Difference Between Priesthood and Priestcraft
Aaron Kim
"Morality is doing what is right, no matter what you're told. Religion is
doing what you're told, not matter what is right." - Jerry Sturdivant
The Priesthood is different from religious sectarianism. Many people believe
the Founding Fathers were anti Christianity but they believed in Christ not
sectarianism.
29 He commandeth that there shall be no priestcrafts; for, behold,
priestcrafts are that men preach and set themselves up for a light unto the
world, that they may get gain and praise of the world; but they seek not the
welfare of Zion.
(2 Nephi 26:29)
16 Nevertheless, this did not put an end to the spreading of priestcraft
through the land; for there were many who loved the vain things of the
world, and they went forth preaching false doctrines; and this they did for
the sake of riches and honor.
(Alma 1:16)
21 And without the ordinances thereof, and the authority of the priesthood,
the power of godliness is not manifest unto men in the flesh;
Doctrine and Covenants 84:21
"I am like a huge rough stone rolling down from a high mountain; and the
only polishing I get is when some corner gets rubbed off by coming in
contact with something else, striking with accelerated force against
religious bigotry, priestcraft, lawyer-craft, doctor-craft, lying editors,
suborned judges and jurors, and the authority of perjured executives, backed
by mobs, blasphemers, licentious and corrupt men and womenall hell knocking
off a corner here and a corner there. Thus will I become a smooth and
polished shaft in the quiver of the Almighty." (Teachings of the Prophet
Joseph Smith, p. 304.)
"Then came Martin Luther, that great soul, who had the courage to stand
against priestcraft and kingcraft, and declare that his conscience was a
captive to God's word. That was his declaration when he stood before the
Diet at Worms. "There I take my stand; I can do no otherwise. So help me
God." That was his answer to hie accusers."
(President Anthony W. Ivins, Conference Report, April 1928, Third Day
Morning Meeting, p.119)
"God bless you, my brethren and sisters, keep us all from the sins of the
world, keep us clean and unspotted. make us more devoted if possible to his
word and more loyal and patriotic to the government of which we form a part.
For without this government the Church of Christ could not exist, unless God
should manifest his power in an unusual manner in our behalf. He has raised
up this government and the men who direct its affairs for our protection and
benefit, for the protection and benefit of the people of the world in
righteousness. But whenever people depart from the way of righteousness,
whenever priestcraft shall take the place of Priesthood, God's mercy will be
withdrawn. (Distinguish between the words-priestcraft is that system by
which men pretend to speak and act in the name of the Lord without authority
and without power; Priesthood is the keys and authority to properly act and
speak in the name of the Lord, and the power of the Priesthood will be
manifest in the works of those who exercise it. And that characterizes the
lives of these men, these apostles who are before you, these presiding
seventies, and presidents of missions. They exercise the Priesthood of the
Lord our God through proper authority, and they exercise it in a proper
way.) When priestcraft shall assume that which does not belong to it, then
God's mercy and protection will be withdrawn. Go on and read the remainder
of this eighty-eighth section of the D&C, (I do not like to read it here)
because it tells us what is going to happen to priestcraft, and it is coming
with those other manifestations of the power of the Lord which are so
prevalent."
(President Anthony W. Ivins, Conference Report, October 1926, First Day
Morning Session, p.20-21)
Our Blog: http://www.artbulla.com/zion/blog/rjc.html
Listen to Zion Redemption Radio hosted by Art Bulla and Aaron Kim on Sunday
from 3 to 4 (pst). Just go to
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/hostpage.aspx?host_id=3513 All are invited to
call in live, email at a...@artbulla.com, or by MSM artb...@hotmail.com.
This show is dedicated to the redemption of Zion, revelations of Jesus
Christ, authority, Priesthood, Kingdom of God, doctrine discussed pertaining
to the salvation of Ephraim and Manasseh. During non broadcast hours you can
also listen to archived shows.
My Testimony of a Living Prophet:
http://www.artbulla.com/zion/Aaron's%20Page.html
26 Even so, come unto me and learn of my ways, and I will give unto you,
even as many as shall come, that peace which surpasseth understanding, and
if ye shall inquire of me concerning these things, will I the Lord manifest
by the influence and power of the Holy Ghost that these things are verily
true and are of me, saith the Lord.
Revelations of Jesus Christ sec. 6:26
Aaron Kim
<A John 3:16 Whosoever>
> An atheist in a reply to a post of mine quoted the following:
>
> "Morality is doing what is right, no matter what you're told. Religion is
> doing what you're told, not matter what is right." - Jerry Sturdivant
Quite true. Exactly why Jesus was not a religionist, and true
Christians aren't, either. Art Bulla teaches religion, just another
kind. A little of this, a little of that, a little Mormonism, a
little idol worship, alot of cultism.
<snipped false "scripture">
George
>> doing what you're told, not matter what is right." - Jerry Sturdivant
>
> ^ ^ ^ Simplistic and untrue! All Christians-- whether they know it
> or not-- are entitled, and OBLIGATED to compare what the pastor is
> saying to the Bible. If the pastor deviates from clear scripture, the
> congregant is entitled to disregard such teaching.
>
This is not simplistic nor untrue. The natural law, basic morality,
comes first. One must always obey one's conscience. There is much
dispute about natural law, but much of it is obvious to those who study
it. In any event each is responsible for ones own actions and is
obliged to act according to an enlightened conscience inasmuch as one is
able.
The Bible at times may be an aid to understanding the natural law and
Jesus presents the best approach: LOVE OUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF. The
Bible has lots of errors and is often unclear. Interpretations abound
and those who claim to know everything are full of excrement. Our Lord
himself uses this expression a bit differently.
mot
news:6lf6h39mas5fr56uu...@4ax.com
> x-no-archive: yes
> On Sun, 14 Oct 2007 20:51:25 -0700, "Aaron Kim" <aa...@artbulla.com>
> wrote:
> © 2007 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
> may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
>>An atheist in a reply to a post of mine quoted the following:
>>
>
>
>>"Morality is doing what is right, no matter what you're told. Religion
>>is doing what you're told, not matter what is right." - Jerry
>>Sturdivant
>
> ^ ^ ^ Simplistic and untrue! All Christians-- whether they know it
Simplistic, yes, extremely true. When xians see a person with a white
dog collar, and make the mistaken assumption that that person actually
knows the bible, the ability to question goes off.
