they have not
changed a thing and it's perfectly kosher to hate me for what they
paint me as.
Jani
"Chuck" <shells...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:uZbXm.102455$Wf2....@newsfe23.iad...
I read it. It consisted mainly of a lengthy rant against Muslims.
> "It was the culture that distains women and the ineptness of the doctor's
> delivering these boys, not God, who "trapped" them."
>
> I assumed any reader of my post would understand that a culture isn't
> really capable of physically trapping a male in a female body, but at most
> has the potential to trap a physical male in the role of a female
> according to some very questionable values and lackluster medical science
> and practice being the norm. Sounds like I assumed too much.
They weren't 'trapped' at all; House misread the article, and acknowledged
in a later post that consequently, his thread title wasn't accurate. There
was no 'disdain for women' involved in the initial gender assignment of the
children, just an error, and it's an error made by western physicians as
well as Muslim ones.
>>>> It was the culture that distains women and the ineptness of the
>>>> doctor's
>>>> delivering these boys, not God, who "trapped" them.
>>>
>>> Why do you bring up the irrelevant? I cite the article because this
>>> is something Paul would not have understood but we do. We know
>>> exactly what causes it. It implies that Paul's explanation for such
>>> things leaves something to be desired.
>>>
>>>> They're born and
>>>> immediately put under a sack for the rest of their lives if they're
>>>> women.
>>>> That's according to Muslim values. According to Christian values, they
>>>> would have been treated as the equal of any man.
>>
>> They were treated perfectly well, as girls, while it was thought that
>> they *were* girls.
>
> Perfectly well? What does that mean? You think Muslims treat their women
> "perfectly well"? That women shouldn't be taught to read, or allowed to
> have a driver's license, or make decisions for themselves, or choose who
> they will marry, or wear a pair of jeans without their father killing
> them, or have a right to vote in a democracy, or a hundred of the other
> "niceities" that go along with being a woman under sharia law and Middle
> Eastern customs?
>
This has nothing to do with the article, which is purely and simply about
the difficulties of taking on a different gender role after puberty.
> There is something truly wrong in a culture where a beard has to begin to
> blossom through the eyehole of a burka before anyone starts to suspect a
> misdiagnosis at birth may have been made!
See, it's that sort of silly, flippant remark which makes people doubt
whether you've even bothered to read the original post, or just used it as
an opportunity to make clever-clever comments.
>>> Actually I think the vast majority of human culture has a hard time
>>> accepting people with this defect. Maybe someday we will reach a
>>> point where we can but the path there is by dispelling ignorance with
>>> understanding.
>>
>> Yep, reading some basic facts about pseudohermaphroditism would be a
>> start, as would resisting the temptation to go off on anti-Muslim rants.
>
> I see. My "rant" concerned the inequality with which women are treated in
> Islam by devout Muslims. You can characterize that as "anti-Muslim" if
> you wish, but it is also the truth. Why should anyone wish to defend
> something like the treatment women recieve under sharia law? A Muslim
> woman was just in the news recently as I recall, Jani, condemned to
> stoning because she survived a gang rape, or so the reported facts of the
> case would suggest. You feel like defending that?
None of that is relevant to the article, or to the point about gender
identity which House was making.
>> No, Paul would not have understood the condition, but we have the ability
>> to do so. Be nice if people used that ability, eh?
>
> And they do in the West, which was the point of my post.
Are you under the impression that there are no cases of intersex babies
being assigned the wrong gender identity at birth in the west?
You're also
> ignoring the Palestinian doctor's medical opinion that in-breeding
> promotes the condition, which makes the frequency of it a cultural
> consequence, and it would be nice if we were not so blinded by our
> prejudices that we refused to look at all the facts, and instead went
> about selecting them as one does at a buffet table, to suit those
> prejudices.
I'm not denying that inbreeding is very likely a factor, or that cousin
marriages are common in some Islamic cultures. You'll probably find similar
high incidences of birth defects in western cultures where inbreeding is
prevalent, although the *reasons* for inbreeding are unlikely to be the
same.
Jani
Jani
"In My Fathers House" <hso...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:489ba42e-a365-4da4...@z4g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
> On Dec 19, 9:47 am, "Jani" <j...@jani.adsl24.co.uk> wrote:
> [...]
>> > As I understand it
>> > when deprived of the required chemical the penis forms as a vagina.
>>
>> Nope. The penis and the clitoris are analogous organs, not penis and
>> vagina.
>> These children are boys, with undescended testes and no actual female
>> organs
>> at all - what the midwife sees, and assumes is a clitoris and outer
>> labia,
>> is actually an undersized penis and the flesh of the empty scrotal sac.
>> And
>> parents don't generally go poking around in their babies' genitalia to
>> make
>> sure the midwife got it right.
>
> Then my title was wrong.
Yes - but the general principle behind the post was good ;)
>> Now, one area where Chuck does sort of have a
>> point, is the matter of ignorance - if people aren't knowledgeable about
>> the
>> structure of their own sex organs, thanks to religious prudery, they're
>> not
>> going to know what 'normal' is, in the first place.
>
> IMO Christianity has a bit of a problem in that department as well.
> We do tend to oppose sex education and promote both ignorance and
> fear.
Indeed. You'd think, with the amount of nekkid bits'n'pieces being flashed
all over the Intarwebs, that no-one could possibly be ignorant of either
basic physical structure, or the diversity within said structure - and yet,
many are. I read a terribly sad series of posts once, from men who had put
up with pain, discomfort and non-existent sex lives for *years* because of
problems which could have been sorted out completely by minor surgery. They
were just too ignorant of their own anatomy, or too embarrassed, to seek
help :(
> [...]
>> > Yes. And with luck some day we will know how to screen for it and
>> > perhaps introduce the required chemicals so that we can prevent it.
>>
>> Since there's such a high incidence in this one area, it would be useful
>> if
>> researchers from other countries collaborated with the Gaza people to
>> investigate further .... rather than yelling about how primitive these
>> Muslims are, with their cousin marriages and defective babies.
>
> We certainly have no room to sneer on this side of the pond. We have
> our share of birth defects, many of them genetic.
>
>> > Till then all we can do is try to make those who suffer from it feel
>> > welcome. Thus my interest in getting my fellow Christians to drop the
>> > sexual identity intolerance. But Chuck has assured me that there are
>> > no Christian posters here who have that problem.
>>
>> Of course not. I've never seen any intolerance at all towards gays or
>> transsexuals or intersex people here *eyeroll*
>
> It's all a figment of my imagination.
We have a shared hallucination, obviously....
Jani
Chuck
"Jude Alexander" <what...@thispoint.why> wrote in message
Don't be sorry. I'm certainly not.
Chuck
On Dec 20, 9:31 pm, "Chuck" <shellstamf...@cox.net> wrote:
[...]
> > > Chuck: Say what you want, House, your falsehoods are known to those
> > > who
> > > have read them often.
>
> > House: Only if they are named Chuck, Dave, Vera, Stover or Maybe. Now
> > what
> > do those people have in common - besides hating me and thinking that I
> > have lied?
>
> > Chuck: That you slander them daily.
>
> House: Please provide an example of one thing I have said about any of
> them
> that is demonstrably false.
>
> Chuck: Just one? You keep telling people I hate you when I've told you
> repeatedly I don't.
House: Come on Chuck...
Chuck: Thanks for provimg me right. I tell you something only I can know,
and you spend an entire post arguing I'm lying to you.
®
Jani <ja...@jani.adsl24.co.uk> wrote:
Jani, are you for Christ? Those who are not for Him are against
Him, and scatter. There is no "neutral", and not being against
Christ means you're for Him, which means you claim to be for Him,
doing works in His name, and operating by His power:
Matthew 12:30 NIV
(30) "He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not
gather with me scatters.
Mark 9:40 NIV
(40) for whoever is not against us is for us.
The man who was "not against Christ" in Mark 9:38-39, was for
Him. He operated in Jesus name, and did work for Jesus. Thus,
when you're not against Christ, you are for Him, and that means
you are doing His work, and are publicly claiming to operate by
the authority of His name. Someone who admits he is not a
believer in or follower of Christ, and who is not doing His work
in His name, is not "neutral". That person is against Christ.
Both verses prove you are either for or against Christ. Those
who are not with Him are against Him. Those who are not against
Him are for Him, and are making that known by doing His work and
claiming the authority of His name. In either case, you are
either for or against Christ. There is no "neutral".
Yes, the Bible irrefutably teaches that all unregenerate people
are against God, not "neutral":
Romans 8:7-9 NIV
(7) the sinful mind is hostile to God. It does not submit to
God's law, nor can it do so.