> or not-- are entitled, and OBLIGATED to compare what the pastor is
Not according to Saul, it's strictly what he says that you are to follow.
It's not for nothing that xians or referred to as sheep, and the pastor
their shepherd. Considering the mentality of most xians during a church
service, that's a very apt description.
> saying to the Bible. If the pastor deviates from clear scripture, the
> congregant is entitled to disregard such teaching.
Again, not according to the dogma of the xian churches. This is
established by Saul, in his teachings. Perhaps you would do better, if
you spoke about things you actually know, instead of things you assume,
because that's what you want to hear.
> The rub comes from atheists believing that they know better than God
> does what is right and what is wrong.
Most odd, you other one who keeps telling everybody what god really means
in spite of the reading of your holy Scriptures, the Greek Testament that
is. Xianity does not really have a holy Scripture as such, but must
borrow the Hebrew bible to get one.
> Christians believe that God is benevolent, and that He would not lead
> us astray.
You can say most xians, you can say many xians, if you want to insult the
world, you can say this xian. But you do not speak for xianity, just as
you do not speak for your god. There are xians for the past in xians
today who believe that the god of the xian text is one very evil
individual. I suppose they have ethical considerations that xians at
large, do not have, such as that eternal punishment thing. Love me or
die and fry for ever is not benevolent. It is, however, indicative of a
slave mentality, where what ever the boss says is right, no matter how
abhorrent. Still, the fear factor works well on many, it helps keep them
in the congregation and subsidizing the existence of a preacher.
> I know atheists in the past have thought it was "morally wrong" for
> Christians to proselytize AT ALL.
It is. It works like this, following your golden rule, which is not
really a golden rule, but not a bad place to start.
You would not want a person of a different mythology to continuously
bombarded your ears with information that you could really care less
about, information, you know to be wrong. After all, you believe your
god is really the one, never mind there are over 25,000 of the critters.
And they can all be right. But they can all be wrong.
Now if you don't want something done to you, why in the hell would you do
it to anybody else? Because you're unethical, and you live with a double
standard. And regardless of what my mythology is or is not, it's ethical
standard that I must live up to, one which says you will not interfere
with the way another human being believes in a deity, any deity. That
includes the evil ones such as yours. Xians make the mistake of trying
to separate their deities into a multifaceted marvel. They can't. The
theology the claim for the authority of xianity says this will not
happen. This does not stop them from trying, but ethically,
theologically, and legally is never going to happen. According to the
foundational documents.
> Nonsense! If an atheist can openly share his views that Christians
> are morons (I hear that one frequently), the Christian is entitled to
I can believe you hear that one frequently, because you act like a moron.
But with that obvious comment aside, when you act like a moron, you are
entitled to be called a moron. When you pretend everybody should share
your make-believe world, you are being a moron. And therefore, entitled
to be called a moron. When you attempt to engage people of different
mythology is a convince them. You really know more than you possibly
can, your again earn the right to be called a moron.
What this means is you are assuming everybody that rejects your
patronizing errors and implied, but never verified superiority of
mythology, is an atheist. Quite frequently, this is impossible. Due to
the low percentage of the atheist in the United States population.
Therefore, again, you have a earned the right and entitlement of being
called a moron. Our task to say, that the people who call you a moron or
spot on.
> defend his views, and he is entitled to present the Gospel accurately.
Defend your views, but all means. However, you have yet to present the
gospel accurately, because you do not know what it really is. I have
seen people ask you simple theological questions that you avoid, you
avoid at breakneck speed. Normally by pretending you never saw the
message. So they make it easy for you, what is the theological message
behind Matthew, who was it written for, why was it written, and why do we
know it's inaccurate? No, not you, scholars and those that have listened
to and questioned scholars.
> john w
Are you done playing now?
Möt
NOs...@no.spam
wrote:
>
> Nonsense! If an atheist can openly share his views that Christians
>are morons (I hear that one frequently), the Christian is entitled to
>defend his views, and he is entitled to present the Gospel accurately.
>
>
>john w
Yes- ACCURATELY being the operative word here, John. YOU DON'T present
it accurately, but instead you try to make it say 'what you want it
to'.
You TWIST Scripture to suit your own evil agenda.
You presume 'to teach' when you have no proper credentials.
You claim to have 'a message from God', yet out of your mouth comes
some of the WORST blasphemies ever heard.
You claimed to be 'one of God's end-time prophets', but were proven a
FALSE PROPHET.
Is it any wonder, then, why so many people distrust everything you
say?
As the old saying goes:
"You can fool some of the people some of the time, but you can't fool
everybody."
When P.T. Barnum coined that famous comment about 'a sucker being born
every minute' - he was right on.
Anyone who believes you is a sucker, and being SADLY MISLED.
NOs...@no.spam
>
>Not according to Saul, it's strictly what he says that you are to follow.
>It's not for nothing that xians or referred to as sheep, and the pastor
>their shepherd. Considering the mentality of most xians during a church
>service, that's a very apt description.
>
Good morning, Mot:
I must respectfully disagree a bit here--- Many Christians attend
Church services because they DO love the Lord. Certainly, there are
phonies in any congregation, however.... the super-pious,
self-righteous kind who wouldn't say "shit' even if their mouth was
full of it.
The Bible-wavers, the arm-wavers, the holier-than-thou types sicken
me.
That performance, I honestly feel, does NO good to real Christianity,
but only serves to turn a lot of people from it.
God loves the plain, the simple, unfeigned worship, and that's good
enough for this kid!! :o)
<A John 3:16 Whosoever>
> God loves the plain, the simple, unfeigned worship
Sure, God wants unfeigned worship. Worship that's plain and simple is
also good in it's proper time and place. But don't forget that David
worshipped so fervently that he danced his clothes off - and David was
a man after God's own heart.
NOs...@no.spam
wrote:
>(as Elaine the Insane once commented)
You get all hot and bothered whenever someone calls 'you' a name, but
you imagine it's fine for 'you' to do so, huh Johnnie?
That's okay- call me all the silly names you like. They mean nothing.
ujb
> x-no-archive: yes
> On Mon, 15 Oct 2007 09:40:55 -0400, NOs...@no.spam wrote:
> © 2007 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
> may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
> called me a liar, a false prophet, and a deceiver!
>
> All of which are true!
>
--
DISCLAIMER:
This article is
posted under
fair use rules
in accordance
with
Title 17 U.S.C.
Section 107,
and is strictly
for the
educational
and informative
purposes. This
material is
distributed
with little or
no profit.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
The Nolalu Barn Owl
What have these errors have to do with Catholicism?
Ašherah
news:6sc7h3hoo63a24hrh...@4ax.com:
> x-no-archive: yes
> On Mon, 15 Oct 2007 13:11:52 +0000 (UTC), mot <m...@eat.mud> wrote:
> © 2007 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
> may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
>>john w <johnw<no>@yahoo.com>
>>news:6lf6h39mas5fr56uu...@4ax.com
>>
>>> x-no-archive: yes
>>> On Sun, 14 Oct 2007 20:51:25 -0700, "Aaron Kim" <aa...@artbulla.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> © 2007 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this
>>> post
>>> may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
>>>>"Morality is doing what is right, no matter what you're told.
>>>>Religion is doing what you're told, not matter what is right." -
>>>>Jerry Sturdivant
>>>
>>> ^ ^ ^ Simplistic and untrue! All Christians-- whether they know it
>>
>>Simplistic, yes, extremely true. When xians see a person with a white
>>dog collar, and make the mistaken assumption that that person actually
>>knows the bible, the ability to question goes off.
>
> You're talking to the wrong person! I don't follow "men with white
> dog collars." I also don't follow men who wear funny hats and dresses
> (as Elaine the Insane once commented)
Actually, for you do is follow the teachings of the men in the white dog
collars, as well as those that wear funny hats and dresses. Your dogma
is derived from or in opposition to their teachings. Just like your
prohibition against suicide, has nothing to do with Greek Testament's.
Or the Hebrew bible come to that. It's strictly a Roman catholic
teaching, and you support it because, you don't have the balls to take
the journey. Or if you do, I'm sure they have been borrowed or rented
for the occasion.
>>> or not-- are entitled, and OBLIGATED to compare what the pastor is
>>
>>Not according to Saul, it's strictly what he says that you are to
>>follow.
>
> You're confused!
No, Möt is not confused, but you are evidently are.
> Saul wrote part of what is known today as the Bible.
Saul wrote part, assuming he even existed, of the Greek Testament.
Scholars do not refer to it as the bible. There's a reason for that.
> What I said was that we are to compare what our preachers say TODAY
> with the Bible (what Saul wrote part of). Paul is infallible (he
> wrote in the Spirit). What the pastor/priest/rabbi says is not
> infallible.
When you don't know what you're talking about, it doesn't matter what you
say. Here, it is patent and obvious you do not know of what you are
trying to contend, you know.
> And I won't talk to you anymore. You have been VERY insulting!
Sure, you will, and insulting, the truth is often insulting to people
like you. People that pretend to be more than they ever can be. Do not
like having their fallacies and shortcomings being made public.
I believe I will leave what Möt has written, I like it. And of course,
you could not rebut it.
Ašherah of the Council of el.
Möt
news:i0d7h3ldgjke8kib2...@4ax.com:
> x-no-archive: yes
> On Mon, 15 Oct 2007 09:46:50 -0400, NOs...@no.spam wrote:
> © 2007 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
> may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
>>On Mon, 15 Oct 2007 13:11:52 +0000 (UTC), mot <m...@eat.mud> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>Not according to Saul, it's strictly what he says that you are to
>>>follow. It's not for nothing that xians or referred to as sheep, and
>>>the pastor their shepherd. Considering the mentality of most xians
>>>during a church service, that's a very apt description.
>>>
>>Good morning, Mot:
>>
>>I must respectfully disagree a bit here--- Many Christians attend
>>Church services because they DO love the Lord.
>
> Certainly, there are
>>phonies in any congregation,
>
> True enough, Insane Elaine! You are a phony!
As phony as you, a concept that would be hard to believe. But even
stranger, why is it you must bust into other people's conversations as if
you were an invited party, make derogatory comments, and expect
accolades. You certainly are narcissistic.
> however.... the super-pious,
>>self-righteous kind who wouldn't say "shit' even if their mouth was
>>full of it.
>
> And you who criticize me to the extreme for using "ugly words"; you
> just used an ugly word!
But unlike you, she did not use it to reference a person and pretend it
was a characteristic of them.
> (I suppose we're back to -- if YOU say the ugly word, it's ok! It's
> not)
Suppose anything you want to, it does not make it. You're very good with
strawmen, except there are so transparent.
>>The Bible-wavers, the arm-wavers, the holier-than-thou types sicken
>>me.
> You're one!
One what xian?
> You are CONSTANTLY -- DAILY -- preaching you are "holier than thou
> (John Weatherly )
Yes, you're always trying to imply that not only are you holier than
thou, but your gods love you more, because you are so smart and special.
Of course, you can establish that as valid, or even supposedly correct.
But then, there are very few things that you can establish other than you
are a liar and lack knowledge. In many fields that you claim to be
knowledgeable in.
> AGAIN, I guess you mean it's ok if YOU do it!
Your strawman, guess anything you want to.
> (that's called being "double-minded!" or a "hypocrite")
No, that would be be called a Weatherly. A hypocrite comes to mind
whenever I see your name.
>>
>>That performance, I honestly feel, does NO good to real Christianity,
>>but only serves to turn a lot of people from it.
>
> You may never know how many people you turn away from
> Christianity!
She would have to work real hard to even think about catching up with
you.
>>
>> God loves the plain, the simple, unfeigned worship,
>
> In other words, NOT what YOU do!