(8) Those controlled by the sinful nature cannot please God.
(9) You, however, are controlled not by the sinful nature but by
the Spirit, if the Spirit of God lives in you. And if anyone does
not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Christ.
John 7:7 NIV
(7) The world cannot hate you, but it hates me because I testify
that what it does is evil.
Romans 3:10-19 NIV
(10) As it is written: "There is no one righteous, not even one;
(11) there is no one who understands, no one who seeks God.
(12) All have turned away, they have together become worthless;
there is no one who does good, not even one."
(13) "Their throats are open graves; their tongues practice
deceit." "The poison of vipers is on their lips."
(14) "Their mouths are full of cursing and bitterness."
(15) "Their feet are swift to shed blood;
(16) ruin and misery mark their ways,
(17) and the way of peace they do not know."
(18) "There is no fear of God before their eyes."
(19) Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those
who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and
the whole world held accountable to God.
Thus, people like Jani, who come in here and feign they are
"neutral", are liars. She has admitted she is not a believer in
or follower of Christ, and she is not doing His work or claiming
to operate by the authority of His name. Therefore she is
against Him, and scatters. That she tries to cloak her ministry
of scattering under the claim she's "neutral", is a lie. As an
unbeliever, Jani has no God-given capacity to pass judgment
either on spiritual truths or believers (1 Cor. 2).
In My Fathers House
> "In My Fathers House" <hsot...@hotmail.com> wrote in messagenews:3a08901d-0c08-44d8...@k19g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
> On Dec 20, 9:31 pm, "Chuck" <shellstamf...@cox.net> wrote:
> [...]
>
>
>
>
>
> > > > Chuck: Say what you want, House, your falsehoods are known to those
> > > > who
> > > > have read them often.
>
> > > House: Only if they are named Chuck, Dave, Vera, Stover or Maybe. Now
> > > what
> > > do those people have in common - besides hating me and thinking that I
> > > have lied?
>
> > > Chuck: That you slander them daily.
>
> > House: Please provide an example of one thing I have said about any of
> > them
> > that is demonstrably false.
>
> > Chuck: Just one? You keep telling people I hate you when I've told you
> > repeatedly I don't.
>
> House: Come on Chuck...
>
> Chuck: Thanks for provimg me right.
About what?
> I tell you something only I can know,
> and you spend an entire post arguing I'm lying to you.
Okay Chuck it's quite possible that you only act like you hate me,
it's something you have commited your life to over the last two years
and your acting is worthy of an Oscar. You are wrong about only you
knowing about your hate. If you constantly express it others will
know about it as well. And no I am not editing what you say to make
it look like you hate when you don't if you are trying to tie in (R)'s
edit jobs where he actively deceives.
You were asked to provide an example of something I have said about
any of them that is ~demonstrably~ false.
(..Matt B...)
Hi Chuck and Jani.
What does the below have to do with this thread?
Read the article and believe that condition would be extremely hard to
live with in both Arab countries and the west. Kids in both private
and public schools can be vicious.
What I did find strange was the cost of the operation to correct the
problem only $30,000.
OK my 2 cents
God Bless
Matt
Chuck
On Dec 21, 10:04 am, "Chuck" <shellstamf...@cox.net> wrote:
> "In My Fathers House" <hsot...@hotmail.com> wrote in
> messagenews:3a08901d-0c08-44d8...@k19g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
> On Dec 20, 9:31 pm, "Chuck" <shellstamf...@cox.net> wrote:
> [...]
>
>
>
>
>
> > > > Chuck: Say what you want, House, your falsehoods are known to those
> > > > who
> > > > have read them often.
>
> > > House: Only if they are named Chuck, Dave, Vera, Stover or Maybe. Now
> > > what
> > > do those people have in common - besides hating me and thinking that I
> > > have lied?
>
> > > Chuck: That you slander them daily.
>
> > House: Please provide an example of one thing I have said about any of
> > them
> > that is demonstrably false.
>
> > Chuck: Just one? You keep telling people I hate you when I've told you
> > repeatedly I don't.
>
> House: Come on Chuck...
>
> Chuck: Thanks for provimg me right.
House: About what?
Chuck: Sigh.
> I tell you something only I can know,
> and you spend an entire post arguing I'm lying to you.
House: Okay Chuck it's quite possible that you only act like you hate me...
Chuck: You don't get to define THAT for me either. You really are thick.
Randy �
In newsgroup "alt.christnet.christianlife",
Article <8qfvi5duhb9cqe2dt...@4ax.com>,
Subject: Re: Jani Is Not For Christ, But Against Him,
Scattering.
"(..Matt B...)" <trdel...@gmail.com> wrote:
No the question is, what relevancy does the judgment of
someone who is not for Christ, and therefore against Him and
scattering, and who, as an admitted unbeliever, who therefore
has no God-given capacity to understand or pass judgment on
spiritual truths or believers (1 Cor. 2), have to Christians
who are trying to discern what God says about how they should
live for Him in His word, the Bible?
Further, what is the relevancy of you opposing someone who
simply points out what the Bible teaches about the counsel of
the unregenerate? And if you're disputing this is the correct
interpretation and/or application of said passages of
Scripture, by what exegesis do you prove that?
[Snip]
>
--
(..Matt B...)
wrote:
Randy go fight with yourself. Your nothing and powerless for me as
you have no way to enforce your make believe authority.
God Bless
Matt
Chuck
"(..Matt B...)" <trdel...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:8qfvi5duhb9cqe2dt...@4ax.com...
Not sure.
>
> Read the article and believe that condition would be extremely hard to
> live with in both Arab countries and the west. Kids in both private
> and public schools can be vicious.
My point was in the West kids wouldn't have to live with it. It would
either have been discovered at birth by the vastly more competent medical
services there are in the West, and corrected then, or the boys would have
been treated with equality, just as girls are in the West, had the mistake
not been discovered.
Perhaps Randy was simply appalled by Jani's insensitivity as a woman to the
plight of women living under the burden of Islam. I know I was. I was also
put off by her remarkable inconsistency. She seems to be a feminist when it
helps her argue against Christianity, but has not problem switching hats
when she needs to. I've got nothing against her agnosticism/atheism so long
as she maintains it honestly, but she obviously doesn't do that, and it's
instances like this one that bring that out into the light.
>
> What I did find strange was the cost of the operation to correct the
> problem only $30,000.
I'm surprised it costs that much. It's a simple diagnosis and surgical fix,
which is just another reason to see just how "trapped" these two boys were
by the religious society in which they live.
The other point I wanted to make that Jani tried desperately to gloss over
was that Christianity is responsible for the advanced state of the West
compared to those nations burdened down by Islam. Islam makes a virtue out
of ignorance and intolerance; out of classifying people within a society and
keeping them there. This is exactly why this story about these boys could
only unfold as it did in a Muslim society, which is why I argued it was
Islam that trapped these boys; nothing else.
Randy �
In newsgroup "alt.christnet.christianlife",
Article <ooivi5tp5eobiuqi9...@4ax.com>,
Scattering.
"(..Matt B...)" <trdel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 21 Dec 2009 13:15:15 -0600, Randy � <pulpi...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>
>Randy go fight with yourself. Your nothing and powerless for me as
>you have no way to enforce your make believe authority.
1 Corinthians 2 does teach that the unregenerate cannot
understand or pass judgment on spiritual matters or believers.
The Bible does teach that those who are not for Christ are
against Him and scatter.
The idea that this Bible teaching about our attitude towards
the counsel of the unregenerate is either A) irrelevant, or B)
not actually what the Bible teaches, but only what Randy says,
is a lie, and you haven't proved it to be anything other by
any Scriptural authority whatsoever.
--
In My Fathers House
> "In My Fathers House" <hsot...@hotmail.com> wrote in messagenews:6b5313ab-b2de-4c6b...@w19g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
> On Dec 21, 10:04 am, "Chuck" <shellstamf...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "In My Fathers House" <hsot...@hotmail.com> wrote in
> > messagenews:3a08901d-0c08-44d8...@k19g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
> > On Dec 20, 9:31 pm, "Chuck" <shellstamf...@cox.net> wrote:
> > [...]
>
> > > > > Chuck: Say what you want, House, your falsehoods are known to those
> > > > > who
> > > > > have read them often.
>
> > > > House: Only if they are named Chuck, Dave, Vera, Stover or Maybe. Now
> > > > what
> > > > do those people have in common - besides hating me and thinking that I
> > > > have lied?
>
> > > > Chuck: That you slander them daily.
>
> > > House: Please provide an example of one thing I have said about any of
> > > them
> > > that is demonstrably false.
>
> > > Chuck: Just one? You keep telling people I hate you when I've told you
> > > repeatedly I don't.
>
> > House: Come on Chuck...
>
> > Chuck: Thanks for provimg me right.
>
> House: About what?
>
> Chuck: Sigh.
You seem perfectly content to give (R) and Vera a pass when they do
this as long as they do it to me. Do you forget that they don't like
you anymore?
> > I tell you something only I can know,
> > and you spend an entire post arguing I'm lying to you.
>
> House: Okay Chuck it's quite possible that you only act like you hate me...
>
> Chuck: You don't get to define THAT for me either. You really are thick.
Oh, so "hate" has a special meaning to you and the standard meaning
does not apply?
��@p
liar which attacks people's faith in the Bible and promotes a false gospel.
I'll have to repeat this message a thousand times till it learns to obey me.
�ow�ecked!
from
http://faithguard-moi.blogspot.com/2009/12/my-door-mat-is-not-true-christian.html
--
Read the adventures of Rundy Bullspitfire - where every post is archived.
http://faithguard-moi.blogspot.com/
��@p
Randy �
In newsgroup "alt.christnet.christianlife",
Article <E5QXm.80649$Zu5....@newsfe24.iad>,
Scattering.
>Perhaps Randy was simply appalled by Jani's insensitivity as a woman to the
>plight of women living under the burden of Islam. I know I was.
The Bible teaches the unregenerate do not understand or have
the God-given capacity to pass judgment on spiritual matters
or believers (1 Cor. 2). The Bible teaches that those who are
not for Christ are against Him, and scatter. Jani admits she
is not a believer in Christ, and she obviously does not claim
to work under the authority of His name, which is what is
evident in those who are not against, but "for" Christ (Mark
9).
What appalls me is the idea that anyone who claims to know and
believe what the Bible teaches about this, would then fail to
recognize that unregenerates are not "for" Christ (however
well they try to camouflage themselves as being interested in
some common good), are therefore not here to help us all along
in our walk with God, but to scatter what God has sown. This
is especially evident when the unregenerate has a long
history of directly contradicting and opposing what God's word
says, as Jani does.
(..Matt B...)
wrote:
I know a man that had this condition. It took several surgeries to
correct completely and then it wasn't a complete success.
>
>Perhaps Randy was simply appalled by Jani's insensitivity as a woman to the
>plight of women living under the burden of Islam. I know I was. I was also
>put off by her remarkable inconsistency. She seems to be a feminist when it
>helps her argue against Christianity, but has not problem switching hats
>when she needs to. I've got nothing against her agnosticism/atheism so long
>as she maintains it honestly, but she obviously doesn't do that, and it's
>instances like this one that bring that out into the light.
I have known a feminist or two my time that wanted to be equal yet
also wanted to be treated like a lady. They wanted to be treated as
more than a equal. If I open a door for a lady I do so because it is
my choice not thier right.
>
>>
>> What I did find strange was the cost of the operation to correct the
>> problem only $30,000.
>
>I'm surprised it costs that much. It's a simple diagnosis and surgical fix,
>which is just another reason to see just how "trapped" these two boys were
>by the religious society in which they live.
Like I said I know a man that had this in the USA. It took several
surgeries to correct and cost much more than that. It could have been
a extreme case and I know some of it was cosmetic.
>
>The other point I wanted to make that Jani tried desperately to gloss over
>was that Christianity is responsible for the advanced state of the West
>compared to those nations burdened down by Islam. Islam makes a virtue out
>of ignorance and intolerance; out of classifying people within a society and
>keeping them there. This is exactly why this story about these boys could
>only unfold as it did in a Muslim society, which is why I argued it was
>Islam that trapped these boys; nothing else.
Yes I agree Islam is partially to blame. In the USA I believe the
State would help. Maybe they should buy less missiles and help the
people more.
God Bless
Matt
��@p
��@p
Jani
"Chuck" <shells...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:E5QXm.80649$Zu5....@newsfe24.iad...
It's not always discovered at birth. Even when it is, western physicians
have tended to assign a gender and carry out surgery immediately, which is
not necessarily the best option for the individual. When it isn't, people
often don't discover they're the 'wrong' gender until things start going
wrong at puberty. And I don't know where you're getting this idea that the
children in the article were treated 'unequally'. They were treated as
normal girls, until it became obvious that they weren't girls. Now, they're
learning to be boys. Any negative response from the community is because of
the *transition*, not because they were one gender or the other.
> Perhaps Randy was simply appalled by Jani's insensitivity as a woman to
> the plight of women living under the burden of Islam. I know I was. I
> was also put off by her remarkable inconsistency. She seems to be a
> feminist when it helps her argue against Christianity, but has not problem
> switching hats when she needs to. I've got nothing against her
> agnosticism/atheism so long as she maintains it honestly, but she
> obviously doesn't do that, and it's instances like this one that bring
> that out into the light.
I fail to see how pointing out *your* strawman somehow makes *me*
insensitive and inconsistent. There is nothing in the article to suggest
that the children were treated badly when they were clearly female - it was
the physical changes they underwent at puberty which caused comment (and I'm
pretty sure that much the same comments would be made in a western
community, if a girl suddenly started growing a beard).
>> What I did find strange was the cost of the operation to correct the
>> problem only $30,000.
>
> I'm surprised it costs that much. It's a simple diagnosis and surgical
> fix, which is just another reason to see just how "trapped" these two boys
> were by the religious society in which they live.
Gender reassignment surgery is rarely a 'simple fix'.
> The other point I wanted to make that Jani tried desperately to gloss over
> was that Christianity is responsible for the advanced state of the West
> compared to those nations burdened down by Islam. Islam makes a virtue
> out of ignorance and intolerance; out of classifying people within a
> society and keeping them there. This is exactly why this story about
> these boys could only unfold as it did in a Muslim society, which is why I
> argued it was Islam that trapped these boys; nothing else.
You're not seriously saying that undiagnosed/late diagnosed intersexuality
only happens in Islamic countries, are you?
Jani
Jude Alexander
Then that's a good thing.
In My Fathers House
[....]
> It's not always discovered at birth.
It is always discovered if the doctor is a real true Christian. =)
> Even when it is, western physicians
> have tended to assign a gender and carry out surgery immediately, which is
> not necessarily the best option for the individual. When it isn't, people
> often don't discover they're the 'wrong' gender until things start going
> wrong at puberty. And I don't know where you're getting this idea that the
> children in the article were treated 'unequally'.
They were Muslim. Chuck knows that there have been some human rights
violations in the past. Thus in Chuck's mind these boys must be the
victims of the same human rights violations. And Chuck is absolutely
outraged by the fact that you are not outraged. How dare you treat
Muslims like they are individuals!
[...]
> > Perhaps Randy was simply appalled by Jani's insensitivity as a woman to
> > the plight of women living under the burden of Islam. I know I was. I
> > was also put off by her remarkable inconsistency. She seems to be a
> > feminist when it helps her argue against Christianity, but has not problem
> > switching hats when she needs to. I've got nothing against her
> > agnosticism/atheism so long as she maintains it honestly, but she
> > obviously doesn't do that, and it's instances like this one that bring
> > that out into the light.
>
> I fail to see how pointing out *your* strawman somehow makes *me*
> insensitive and inconsistent.
Criticizing Chuck is very dangerous and has a wide range of
consequences - anything between being being indifferent to all human
suffering to being responsible for every death in World War II.
Clearly your words about Chuck fell short of his expectations so you
deserve whatever fate he assigns to you. If anything you should be
grateful that he let you off so easy. Next time he might not feel so
merciful so you had best watch out.
[...]
> >> What I did find strange was the cost of the operation to correct the
> >> problem only $30,000.
>
> > I'm surprised it costs that much. It's a simple diagnosis and surgical
> > fix, which is just another reason to see just how "trapped" these two boys
> > were by the religious society in which they live.
>
> Gender reassignment surgery is rarely a 'simple fix'.
If their culture were Christian then medical care would grow on trees.
> > The other point I wanted to make that Jani tried desperately to gloss over
> > was that Christianity is responsible for the advanced state of the West
> > compared to those nations burdened down by Islam. Islam makes a virtue
> > out of ignorance and intolerance; out of classifying people within a
> > society and keeping them there. This is exactly why this story about
> > these boys could only unfold as it did in a Muslim society, which is why I
> > argued it was Islam that trapped these boys; nothing else.
>
> You're not seriously saying that undiagnosed/late diagnosed intersexuality
> only happens in Islamic countries, are you?