I doubt you have ever seen the lady in the privacy of her worship. That
means, you are simply a liar. Bald-faced, ordinary, routine, typical
xian liar. And you know your gods don't love you anymore, or they are
extremely stupid. Take your pick.
> and that's good
>>enough for this kid!! :o)
Möt
Möt
news:6sc7h3hoo63a24hrh...@4ax.com:
> x-no-archive: yes
> On Mon, 15 Oct 2007 13:11:52 +0000 (UTC), mot <m...@eat.mud> wrote:
> © 2007 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
> may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
>>john w <johnw<no>@yahoo.com>
>>news:6lf6h39mas5fr56uu...@4ax.com
>>
>>> x-no-archive: yes
>>> On Sun, 14 Oct 2007 20:51:25 -0700, "Aaron Kim" <aa...@artbulla.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> © 2007 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this
>>> post
>>> may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
snip
>>>>"Morality is doing what is right, no matter what you're told.
>>>>Religion is doing what you're told, not matter what is right." -
>>>>Jerry Sturdivant
>>>
>>> ^ ^ ^ Simplistic and untrue! All Christians-- whether they know it
>>
>>Simplistic, yes, extremely true. When xians see a person with a white
>>dog collar, and make the mistaken assumption that that person actually
>>knows the bible, the ability to question goes off.
>
> You're talking to the wrong person! I don't follow "men with white
> dog collars." I also don't follow men who wear funny hats and dresses
> (as Elaine the Insane once commented)
But you do follow men with white dog collars, and when you say what you
want to hear, you wag your tail and congratulate yourself on finding a
real preacher.
Your dogma is directly derived arrived from the Roman Catholic teachings,
and either supports it, or denies it.
A rather well-known example being the prohibition against suicide.
Strictly a Roman Catholic doctrine adopted by people like you, that did
not have the nerve to find out if what they believe is true.
>>> or not-- are entitled, and OBLIGATED to compare what the pastor is
>>
>>Not according to Saul, it's strictly what he says that you are to
>>follow.
>
> You're confused!
Not at all, you see, I have studied your mythology. I understand that
that is blasphemous to people like you, but I really don't care.
> Saul wrote part of what is known today as the Bible.
Saul, should he have lived, wrote some epistles and was the foundational
driving force behind the tragedy that is currently called xianity. What
you call the bible is in fact, the Greek Testament, which requires the
Hebrew bible for its authority. Yours, is an entirely separate document,
series of documents really, in direct violation of the command of Yahweh.
People like you like to pretend the command does not apply to them, but
Yahweh does not make any exceptions. Not even for you.
> What I said was that we are to compare what our preachers say TODAY
> with the Bible (what Saul wrote part of). Paul is infallible (he
> wrote in the Spirit). What the pastor/priest/rabbi says is not
> infallible.
It does not matter what you say, when what you say has no foundation in
reality.
> And I won't talk to you anymore. You have been VERY insulting!
You say that like it's a bad thing, I don't believe it is. You can stand
there with your lower lip pushed out and a tear in your eye past the end
of eternity for all of me. Your childish tantrums are anything but
impressive, they are just as an unimpressive as your demonstrations of
theological, historical, societal, mythological pretensions of adequacy.
All you can do is run, you could not even rebut the following. You don't
even know where to start to try, let alone how.
You really are stupid, it's stupid is as stupid does, you have to wear a
tape player with an endless loop and a 20 year battery. And all that
would be on its, would be, breathe in, breathe out. Even then, you would
lose track of what you're supposed to be doing.
che...@flapper.net
wrote:
>>> "Morality is doing what is right, no matter what you're told. Religion is
>>> doing what you're told, not matter what is right." - Jerry Sturdivant
>[someone got a copyright for above, good luck fighting for that!]
>>
>> ^ ^ ^ Simplistic and untrue! All Christians-- whether they know it
>> or not-- are entitled, and OBLIGATED to compare what the pastor is
>> saying to the Bible. If the pastor deviates from clear scripture, the
>> congregant is entitled to disregard such teaching.
>>
>This is not simplistic nor untrue.
1 Thess 5:19-22
19 Do not quench the Spirit. 20 Do not despise prophecies. 21 Test all
things; hold fast what is good. 22 Abstain from every form of evil.
NKJV
It IS both simplistic and untrue. We are indeed supposed to TEST all
things, including the things the pastors tell us, and the proper
"measuring stick" IS the Bible.
2 Tim 3:16-4:1
16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for
doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in
righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly
equipped for every good work.
NKJV
That IS what scripture is for.
>The natural law, basic morality, comes first.
Who says? Dog eat dog (natural law, not immoral for dogs) comes
first? Who are YOU to decide what is "basically moral?" Is it
basically moral to kill infants in the womb? Is it basically moral to
kill old men who hurt all day, every day? (Beware, that last one is a
trick question!) Does each individual have the right to decide for
him/herself what is "basically moral" for everyone?
>One must always obey one's conscience.
So if you are a druggy in need of a fix, it is okay for you to steal
to get money to pay for your drugs? Your conscience may fluxuate with
your needs, moods, and/or environment.
>There is much
>dispute about natural law, but much of it is obvious to those who study
>it. In any event each is responsible for ones own actions and is
>obliged to act according to an enlightened conscience inasmuch as one is
>able.
Everyone IS responsible for his own actions, and the measuring stick
from God is NOT your conscience. SCRIPTURE does not change. Your
moods, feelings, needs, and environment (all of which affect your
conscience in different ways) DO. RIGHT remains RIGHT, and does not
change with your mood, feelings, needs, or environment.
>
>The Bible at times may be an aid to understanding the natural law and
>Jesus presents the best approach: LOVE OUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF.
Concerning your neighbor, yes. How about concerining the unborn
babies? Do you love them? Or is it just more convenient to kill one
so you don't have to pay child support? Or so you don't have your
social life interrupted?
How about the old man? Kill him so you don't have to spoon-feed the
doddering old guy? So he doesn't use up your inheritance in medical
bills.
>The
>Bible has lots of errors and is often unclear. Interpretations abound
>and those who claim to know everything are full of excrement. Our Lord
>himself uses this expression a bit differently.