It's an opportunity and Chuck isn't going to waste it.
::: Jesus is LORD :::
ladies...
(..Matt B...) trdel...@gmail.com wrote in
(..Matt B...)
<jesus-...@lycos.com> wrote:
>Matt confesses that women do not have the right to be treated like
>ladies...
My wife know differently
You Vera six are not a lady.
Just ask your X husband or the wives of those you have tried to
commit adultery
Lets see TBC and Baba
Matt
I
<whatever>
My ISP calls Randy Young's daily rants "ABUSE". I quote:
############################################
I just got an email from your ISP saying it was returned for innappropriate
language. ... talking about the headers where Randy is calling *[Christian
women] whores.
MAILER...@tpg.com.au to me
show details 8:04 PM (3 minutes ago)
Your message has been prevented from delivery because it contains language
that is not appropriate. TPG reserves the right to protect its staff and
members from this type of abuse.
You are encouraged to re-write your message before sending it again. A copy
of your original message is below.
##############################################
RANDY YOUNG �'s HATE SPEECH ADVOCATING SPOUSAL RAPE ......
#########################################
Newsgroups: alt.christnet.prayer
From: Randy <pulpi...@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2006 17:00:42 -0500
Local: Wed, Sep 27 2006 9:00 am
Subject: Re: Daily prayer needed
On Tue, 26 Sep 2006 18:13:40 GMT,
in article <o5eSg.3763$pq4.3...@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com>,
...
I don't need to, because she believes what 1 Corinthians 7 says when
it says the husband's body belongs to the wife, and not to himself,
and the wife's body belongs to the husband, and not herself, and that
benevolence is "due" as a command of God for the promotion of holy
living. The only way you can commit "rape" in a marriage, is if you
deny what the Bible teaches when it says the husband's and wives'
bodies belong to each other, but not to themselves, and the fact God
has commanded benevolence, calling it "due", in favor of the laws and
customs of those who deny the authority of the Bible.
###############################################
--
Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from
religious conviction." ---Blaise Pascal
--
The most pronounced characteristics [of fundamentalists] are the following:
(a) a very strong emphasis on the inerrancy of the Bible, the absence from
it of any sort of error;
(b) a strong hostility to modern theology and to the methods, results and
implications of modern critical study of the Bible;
(c) an assurance that those who do not share their religious viewpoint are
not really 'true Christians' at all.
- James Barr "Fundamentalism" (SCM Press:1977) p.1
::: Jesus is LORD :::
> On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 04:48:22 +0100, " ::: Jesus is LORD :::"
> <jesus-...@lycos.com> wrote:
>
>> Matt confesses that women do not have the right to be treated like
>> ladies...
>
> My wife know differently
>
> You Vera six are not a lady.
>
> Just ask your X husband or the wives of those you have tried to
> commit adultery
>
> Lets see TBC and Baba
Liar.
I
> No Vera Matt is not lying. You are.
> ***************************************************
> Message-ID: <5rotafF...@mid.individual.net>
>
> By the way, Greg Turner, I really loved you very much, true love. There
> was NOTHING wrong with it. Your loss. I am so glad that the Lord
> protected me from such a weirdo as you are. Your abuse of my confession
> about Baba is noted, too.
> Falling in love with two men within almost five years is not really
> unnormal for singles. My sin was that Baba was a married men, and that I
> could not resist the devil for a while. Then I stopped it, because I was
> aware of the sin, and for no other reason then but to listen to God. But
> I have confessed that already, not only here in ACC. That you jump on it
> to attack me just shows your backslidden state, TBC.
> ****************************************************
>
> Message-ID: 5rp50oF...@mid.individual.net
>
> An e-mail you posted that you had written to baba wanting him to come to
> Germany to be with you. You openly admitted having this online affair and
> you have the audacity to say Matt is lying?
>
>
> Oh but that is right. You can be forgiven your sins but the rest of us
> can't. Yeah right Ha !
The word for Vera's actions is HYPOCRISY.
glenn
> X-No-Archive: Yes
>
>
>
>
> " ::: Jesus is LORD :::" <jesus-...@lycos.com> wrote in message
> news:7pb1ha...@mid.individual.net...
>> (..Matt B...) trdel...@gmail.com wrote in
>> rih0j554sjd8tn0m4...@4ax.com
>>> On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 04:48:22 +0100, " ::: Jesus is LORD :::"
>>> <jesus-...@lycos.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Matt confesses that women do not have the right to be treated like
>>>> ladies...
>>> My wife know differently
>>>
>>> You Vera six are not a lady.
>>>
>>> Just ask your X husband or the wives of those you have tried to
>>> commit adultery
>>>
>>> Lets see TBC and Baba
>> Liar.
>>
>
Thanks for your post, Diana.
Yes, according to Vera-witch, her sins are forgiven, but she is not
required to forgive your sins (or mine, or Mark T, or TBC, or Baba -- or
anyone else!) unless you (or we) join her in her lies and false accusations!
No, the truth is, that Vera IS a witch, a liar, a false accuser, a
servant of hell, and she demonstrates this truth every time she opens
her mouth.
Vera is not alone, there are many more servants of hell! Come to her
defense, liars, false witnesses, false accusers, you servants of hell!
The sons of God
Who love Truth
salute you!
Glenn
Jani
"In My Fathers House" <hso...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:a6617f0f-baea-46b8...@x5g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On Dec 21, 1:15 pm, "Jani" <j...@jani.adsl24.co.uk> wrote:
> [....]
> > It's not always discovered at birth.
>
> It is always discovered if the doctor is a real true Christian. =)
>
>> Even when it is, western physicians
>> have tended to assign a gender and carry out surgery immediately, which
>> is
>> not necessarily the best option for the individual. When it isn't, people
>> often don't discover they're the 'wrong' gender until things start going
>> wrong at puberty. And I don't know where you're getting this idea that
>> the
>> children in the article were treated 'unequally'.
>
> They were Muslim. Chuck knows that there have been some human rights
> violations in the past. Thus in Chuck's mind these boys must be the
> victims of the same human rights violations. And Chuck is absolutely
> outraged by the fact that you are not outraged. How dare you treat
> Muslims like they are individuals!
Seriously, I re-read the article to make sure I hadn't missed something, but
the only relevance Islam has is a cultural one - the marriage system
contributing to the high incidence of birth defects, and the fact that this
is an economically deprived region where medical facilities are poor.
>
> [...]
>> > Perhaps Randy was simply appalled by Jani's insensitivity as a woman to
>> > the plight of women living under the burden of Islam. I know I was. I
>> > was also put off by her remarkable inconsistency. She seems to be a
>> > feminist when it helps her argue against Christianity, but has not
>> > problem
>> > switching hats when she needs to. I've got nothing against her
>> > agnosticism/atheism so long as she maintains it honestly, but she
>> > obviously doesn't do that, and it's instances like this one that bring
>> > that out into the light.
>>
>> I fail to see how pointing out *your* strawman somehow makes *me*
>> insensitive and inconsistent.
>
> Criticizing Chuck is very dangerous and has a wide range of
> consequences - anything between being being indifferent to all human
> suffering to being responsible for every death in World War II.
> Clearly your words about Chuck fell short of his expectations so you
> deserve whatever fate he assigns to you. If anything you should be
> grateful that he let you off so easy. Next time he might not feel so
> merciful so you had best watch out.
Oh, I'm used to Chuck's waspishness. It's the strawmen I find so bloody
irritating.
> [...]
>> >> What I did find strange was the cost of the operation to correct the
>> >> problem only $30,000.
>>
>> > I'm surprised it costs that much. It's a simple diagnosis and surgical
>> > fix, which is just another reason to see just how "trapped" these two
>> > boys
>> > were by the religious society in which they live.
>>
>> Gender reassignment surgery is rarely a 'simple fix'.
>
> If their culture were Christian then medical care would grow on trees.
Yup.
>
>> > The other point I wanted to make that Jani tried desperately to gloss
>> > over
>> > was that Christianity is responsible for the advanced state of the West
>> > compared to those nations burdened down by Islam. Islam makes a virtue
>> > out of ignorance and intolerance; out of classifying people within a
>> > society and keeping them there. This is exactly why this story about
>> > these boys could only unfold as it did in a Muslim society, which is
>> > why I
>> > argued it was Islam that trapped these boys; nothing else.
>>
>> You're not seriously saying that undiagnosed/late diagnosed
>> intersexuality
>> only happens in Islamic countries, are you?
>
> It's an opportunity and Chuck isn't going to waste it.
I should probably have just pointed him at the many *American* websites
about intersexuality. Of course, he'd no doubt claim that they were written
by American Muslims, or something.
Jani
®
Diana <shech...@reborn.com> wrote:
> X-No-Archive: Yes
>
>
>
>
> " ::: Jesus is LORD :::"<jesus-...@lycos.com> wrote in message
> news:7pb1ha...@mid.individual.net...
>> (..Matt B...) trdel...@gmail.com wrote in
>> rih0j554sjd8tn0m4...@4ax.com
>>> On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 04:48:22 +0100, " ::: Jesus is LORD :::"
>>> <jesus-...@lycos.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Matt confesses that women do not have the right to be treated like
>>>> ladies...
>>>
>>> My wife know differently
>>>
>>> You Vera six are not a lady.
>>>
>>> Just ask your X husband or the wives of those you have tried to
>>> commit adultery
>>>
>>> Lets see TBC and Baba
>>
>> Liar.
>>
>
> No Vera Matt is not lying. You are.
> ***************************************************
> Message-ID:<5rotafF...@mid.individual.net>
>
> By the way, Greg Turner, I really loved you very much, true love. There
> was NOTHING wrong with it. Your loss. I am so glad that the Lord
> protected me from such a weirdo as you are. Your abuse of my confession
> about Baba is noted, too.
> Falling in love with two men within almost five years is not really
> unnormal for singles. My sin was that Baba was a married men, and that I
> could not resist the devil for a while. Then I stopped it, because I was
> aware of the sin, and for no other reason then but to listen to God. But
> I have confessed that already, not only here in ACC. That you jump on it
> to attack me just shows your backslidden state, TBC.
> ****************************************************
>
> Message-ID: 5rp50oF...@mid.individual.net
>
> An e-mail you posted that you had written to baba wanting him to come to Germany to be with
> you. You openly admitted having this online affair and you have the audacity to say Matt is
> lying?
>
>
> Oh but that is right. You can be forgiven your sins but the rest of us can't. Yeah right Ha !
You quoted Vera admitting and forsaking sin. Now where do all
the Christ attacking heretics you endorse claim they have changed
their minds about attacking Christ's deity and the Bible, and
where do you publicly confess you were wrong to share in their
evil work by publicly greeting, endorsing, and defending them?
2 John 1:9-11 NASB
(9) Anyone who goes too far and does not abide in the teaching
of Christ, does not have God; the one who abides in the teaching,
he has both the Father and the Son.
(10) If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do
not receive him into your house, and do not give him a greeting;
(11) for the one who gives him a greeting participates in his
evil deeds.
2Jn 1:10
John instructs the believers not to show hospitality to false
teachers. They were to do nothing that would encourage the
heretics in their propagation of falsehoods. In addition, if
believers were to invite them in, such action would show that
they were approving of what the false teachers said and did.
...John adds that a person who supports a false teacher in any
way shares in the teacher's evil work.
False teaching is serious business, and we dare not overlook it.
It is so serious that John wrote this letter to warn against it.
Because our world has so many false teachings, we might be
tempted to take many of them lightly. Instead, we should realize
the dangers they pose and actively refuse to give heresies any
foothold.
(Life Application Study Bible)
Yet Diana greets, welcomes, and defends Mark Tindall, _while_ he
maintains his public profession that Christ is not God, but a
sinful man:
<4a81...@dnews.tpgi.com.au>
(http://bit.ly/5gNQkG)
See: 3P6dna12f5QO34nW...@giganews.com
(bit.ly/8cXgJp)
And here she is sharing in the evil work of Jude, less than an
hour after he publicly attacked the idea Jesus is God, and while
he was maintaining a daily campaign of assault on people's faith
that the Bible is God's word:
On Wed, 7 Mar 2007 11:25:20 -0600,
in article <JzCHh.4561$X6....@bignews1.bellsouth.net>,
"Jude Alexander" <Ju...@littlerowofoaks.usa> wrote:
*************************************************************
I'm here for ONE reason, to expose the errors in the bible and
to SHOW that it CANNOT be the "inerrant word of God!" Sorry
you can't handle it.
*************************************************************
See also http://tinyurl.com/2hkygx where he lambastes Paul as an
"apostate".
On Wed, 9 Sep 2009 17:10:22 -0500,
In newsgroup "alt.christnet.christianlife",
Article <h89945$gu3$1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
Subject: Re: I cannot respond
"Jude" <ca...@swamp.wet> wrote:
**************************************************************
Jesus is NOT God.
**************************************************************
An hour and 10 minutes later:
On Wed, 9 Sep 2009 18:20:18 -0400,
In newsgroup "alt.christnet.christianlife",
Article <7gqo24F...@mid.individual.net>,
Subject: Re: Things Hateful To God
"Diana" <shech...@reborn.com> wrote:
**************************************************************
"Jude" <ca...@swamp.wet> wrote in message
news:h8996u$hgm$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
[]
> You're welcome. But, WATCH OUT, here comes Randy! lol
He will run even faster as soon as he reads that I believe you
are my Brother in Christ. And I do. ;-)
**************************************************************
And here she is both agreeing with Glenn's attack on the deity of
Christ, and calling me a liar for daring to notice:
Diana claiming Jesus is not God, in defense of Glenn:
On Tue, 21 Nov 2006 20:17:29 GMT,
In newsgroup "alt.christnet.christianlife",
Article <t9J8h.33348$Cq3....@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com>,
Subject: Re: MY SON
"Diana" <Diana@home. relaxing.com> wrote:
**************************************************************
IMO Jesus is not God.
**************************************************************
On Tue, 21 Nov 2006 20:17:29 GMT,
In newsgroup "alt.christnet.christianlife",
Article <t9J8h.33348$Cq3....@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com>,
Subject: Re: MY SON
"Diana" <Diana@home. relaxing.com> wrote:
**************************************************************
Now also when Jesus was praying why in the world if he was God
would he pray to himself?
**************************************************************
The next day, Diana claiming Jesus is God (apparently after
Amazing Grace realized what she was doing, and had a conference
with her)
On Wed, 22 Nov 2006 20:04:40 GMT,
In newsgroup "alt.christnet.christianlife",
Article <s329h.30186$pq4....@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com>,
Subject: For those who really really care
"Diana" <NO@.NO.com> wrote:
**************************************************************
We believe in one God, existing eternally in three persons,
identified as the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and
referred to as the Holy Trinity.
**************************************************************
Diana defending Glenn and calling me a liar for daring to notice
he attacks the deity of Christ:
On Tue, 16 Jun 2009 07:22:10 -0700,
In newsgroup "alt.bible",
Article <4a37aa92$0$52310$39ce...@news.twtelecom.net>,
Glenn <gl...@spiritone.com> wrote:
**************************************************************
Therefore Jesus is not "God" in the same definition as is "GOD."
**************************************************************
Now, where is the moron who will contend Glenn means the same
thing they do when he pretends to acknowledge Jesus as "God"?
Oh wait...that's right...
On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 19:16:45 -0400,
in article <4677128a$0$4647$4c36...@roadrunner.com>,
"Diana" <diana.is.sa...@gmail.com> wrote:
*****************************************************************
[Glenn]
> A Christian may, indeed should, believe every Word God gave to
describe
> and reveal Him Self, His Son and His Holy Spirit to His People
-- and
> reject the false doctrine of a triune god.
>
>
> Glenn
>
> -+-
> http://xprt.net/~servitum/main/argue/trinity.html
> .
> There are _over_ 700 Bible references to God, the Spirit of
God, the Son
> of God, and "My Father", ALL of which prove the doctrine of
the triune
> god is false.
> .
>
Yes Randy lied about this. You stated in this group that you
DO believe that Jesus IS God.
*****************************************************************
Thus, Diana calls me a liar for daring to notice Glenn rejects
the deity of Christ, _while_ he is urging all believers to reject
faith in Him as being that God!
And what does 1 John say about those who even greet those who do
not abide in the doctrine of Christ? They share in their evil
work! Diana indisputably greets, welcomes, and defends heretics
who come in here blaspheming and attacking the person of Christ,
and who the Bible proclaims Him to be, and attacks anyone who
dares to notice her heretical buddies promote false gospels and
soul damning error!
Where has Diana EVER even admitted this, let alone repented of
it? Then she has the audacity to act like someone who publicly
repents is somehow comparable to her spiritual unfaithfulness to God?
In My Fathers House
[...]
> > It's an opportunity and Chuck isn't going to waste it.
>
> I should probably have just pointed him at the many *American* websites
> about intersexuality. Of course, he'd no doubt claim that they were written
> by American Muslims, or something.