The Bible has only a few translational errors in each translation and
can be figured out. Your excuse is simply false. Jesus quoted the OT
and called it "the word of God." You are just looking for excuses to
pretend you won't be judged by the Bible. Your excuses are either
from ignorance or from slothfulness and rebellion.
in the Name of Jesus,
Checker
che...@flapper.net
>john w <johnw<no>@yahoo.com>
>news:6lf6h39mas5fr56uu...@4ax.com
>
>> x-no-archive: yes
>> On Sun, 14 Oct 2007 20:51:25 -0700, "Aaron Kim" <aa...@artbulla.com>
>> wrote:
>> © 2007 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
>> may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
>>>An atheist in a reply to a post of mine quoted the following:
>>>
>>
>>
>>>"Morality is doing what is right, no matter what you're told. Religion
>>>is doing what you're told, not matter what is right." - Jerry
>>>Sturdivant
>>
>> ^ ^ ^ Simplistic and untrue! All Christians-- whether they know it
>
>Simplistic, yes, extremely true. When xians see a person with a white
>dog collar, and make the mistaken assumption that that person actually
>knows the bible, the ability to question goes off.
That is a lie that atheists often make. The TRUTH is that we
Christians are just as smart as you, and that we DO check what our
pastors say, whether they wear white collars or sports shirts.
>
>> or not-- are entitled, and OBLIGATED to compare what the pastor is
>
>Not according to Saul, it's strictly what he says that you are to follow.
>It's not for nothing that xians or referred to as sheep, and the pastor
>their shepherd. Considering the mentality of most xians during a church
>service, that's a very apt description.
Paul (Saul) said:
1 Thess 5:19-23
19 Do not quench the Spirit. 20 Do not despise prophecies. 21 Test all
things; hold fast what is good. 22 Abstain from every form of evil.
NKJV
Clearly, you do not know your Bible OR what Paul said.
And your ASSUMPTION that Christians are stupid is only a reflection on
yourself and your willingness to accept stereotypes that do not
reflect reality.
>
>> saying to the Bible. If the pastor deviates from clear scripture, the
>> congregant is entitled to disregard such teaching.
>
>Again, not according to the dogma of the xian churches.
CITE this dogma or admit you don't have a CLUE concerning the things
you are talking about!
>This is
>established by Saul, in his teachings. Perhaps you would do better, if
>you spoke about things you actually know, instead of things you assume,
>because that's what you want to hear.
As I have already demonstrated, YOU are speaking of things YOU are
assuming because that is what YOU want to hear, instead of the FACTS.
1 Thess 5:19-23
19 Do not quench the Spirit. 20 Do not despise prophecies. 21 Test all
things; hold fast what is good. 22 Abstain from every form of evil.
NKJV
SCRIPTURE is the measure by which we measure.
>
>> The rub comes from atheists believing that they know better than God
>> does what is right and what is wrong.
>
>Most odd, you other one who keeps telling everybody what god really means
>in spite of the reading of your holy Scriptures, the Greek Testament that
>is. Xianity does not really have a holy Scripture as such, but must
>borrow the Hebrew bible to get one.
LOL! So you don't know the languages of the Bible, don't know what we
have, and have no CLUE as to the actual content of the Bible in
English OR in the original languages.
It figures. You have vague stereotypical ideas of what Christians
believe and you have lots of OPINIONS about those ideas, yet you do
NOT HAVE THE FACTS.
You are blowing smoke in the wind.
>
>> Christians believe that God is benevolent, and that He would not lead
>> us astray.
>
>You can say most xians, you can say many xians, if you want to insult the
>world, you can say this xian. But you do not speak for xianity, just as
>you do not speak for your god.
Who are YOU to decide who we speak for?
And who do YOU speak for? Yourself and nobody else, apparently.
>There are xians for the past in xians
>today who believe that the god of the xian text is one very evil
>individual.
You clearly don't even know what a Christian is. A Christian is (by
definition) a follower of Jesus Christ, the Jesus Christ of the Bible.
NO Christian believes that the God of the Christian Bible is an evil
individual. You have simply shown yourself to be a LIAR here. And
not even a convincing liar!
>I suppose they have ethical considerations that xians at
>large, do not have, such as that eternal punishment thing. Love me or
>die and fry for ever is not benevolent. It is, however, indicative of a
>slave mentality, where what ever the boss says is right, no matter how
>abhorrent. Still, the fear factor works well on many, it helps keep them
>in the congregation and subsidizing the existence of a preacher.
Your intentional misrepresentation of our beliefs shows the dishonesty
of your perverted mind. Your conscience tells you that lying is
right? You have proven my case, right here.
I <snipped> the rest as not worth reading. I try not to waste my time
on such liars as you. I will send you to my killfile after I send
this post off.
NOs...@no.spam
wrote:
>
>
> So much for your promise to stop name-calling!
JOHNNIE is merely another way of saying JOHN....especially children.
Since you act as a child, Johnnie is all the more fitting, and
therefore, proper.
There will be no further discussion on this matter, Johnnie.
Aaron Kim
news:1192422235.9...@k35g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
> On Oct 14, 8:51 pm, "Aaron Kim" <aa...@artbulla.com> wrote:
>> An atheist in a reply to a post of mine quoted the following:
>>
>> "Morality is doing what is right, no matter what you're told. Religion is
>> doing what you're told, not matter what is right." - Jerry Sturdivant
>
> Christians aren't, either. Art Bulla teaches religion, just another
> kind. A little of this, a little of that, a little Mormonism, a
> little idol worship, alot of cultism.
I testify that Art is a true Prophet of God and not a cultist. You probably
would have wanted to straitjacket Jesus and all the prophets and Apostles.
"If the claims of the Church are to be understood as story rather than
history, then authority in the Church will eventually pass from the Brethren
to the scholars, just as it happened in ancient Israel and in the early
Christian Church. For if the scholars know the "objective truth" about the
Book of Mormon through their research while the "benighted Brethren" are
still struggling under a false perspective and with archaic interpretations,
then modern revelation and authority are just part of the myth, part of our
"salvation history," and we, like the ancient Church, will ultimately
abandon the idea of living prophets and turn to scholars for the "truth."