That would have been an opportunity to talk about the growing anti-
Christian movement in America. =)
In My Fathers House
[...]
> the Christ attacking heretics you endorse claim they have changed
> their minds about attacking Christ's deity and the Bible, and
> where do you publicly confess you were wrong to share in their
> evil work by publicly greeting, endorsing, and defending them?
If you saw a cat say "meow" you could turn that into an attack on
God. The cat is a heretick and possessed by Satan!!! We must guard
our faith from this viscous attack which we had the courage to
notice!!!!!!!!!!
Jude Alexander
OHHHHHH, but you err, dear friend, because, you see, Randy knows what goes
on the minds of all of God's creatures, both great and small..... meow....
pstttttt
Jani
"In My Fathers House" <hso...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:81959508-2245-4d70...@u36g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
I saw a post somewhere yesterday about christians being 'persecuted' in the
US, which likened said 'persecution' to the Holocaust. Probably just as well
that I can't remember where I saw it ....
Jani
::: Jesus is LORD :::
> " ::: Jesus is LORD :::" <jesus-...@lycos.com> wrote in message
> news:7pb1ha...@mid.individual.net...
>> (..Matt B...) trdel...@gmail.com wrote in
>> rih0j554sjd8tn0m4...@4ax.com
>>> On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 04:48:22 +0100, " ::: Jesus is LORD :::"
>>> <jesus-...@lycos.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Matt confesses that women do not have the right to be treated like
>>>> ladies...
>>>
>>> My wife know differently
>>>
>>> You Vera six are not a lady.
>>>
>>> Just ask your X husband or the wives of those you have tried to
>>> commit adultery
>>>
>>> Lets see TBC and Baba
>>
>> Liar.
>>
>
No, LIAR, YOU ARE, AND I WILL PROVE IT BELOW.
> ***************************************************
> Message-ID: <5rotafF...@mid.individual.net>
>
> By the way, Greg Turner, I really loved you very much, true love.
> There was NOTHING wrong with it. Your loss. I am so glad that the Lord
> protected me from such a weirdo as you are. Your abuse of my
> confession about Baba is noted, too.
> Falling in love with two men within almost five years is not really
> unnormal for singles. My sin was that Baba was a married men, and
> that I could not resist the devil for a while. Then I stopped it,
> because I
> was aware of the sin, and for no other reason then but to listen to
> God.
> But I have confessed that already, not only here in ACC. That you jump
> on
> it to attack me just shows your backslidden state, TBC.
> ****************************************************
>
> Message-ID: 5rp50oF...@mid.individual.net
>
> An e-mail you posted that you had written to baba wanting him to come
> to Germany to be with you. You openly admitted having this online
> affair and you have the audacity to say Matt is lying?
>
>
> Oh but that is right. You can be forgiven your sins but the rest of
> us can't. Yeah right Ha !
And since when is being in love with a single man "adultery" or
"fornication"?
Greg was not married at that time, and neither was I. In addition, the
only thing I have ever felt for Greg was a deep and pure love. But he
did not love me, and that was the end of that story.
You are what you are, and what you always prove to be:
A BLOODY LIAR. And your bully buddies are, too.
--
___________________________________________________
http://www.acc-growing-deeper.de
http://the-beauty-of-the-psalms.blogspot.com
http://jesus-christ-is-my-lord-and-my-god.blogspot.com
http://bible-prophecy-and-revelation.blogspot.com/
::: Jesus is LORD :::
I forgot ... That is another fat lie. I did not want him to be with me
in Germany, and if I had, I would never have posted this here. I
actually finished it by that e-mail, which the facts after this e-mail
also confirm, and you are simply evil to create something from that like
you do. How does one feel with a rotten heart like yours? I see you gave
up Christmas already... celebrate whatever with Mark and Donna and Glenn
and Matt and Jude and Jani - what a team! Family, huh? Not mine.
Lady, you will have to tell God why you prevented people who came to ACC
to get some real answers... but just your flame wars. You can tell the
Lord why you wanted a Mark Tindall to teach the people about Jesus, or a
Jude or a Glenn.
::: Jesus is LORD :::
xqWdnWgi5vLuWq3W...@giganews.com
Yes, where is that? I have not seen it.
Yup - and she is still doing that and even called him her "brother"
yesterday or the day before yesterday. I have accepted that she is one
of his family members, and his is surely not of Jesus Christ, whom he
rejects. But meanwhile Diana has even started to doubt about Christmas.
Some of the Jesus haters must have infected her with this idea. I know
it is not what they preach at her (former?) church, not what her opinion
was a couple of years ago on that.
I know that the Jehovah's Witnesses reject Christmas, and a number of
other sectarians do.
Diana really looks very silly.
> Thus, Diana calls me a liar for daring to notice Glenn rejects
> the deity of Christ, _while_ he is urging all believers to reject
> faith in Him as being that God!
You must know that she will call you a liar if she does not like what
you say, no matter if this is the truth or not. I for one have never
seen you lying, Randy, and I also know that the truth is very important
for you, since you are a man who wants to please God every minute of the
day. She has exposed herself to be the liar herself for years now, and
most people could find out who is who meanwhile.
> And what does 1 John say about those who even greet those who do
> not abide in the doctrine of Christ? They share in their evil
> work! Diana indisputably greets, welcomes, and defends heretics
> who come in here blaspheming and attacking the person of Christ,
> and who the Bible proclaims Him to be, and attacks anyone who
> dares to notice her heretical buddies promote false gospels and
> soul damning error!
>
> Where has Diana EVER even admitted this, let alone repented of
> it? Then she has the audacity to act like someone who publicly
> repents is somehow comparable to her spiritual unfaithfulness to God?
She has not admitted it, but she confirmed it only yesterday or the day
before...
Amazing Grace
>
>
> The next day, Diana claiming Jesus is God (apparently after
> Amazing Grace realized what she was doing, and had a conference
> with her)
>
>
This is a blatant lie by Randy Young.He has posted it again and again
and
it is still a lie. There is nothing apparent about this lie.
He has been told it was untrue. PUTTING APPARENTLY BEFORE A LIE DOES
NOT
MAKE IT ANY LESS A LIE.
AGAIN and AGAIN he exposes himself as a liar and dishonest man in
this
group. This is just one example.
Grace
(..Matt B...)
What you say Grace is true.
I missed this as I have stopped always reading his spam.
God Bless You
Matt
(..Matt B...)
Randy wrote more lies and spam
Now look at Vera Six admitting she wrote to my ISP
On Sun, 3 Oct 2004 16:30:08 +0200, "::: vera :::"
<ver...@acc-growing-deeper.de> wrote:
>In news:l5pul0hbras6katjq...@4ax.com,
>The liar is you, as always - my IP was informed because I had put "nospam"
>into my mail-address, which is not allowed in Germany. I had to quit my
>provider. Yes, I informed your provider about your evil spam which you put under all of my posts when you were chasing me like the others who left ACC.
>This can still be proved in Google, no problem. Do you want me to find it out again?
Turned out all that was reported was lies easily proven. Guess Vera
forgets that most Newsservers keep over a year backup LOL
Plus
***********************************************************
Chuck can stay far away with the idea that Matt is my Christian
brother.
Matt started this war, not me. Matt is evil, so evil to me how one
would
not even be to an enemy. Matt has never had a reason to attack me with
his libel, and what he has been doing over six years was a crime,
especially since he was told by many others that what I preach is the
Word of God, of which he admittedly does not know much - yet attacks.
He
is not my brother with regard to this:
Matt is a murderer. He murdered my good name. In Germany the term
character assassination would be literally translated by "murder of
reputation".
**********************************************
Here is Vera trying to intimidate people to not post as they see fit
and whom to respond to.
On Wed, 2 Jun 2004 22:52:20 +0200, ":::vera:::"
<ver...@acc-growing-deeper.de> wrote:
>... all who do not respect my choice to block those who have only
>been able to hurt me continually in the past. If some of you think
>they must present me the posts of those nevertheless, I am afraid I
>will have to block you as well. I do not want to read certain
>posters here in this group. Please respect this. I can live with the
>idea that you are a hypocritical club of your own, and I do not
>really care to be a part of you. No, I really would prefer NOT to be
>a part meanwhile. Keep all your witchcraft, heresy and hypocrisy
>among yourselves. I am not fond of all of it.
>
>::: vera :::
**************************************************
Here is Vera admitting the true reason for her anger and Hate toward
me
On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 02:54:27 +0100, "::: vera :::"
<ver...@acc-growing-deeper.de> wrote:
>I do not want to excuse - I would not know what for. It was YOU who came to ACC and attacked me. YOU started to enter into
>competition with me
How was I in "Competition" with Vera Six????