God help us if it comes to that. "
(Monte S. Nyman and Charles D. Tate, Jr., eds., Second Nephi: The Doctrinal
Structure, p.403)
Paul advised the people to whom he wrote to try the spirits, whether
they were of God or not; and one of the signs-a most important one in that
day-was whether the spirit would confess that Jesus was the Christ. That was
the crucial test in those days because Jesus had been born a little while
before and had been crucified, and He was denounced as an impostor and a man
worthy of death. Therefore, the Apostle could well say, "Every spirit that
confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God." (1 John 4:2.)
But that rule would not apply today with the same force that it did then
because the belief in Jesus is almost universal. Times have changed. Jesus
is now accepted, and there are comparatively few men who will openly avow
their unbelief in Jesus. But the same reasons exist now for trying the
spirits that did then to see whether they are of God or not.
I hope no one will think I am sacrilegious or that I am lowering my
Savior when I say that when I hear a man confess that Joseph Smith is a
Prophet I think he has some of the Spirit of God within him, because it is a
good deal of a test nowadays. A man who will admit that a man who lived such
a life as Joseph Smith is reported to have lived and died such a death as he
did is a Prophet of God satisfies me as to whether he is speaking by the
Spirit of God or not.
Tests vary according to times and circumstances. That which might have
been
a very excellent test 1900 years ago might not be so much of a test now. Yet
when a man today confesses Jesus he does speak by the Spirit of God. There
is no doubt about that. That has not changed. It is the Spirit of God that
prompts men to acknowledge Jesus, just as much now as it ever did. But it is
not such a test now as it was in ancient days. There were very few then that
dare do it; and whenever they did it, they did it, it may be said, almost
with the fear of their lives before them, because the whole world was
arrayed against the Savior and ready to pounce upon any man who acknowledged
Him to be the Son of God.
(George Q. Cannon, Gospel Truth: Discourses and Writings of President George
Q. Cannon, selected, arranged, and edited by Jerreld L. Newquist, p.145)
Aaron Kim
news:mgr6h3916tnfmt955...@4ax.com...
Great but you still need the Priesthood.
<A John 3:16 Whosoever>
> I testify that Art is a true Prophet of God and not a cultist. You probably
> would have wanted to straitjacket Jesus and all the prophets and Apostles.
You do? LOL! And exactly who are you in the scheme of things other
than someone who was vulnerable to a cult-leader like Bulla and was
led willingly?
Give me the testimony of someone who is non-biased, theologically
grounded, and has the gift of discernment, not a kid who is being
hoodwinked by a slick used-car salesman.
> You probably
> would have wanted to straitjacket Jesus and all the prophets and Apostles.
Art Bulla and the Lord Jesus Christ, the Messiah, and Savior of
mankind are not one in the same, Aaron. You may hold Bulla in high
esteem, but I assure you, he's no Messiah (much less a prophet). No
Aaron, as the Scripture says, "My sheep know My voice, and I know
them, and they follow Me" (John 10:27). As one of Jesus' sheep, I
assure you, I would NOT "have wanted to straitjacket Jesus".
<snipped Mormon propaganda>
NOs...@no.spam
wrote:
>
> Sorry! I forgot the 'lainie!
>
> And again, you don't have my permission to call me nicknames,
>psycho!
>
>john w
Yes, I must remember to check myself on that habit, johnnie.
'The Psycho Bitch'
NOs...@no.spam
wrote:
><NOs...@no.spam> wrote in message
Oh? What kind are you referring to?
If it's the roman priesthood, you're in the wrong pew.
As Christians, WE ARE ALL PRIESTS, according to the Bible God gave
us.
mot
Thought it was time to remind everybody, that he neither thinks in English,
nor speaks very well in English and is perfect confirming that for
everybody else. Let us examine his following example to be a suck up and
make brownie points as well as narcissistic points into same time.
From: john w <johnw<no>@yahoo.com>
Newsgroups:
alt.religion.christian.baptist,alt.religion.christian.catholic,alt.religion
.christian.presbyterian,alt.religion.christian.biblestudy,alt.religion.chri
stianity
Subject: Re: Difference Between Priesthood and Priestcraft
Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2007 11:58:43 -0700
Message-ID: <9d2ah31nbofqfcgii...@4ax.com>
References: <5ng6e2F...@mid.individual.net>
<6lf6h39mas5fr56uu...@4ax.com> <Xns99CA45933D176mot@
127.0.0.1> <32k9h359s0ua8het8...@4ax.com>
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 2.0/32.652
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 000781-2, 10/15/2007), Outbound message
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
Lines: 141
Organization: Qwest Communications Corporation
NNTP-Posting-Host: 36c75e71.news.qwest.net
X-Trace: DXC=OA2VTi7GD_O1h:6<=6UNIJF85SKJoGf>Dkb<T>OR?eCOgRiX5Ran0@KSkXT
\\;jgJJ3o<SQQiQGTCPdaRHl]LQmFiZ_b3Ub=nHI
X-Complaints-To: ab...@qwest.net
> x-no-archive: yes
> On Tue, 16 Oct 2007 09:05:50 -0600, che...@flapper.net wrote:
> Š 2007 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
> may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
>>On Mon, 15 Oct 2007 13:11:52 +0000 (UTC), mot <m...@eat.mud> wrote:
>>
>>>john w <johnw<no>@yahoo.com>
>>>news:6lf6h39mas5fr56uu...@4ax.com
>>>
>>>> x-no-archive: yes
>>>> On Sun, 14 Oct 2007 20:51:25 -0700, "Aaron Kim"
>>>> <aa...@artbulla.com> wrote:
>>>> Š 2007 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this
>>>> post
>>>> may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
>>>>>An atheist in a reply to a post of mine quoted the following:
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"Morality is doing what is right, no matter what you're told.