Oh and Vera talks to at least 3 spirits
Vera hoping people go to eternal damnation
""I hope you will all have a nice trip of no return.""
Vera Six at her best
Oh and let's not forget Vera Six's post/letter to President Bush
Dear Mr President
http://tinyurl.com/38hbky
God Bless
Matt
®
should be beaten with a "rod":
On Thu, 14 May 2009 08:36:07 -0800,
In newsgroup "alt.christnet.christianlife",
Article <aiho05d9q2a1vgtjp...@4ax.com>,
Subject: Re: Love thy Neighbor
":Matt:" <trdel...@nsgmail.com> wrote:
**************************************************************
So the conclusion is being nice to Vera doesn't work. She is
like a Child that needs the rod. either that or broken
fingers I was going to say muzzle but that hardly would work
here.
**************************************************************
Matt posted a link to what he believed to be a map of where
Vera's house is located:
On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 21:35:08 -0800
In newsgroup "alt.christnet.christianlife"
Article: <ibi995h62s2j4joed...@4ax.com>
....Matt... <spamtrd...@gmail.com.....> wrote:
**************************************************************
http://tinyurl.com/n8zkkz
Click oblique view.
**************************************************************
Matt threatened, "there are no longer any rules":
On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 21:24:47 -0800,
In newsgroup "alt.christnet.christianlife",
Article <9mh995l2bfgn98m98...@4ax.com>,
Subject: Re: Things Hateful To God
....Matt... <spamtrd...@gmail.com.....> wrote:
**************************************************************
Well Vera did and has made a direct attack on my family.
There are no longer any rules.
**************************************************************
Matt threatened to hire a PI to investigate Vera and myself,
so he could threaten our children:
On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 21:39:43 -0800,
In newsgroup "alt.christnet.christianlife",
Article <jei995h0opbs93bf5...@4ax.com>,
Subject: Re: I hate you
....Matt... <spamtrd...@gmail.com.....> wrote:
**************************************************************
She has now threatened my Children in another post so will
hire a PI to do the same to her and Randy.
**************************************************************
Matt threatened to use his job resources and skills to
accomplish the same:
On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 21:42:19 -0800,
In newsgroup "alt.christnet.christianlife",
Article <fni995h9ol15j658b...@4ax.com>,
Subject: Re: Things Hateful To God
....Matt... <spamtrd...@gmail.com.....> wrote:
**************************************************************
To late Feather you know what I do for a living and have now
decided to place all those recourses to work.
**************************************************************
On Fri, 8 Aug 2008 10:41:44 -0700,
In newsgroup "alt.christnet.christianlife",
Article <yz%mk.9595$Bt6....@newsfe04.iad>,
Subject: Re: Mobbers and Cyber Bullies of the Week - Just the
Worst
"Chuck Stamford" <shell-s...@cox.net> wrote:
**************************************************************
> I am not acting as bad as Vera.
More evidence you're a pretend Christian, Matt. You're not going
to be judged using how Vera acted as the standard. If you
actually knew Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior, had ANY sort
of personal relationship with His Spirit abiding within you,
you'd know that, and that knowledge would
prevent you writing such nonsense.
But you don't have any of that going for you, do you Matt.
You're just going through the motions, aping what you can
understand of the Christian faith, using it the faith as a smoke
screen to dress up your completely unchanged, hate-filled,
decietful heart in some new moralistic clothes. The
quintessential Pharisee, Matt, that's you. Spend all you're time
cleaning the outside of the cup, and within are dead man's bones,
and all manner of corruption.
**************************************************************
On Fri, 8 Aug 2008 10:41:44 -0700,
In newsgroup "alt.christnet.christianlife",
Article <yz%mk.9595$Bt6....@newsfe04.iad>,
Subject: Re: Mobbers and Cyber Bullies of the Week - Just
the Worst
"Chuck Stamford" <shell-s...@cox.net> wrote:
**************************************************************
yet another in your never-ending string of malicious
prevarications about Vera.
**************************************************************
On Fri, 8 Aug 2008 10:41:44 -0700,
In newsgroup "alt.christnet.christianlife",
Article <yz%mk.9595$Bt6....@newsfe04.iad>,
Subject: Re: Mobbers and Cyber Bullies of the Week - Just the
Worst
"Chuck Stamford" <shell-s...@cox.net> wrote:
**************************************************************
> As for posting Vera's Famous Letter/post to the President.
You asked
> for proof. It is your doing it was reposted.
Ah, you misunderstand the situation completely, as usual. I'm
glad we did this, and I can't thank Grace enough for providing
the link to that old post of Vera's. Without it, you would have
gotten away clean with yet another in your never-ending string of
malicious prevarications about Vera. As things played out, you
were faced with a FACT, the post itself, and that fact found you
out as the lair you are. Everyone could see it wasn't a letter
sent to the President, but simply a post, posted to ACC, written
in the form of a letter.
Then everyone could see your struggle to justify yourself by
supposing, not *knowing*, just theorizing that Vera had sent it
as a letter to Bush as well as posting it to ACC, but everyone
could also see that this was simply you're admission you didn't
actually *know* what she did one way or the other, which made
your earlier statement about what she did, LIE, Matt, something
you said was true, but had no personal knowledge was.
Then, in some desperate attempt to save face where nothing but
abject repentence would help, you became obtuse, to the point of
imbecility, pretending an incapacity to see the only plausible
meaning there was in your actions and statements. Further,
you've done what you could to heap ridicule on Vera for writing a
letter to the President she then posts in ACC, and lo and behold,
when we go back and look in Google, using Grace's link, we find
YOU doing the SAME THING in a response!
**************************************************************
In My Fathers House
> Martt said . . .
And you will not forgive. Why must you accuse so much? Why must you
record every mistake and keep bringing them up?
(..Matt B...)
>
>Matt threatened to hire a PI to investigate Vera and myself,
>so he could threaten our children:
>
>On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 21:39:43 -0800,
> In newsgroup "alt.christnet.christianlife",
> Article <jei995h0opbs93bf5...@4ax.com>,
> Subject: Re: I hate you
> ....Matt... <spamtrd...@gmail.com.....> wrote:
>**************************************************************
>She has now threatened my Children in another post so will
>hire a PI to do the same to her and Randy.
>**************************************************************
>
>Matt threatened to use his job resources and skills to
>accomplish the same:
>
In the above you and Vera had already tried to tell the NGs what
colleges my Kids went to. There names also. You got most of it wrong
but that wasn't the point. You should not do anything to anyone you
don't want done to you.
Yes when someone threatens my family I get a little ballistic. You
had my address off by about 100 miles and said I had 2 daughters, my
son did not like that.
Even if I knew Volker's current location I would never post it. Vera
did try with my kids. Vera was wrong
I would never harm a child that is more of your and Vera Six's liking.
You also should not drive a white car in a blizzard.
So again you only tell part of the story and use deceptive practices
in God's name.
You still haven't shown what is wrong with the doctrine I believe in
yet. WHY if it is so wrong?
God Bless
Matt
®
(..Matt B...) <trdel...@gmail.com> wrote:
> You still haven't shown what is wrong with the doctrine I believe in
> yet.
I'm not the one who says you're practicing "eisegesis" and
"deception" every other time you post something, even when it's
something I agree with, or who then fails to back up such claims
with Scripturee. You are, idiot:
On Tue, 10/06/09, at 11:43:21AM,
In Group: alt.christnet.christianlife
Article: <dqsmc5hb14cenetrv...@4ax.com>
..Matt.. <trdel...@gmail.comnospam> wrote:
*****************************************************************
On Tue, 6 Oct 2009 18:29:48 +0200, " ::: Jesus is LORD :::"
<jesus-...@lycos.com> wrote:
>>He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that
believeth not is
>>condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of
the only
>>begotten Son of God. And this is the condemnation, that light
is come
>>into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light,
because their
>>deeds were evil. For every one that doeth evil hateth the
light, neither
>>cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. But he
that
>>doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made
manifest,
>>that they are wrought in God. (John 3:18-21 KJV)
Vera Six so your lying, Misdirection, Deceptive practices and
Hate are
"Justified" by your and Randy's Eisegesis LOL
*****************************************************************
Randy �: Have you heard Christ died for our sins, and God raised Him
from the dead? Did you know God saves you
from hell and
gives you eternal life through faith in this
finished work alone,
not your merits (Jn. 3:16; 1 Cor. 15:1-3; Eph.