>>>>>Religion is doing what you're told, not matter what is right." -
>>>>>Jerry Sturdivant
>>>>
>>>> ^ ^ ^ Simplistic and untrue! All Christians-- whether they know
>>>> it
>>>
>>>Simplistic, yes, extremely true. When xians see a person with a
>>>white dog collar, and make the mistaken assumption that that person
>>>actually knows the bible, the ability to question goes off.
>>
>>That is a lie that atheists often make.
>
> The correct word would be, "That is a lie that atheists often
> TELL."
Which of course, is a lie in of itself. This means you would have to know
more than one atheist. It is much is the average atheist is rather choosy
about his company he will keep, this leaves you out.
This creates an additional problem for your lie, because you are a known
liar, how could you find anybody else's lie.
And checker, can't say too much for ticker, but I can say he also is a liar
in this particular case. It requires you to know more than one atheist,
and as I have been to point out, if he is tend to be choosy about who they
will associate with. That leaves you and Johnny out.
If you had wanted to be honest, you would have said some thing along the
lines of, that is a lie many xians tell about atheists, especially xiann
like myself and Carl. But then, honesty, integrity, and truthfulness is
not associated with either one.
> The TRUTH is that we
>>Christians are just as smart as you, and that we DO check what our
>>pastors say, whether they wear white collars or sports shirts.
The truth is, people like you who happen to be xian are not as smart as
anybody else. Carl, is not even personal, you are a dunce in a parent
incapable of coherent rational original thought. You had demonstrated this
censure arrival on USENET, but you really are fragrant with it when you
attempt to post to the atheist newsgroup. Your line of argument is the
same as Johnny's, phony as a 9 1/2 dollar bill.
> ????? I thought you didn't consider me a Christian!
> you are double-minded and double-tongued,
> as well as being a hypocrite!
He didn't say xians like you, so quit trying to claim glory it is not
yours.
snip of two less than honest xians.
Which wannabe this time Johnny, the one who associate and the word xian is
uttered, it means him before anybody else can be considered? Your
arrogance indicative that could be exactly what you think. Again, assuming
you have the ability to think.
walksalone who were there and pretend to be as bright as Johnny pretends to
be, but I can demonstrate I know more than he does on just about any
subject. Well, maybe not not narcissism, he seems to be rewriting the book
on that one, and using his own definitions.
And now, a continuation of the life story of Johnny, also known as St. John
the liar, liar Johnny, and simply liar.
yes. Atheists have the innate ability to beleive whatever they choose. We
all have
that ability to choose what to believe. (Well, not all do. The feeble of
mind
don't, and they are also not condemned.) And that choice to not believe is
the sin
that condemns you to hell.john_se...@hotmail.com
mot
4ax.com in a burst of self-pity, as well as an attempt to justify his own
misconduct, wailed the following.
From: john w <johnw<no>@yahoo.com>
Newsgroups:
alt.religion.christian.baptist,alt.religion.christian.catholic,alt.religi
on.christian.presbyterian,alt.religion.christian.biblestudy,alt.religion.
christianity
Subject: Re: Difference Between Priesthood and Priestcraft
Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2007 11:50:56 -0700
Message-ID: <2s1ah3573nb8sddn4...@4ax.com>
References: <5ng6e2F...@mid.individual.net>
<6lf6h39mas5fr56uu...@4ax.com> <Xns99CA45933D176mot@
127.0.0.1> <6sc7h3hoo63a24hrh...@4ax.com>
<lhd7h3t5a6akt981s...@4ax.com>
<g4c8h3hsoipfqq2r0...@4ax.com>
<r0l9h3hsgce6fa9kb...@4ax.com>
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 2.0/32.652
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 000781-2, 10/15/2007), Outbound message
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
Lines: 36
Organization: Qwest Communications Corporation
NNTP-Posting-Host: 36c75e71.news.qwest.net
X-Trace: DXC=?cm5EkZQ7cKh:NJ7LPRBALF85SKJoGf>Dkb<T>OR?eCOgRiX5Ran0@KSkXT
\\;jgJJ3o<SQQiQGTCPdaRHl]LQmFiZ_b3Ub=nHI
X-Complaints-To: ab...@qwest.net
> x-no-archive: yes
> On Tue, 16 Oct 2007 11:10:19 -0400, NOs...@no.spam wrote:
> © 2007 John D Weatherly
>>On Mon, 15 Oct 2007 20:32:17 -0700, john w <johnw<no>@yahoo.com>
snip first whine
>>JOHNNIE is merely another way of saying JOHN....especially children.
>
> It's friendly! And you normally call someone that derivative WITH
> THEIR PERMISSION, and because you LIKE THEM.
You have yet to request to call anybody a derivative of their name, or
one of your so-called pet names. Of course, as narcissistic you are,
nobody would expect you to behave in a civil or proper manner when you
have a chance to belittle others.
> I've several times said you do not have my permission.
It does not matter what you say, nobody has given new permission to call
him anything but their name, the name they use on USENET. So not only do
you expect everybody to kiss your ass and bigger permission he call you
anything but St. John the liar, but you don't need their permission. I
realize you do not leave us what you said, but it is.
> And you would NEVER in a gazillion years say that you like me.
Something you don't realize, your gods do not like liars. Therefore,
there's no reason for anybody else to damn their supposed soul to hell.
> So for YOU, it's a term of derision! Of ridicule.
Just as he is for you, when you mutilate somebody is the name, or come up
with your special definitions of what they really should have been named.
You bitch about others doing it to you, but you are free to do it to
others with impunity. Or so you think
>>Since you act as a child, Johnnie is all the more fitting, and
>>therefore, proper.
>
> You are not in a state of maturity to call ANYONE a child!
If saying, you're totally unaware of. You can only judge others by your
state, and you know your state is definitely childish. But as long as
you're getting the attention, you do not care.
> Emotionally, mentally, you're about 10 years old!
If you are that old, everyone will be surprised. To include your so-
called and assumed friends. Friends like Ron Cohen.
>>There will be no further discussion on this matter, Johnnie.
> Stick it in your ear! You don't control me! You don't even control
She just did. And of course, your conduct verified that you are a
childish individual. This is not exactly a news bulletin to anybody has
watched you for a period of time.