2:8-10; 2 Thess.
1:8-9)? This is so man cannot boast, and God
alone gets the
glory (Eph. 2:8-9).
(<iqjfa51qs8mtmjfqt...@4ax.com>)
Dan Listermann: Silliness.
(<6046d$4aa7ee2c$4a53bf9f$48...@FUSE.NET>)
Randy �: 2 Corinthians 4:3-4 NIV
(3) And even if our gospel is veiled, it is
veiled to those
who are perishing.
(4) The god of this age has blinded the minds of
unbelievers,
so that they cannot see the light of the gospel
of the glory
of Christ, who is the image of God.
(<iqjfa51qs8mtmjfqt...@4ax.com>)
Matt: Is this what you call exegesis. Sad example.
I have seen real exegesis and this isn't even close.
(<pgvfa5dcl0agat2e2...@4ax.com>)
®
You're asking the wrong person, prevaricating idiot. Matt's the
one with a six year history of attacking every other word that
comes out of Vera's mouth. And he all but never backs it up with
Scripture.
Amazing Grace
"(..Matt B...)" <trdel...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:f632j5dbgvsb7ib6g...@4ax.com...
Not only that but he continues to post things you long ago apologized for.
He leaves that part out.
Grace
Jude Alexander
"Amazing Grace" <maran...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:2dd3bdec-feda-4773...@m7g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
On Dec 22, 8:19 am, � <pulpitf...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 12/22/09, at 0:01:28AM,
n.
>
>
> The next day, Diana claiming Jesus is God (apparently after
> Amazing Grace realized what she was doing, and had a conference
> with her)
>
This is a blatant lie by Randy Young.He has posted it again and again
and it is still a lie. There is nothing apparent about this lie.
He has been told it was untrue. PUTTING APPARENTLY BEFORE A LIE DOES
GAIN and AGAIN he exposes himself as a liar and dishonest man in
this group. This is just one example.
Grace
There's two things I find appalling in this group and that all the ones that
claim to be the only true Christians (and some others as well) are the ones
who seem to be unable or willing to to admit to a mistake no matter how
small or trivial (even honest ones that have no meaning in the course of
life) and the absolute hypocrisy. Once they refuse they made a mistake,
they continue to cover it up and then it begins to be a lie as I THINK it is
the case with this.
(..Matt B...)
>On Tue, 12/22/09, at 12:29:29AM,
>(..Matt B...) <trdel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> You still haven't shown what is wrong with the doctrine I believe in
>> yet.
>
>I'm not the one who says you're practicing "eisegesis" and
>"deception" every other time you post something, even when it's
>something I agree with, or who then fails to back up such claims
>with Scripturee. You are, idiot:
I'm talking about your EIESGESIS of BHS not everything you talk about.
Never mentioned anything about Revelation now did I
BTW what has any of that to do with my doctrinal beliefs.
Fred, Vera and Randy can't supply any proof.
Your spam is deception as it doesn't tell the whole story and parts
are out and out lies.
You do have it down pat that if your going to lie hide it within a
truth. Your to be pitied
God Bless
Matt
I
> Now where do all the ... attacking heretics you endorse claim they have >
> changed their minds about attacking
WHERE does Randy Young "�" confess HIS multitude of sins?????
Repetition of the OCD kind seems to be Randy Young �'s life
considering his DUPLICATED emails from this newsgroup posters at
- http://groups.google.com.au/group/faithguard?hl=en
- http://www.faithguard.org/
- http://www.hopeguard.org/
- http://pulpitfire.blogspot.com/
4 907 posts in each of the four sites which is a TOTAL: of 19 628 DUPLICATED
posts on his sites!!!!!
Randy Young � also spams this newsgroup with the same replies over and over
every day.
Ask yourself what normal person does such a thing.
Randy Young � thinks this daily abuse is "guarding the faith". I quote from
http://groups.google.com.au/groups/profile?hl=en&enc_user=DiLFqxQAAAABcCxRJnfNjIMMZ6pfmxxyOPANdqfI6prRsqjc7uCt1A
#######################################################
There's little I enjoy more than coming into these groups to guard the faith
#######################################################
IS "guarding the faith" abusing Christians and calling Christian women
"whores" on this newsgroup and reporting them to their ISPs over trivial
matters??????
I
(..Matt B...)
Of course he does truth seems to matter little to Randy . Deception
is a art to Randy.
Guess I have to go to Bellingham for a while. To wet and cold to go
up to the mountain although could use the peace to meditate.
God Bless You
Matt
::: Jesus is LORD :::
> On Dec 22, 8:19 am, � <pulpitf...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 12/22/09, at 0:01:28AM,
> n.
>>
>>
>> The next day, Diana claiming Jesus is God (apparently after
>> Amazing Grace realized what she was doing, and had a conference
>> with her)
>>
>
>>
> This is a blatant lie by Randy Young.He has posted it again and again
> and
> it is still a lie.
It is actually a suggestion. Have you ever known what a term like
"apparently" means? If it does not belong to your vocabulary, you should
look it up before you give such a bad Christian example and accuse
others falsely of lying.
> There is nothing apparent about this lie.
It is apparent to me, too. If you did not inform her that Jesus is God I
might wonder why you did not... Did you not care at all?
> He has been told it was untrue.
I wonder if he reads all your posts with all the lies.
> PUTTING APPARENTLY BEFORE A LIE DOES
> NOT
> MAKE IT ANY LESS A LIE.
That is interesting, and I hope you will remind your bully buddies of
that the next time they are using such terms when they lie, and they
usually use them to libel others, and not like Randy when he wants to
help Diana keep her faith after being infiltrated by people like Dona,
Glenn, Mark, Jude etc. You obviously do not care about that, and you do
not even have the shame to admit that you do not care and probably did
not even inform Diana about her error. I think it would have spoken for
you if you had, but obviously you feel the need to defend yourself
against people who believe you wanted to preach the real Christ to you.
Why would that be so terrible?
> AGAIN and AGAIN he exposes himself as a liar and dishonest man in
> this
> group. This is just one example.
Nah - YOU are just one example of a hypocrite.
> Grace
Not really.
Mordecai
::: Jesus is LORD ::: wrote:
> Amazing Grace maran...@gmail.com wrote in
> 2dd3bdec-feda-4773...@m7g2000prd.googlegroups.com
> > On Dec 22, 8:19 am, � <pulpitf...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Tue, 12/22/09, at 0:01:28AM,
> > n.
> >>
> >>
> >> The next day, Diana claiming Jesus is God (apparently after
> >> Amazing Grace realized what she was doing, and had a conference
> >> with her)
> >>
> >
> >>
> > This is a blatant lie by Randy Young.He has posted it again and again
> > and
> > it is still a lie.
>
> It is actually a suggestion. Have you ever known what a term like
> "apparently" means? If it does not belong to your vocabulary, you should
> look it up before you give such a bad Christian example and accuse
> others falsely of lying.
NO ... NO NO NO NO NO!
Immediately the PERCEPTION that an evil is done ... the one who loves their
G_d must strive to set aside the perception - for the sake of the name of
their beloved.
They must fight for their honour and the honour of the one they love.
They must refrain not only from doing evil but the APPEARANCE of doing evil.
Go and read the NT - Paul continually telling people that he did NOT speak
against the law or teach it. How these reports were false. He is constantly
saying he was not against the law.
He converted timothy to Judaism as a christian (see - they are not
incompatible) which meant that Timothy had a duty and an oath to do all the
laws. This was not for the sake of salvation ... where it was the desire
to seek salvation as a Jew rather than the salvation of JC which was the
issue .. but rather that the evil reputation of the church would not be
stirred up.
He told people not to allow the reputation of his church to be "LET US DO
EVIL THAT GOOD MIGHT COME."
The effort was not to put up barriers to people coming.
To refrain from evil
And to refrain from the appearance.
And to do this - he had to have his church go out of their way - putting in
effort. Not trying to fight the perception with words but to show in deeds
that the evil report was evil.
I told you I would not join with people like Randy and you told me ...
forget the reputation - the barriers, the unrighteousness, the sin I see ...
look at JESUS.
I refuse to join with the congregation of the unrighteous!
It is not about JC - I am not going to do that which I consider immoral ...
or to join with those who do immoral actions. In fact - I am forbidden to do
so in the law.
I do not particularly care if Randy is or is not righteous - the very
appearance that he is immoral, and unrighteous and detestable has me tuning
away.
--
Mordecai!
When words and actions disagree, believe actions.
When rhetoric and reality disagree, either rhetoric is wrong or reality is
wrong, and reality is Never wrong.