> yourself. (that's one of the symptoms of your pathology/ you can't
> control yourself )
And that's why you are known is scrambled, narcissistic, liar, supposed
bipolar, but definitely somebody nobody would want to invite to supper.
After all, you might pee on the carpet.
which wannabe this time Johnny, the generic fruit loop they cannot decide
exactly what he wants to be today, so the pretense everybody else is what
he wants to be. You argue separate naturally nasty in habits and mouth,
and yes, I will say that you're not really anything but a wannabe.
Exactly which wannabe, nobody can guess. But what ever it is, most
people would want to avoid.
walksalone was not surprised the Johnnie would try to browbeat someone he
knows he cannot browbeat. He's never showed any indication of a having
learned to date, so there's no reason to suppose he will anytime soon.
St. John the liar theater. No this post is ridiculous enough as it is.
NOs...@no.spam
>johnnie wailed:
>> Stick it in your ear! You don't control me! You don't even control
>
>She just did. And of course, your conduct verified that you are a
>childish individual. This is not exactly a news bulletin to anybody has
>watched you for a period of time.
>
Right on, mot ----- I CONTROL johnnie. He doesn't yet have my
permission to stop reading my eloquent posts!
Now- if he had any brain power at all, he could simply refuse to read
and reply to me- but since he doesn't, he must be controlled like a
little marionette on the fancy strings.
See johnnie dance: Dance, johnnie, dance.
See johnnie skip: Skip, johnnie skip.
See johnnie run: RUN, johnnie, RUN.
Faster......
>> yourself. (that's one of the symptoms of your pathology/ you can't
>> control yourself )
>
>And that's why you are known is scrambled, narcissistic, liar, supposed
>bipolar, but definitely somebody nobody would want to invite to supper.
>After all, you might pee on the carpet.
>
We could always rub his nose in it to teach him to use the proper
facilities.
>which wannabe this time Johnny, the generic fruit loop they cannot decide
>exactly what he wants to be today, so the pretense everybody else is what
>he wants to be. You argue separate naturally nasty in habits and mouth,
>and yes, I will say that you're not really anything but a wannabe.
>Exactly which wannabe, nobody can guess. But what ever it is, most
>people would want to avoid.
>
---like a plague, no doubt!
>walksalone was not surprised the Johnnie would try to browbeat someone he
>knows he cannot browbeat. He's never showed any indication of a having
>learned to date, so there's no reason to suppose he will anytime soon.
>
Right on, AGAIN, mot.
He's not allowed to browbeat anyone else in here, let alone me.
We're all too strong for him. Daily he keeps on proving that.
>St. John the liar theater. No this post is ridiculous enough as it is.
hehehee!!!!!! :o)
walksalone
Decided to see if he could play copycat, which is perfectly legal, and
impress anybody decide himself. Even in this, alas, he is a failure.
It's not even likely he impressed himself for he knows that he is simply
playing parrot, one of his best learned skills
From: john w <johnw<no>@yahoo.com>
Newsgroups:
alt.religion.christian.baptist,alt.religion.christian.catholic,alt.religi
on.christian.presbyterian,alt.religion.christian.biblestudy,alt.religion.
christianity
Subject: Re: Difference Between Priesthood and Priestcraft
Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2007 22:38:57 -0700
Message-ID: <lasdh31nb17u4v8ok...@4ax.com>
References: <5ng6e2F...@mid.individual.net>
<6lf6h39mas5fr56uu...@4ax.com> <Xns99CA45933D176mot@
127.0.0.1> <32k9h359s0ua8het8...@4ax.com>
<9d2ah31nbofqfcgii...@4ax.com> <Xns99CCBBD0DC8B0mot@
85.114.133.75>
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 2.0/32.652
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 000782-1, 10/17/2007), Outbound message
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
Lines: 139
Organization: Qwest Communications Corporation
NNTP-Posting-Host: 9952ec21.news.qwest.net
X-Trace: DXC=@BTd\A0K9S:ZJj?dHY5:98F85SKJoGf>4TK<g:iAM8Q0gRiX5Ran0@;SkXT
\\;jgJ:3o<SQQiQGT3PdaRHl]LQm6?=UU;e?RaX<
X-Complaints-To: ab...@qwest.net
Snip
> Wow, dip! I see you have adopted the new "buzz" word!
No, you do not. The probability is that you are tired of having pointed
out to yourself, but all you can do is repeat what others have said. You
have tried to put a new shiny wrapper on it, but the same old same old
comes through.
Not to mention, the other individual is quite probably capable of
noticing that only idiots like you like buzzwords. It make you feel
special and in the know, even though it you haven't a clue.
Now wasn't there something you said about top posting being bad manners,
or is only bad manners if somebody else does it?
> smirk.
Then go change your diapers, but if you do you'll lose that warm
comfortable feeling, and it's really all you have. Narcissistic
personalities are like that, they think they are demonstrating how much
power they really have, when everybody knows they know nothing about the
use or handling of power.
snip
which wannabe this time Johnny, the one who cannot stand to be absent
from the spotlight, no matter how wrong he is. That's not exactly news
you know.
walksalone who has no doubt the Johnny thought he was very creative just
then, but then again, his ability to think is questionable at the best of
times.
And now, for another chapter of St. John the liar, the one who's going to
take everybody to live a court or something like that.
correct again. He is not a prophet. And I don't remember him ever
claiming to be
one.Unlike 95 % of those of you in this NG who want to criticize him, I
HAVE met
and talked with him.
john_seeks
walks...@dastardly.dirty.deeds.done.dirt.ceap
>On Thu, 18 Oct 2007 14:05:54 +0000 (UTC), mot <m...@eat.mud> wrote:
>>johnnie wailed:
snip
Elaine, that was me, I was fixing Möt's connection to the VPN that we
use for an IAP.
I do insist in signing my own name to my ;posts, would not want anyone
else to get the blame no would I?
>Right on, AGAIN, mot.
> He's not allowed to browbeat anyone else in here, let alone me. We're
>all too strong for him. Daily he keeps on proving that.
walksalone who has confused some, especially those that think everyone
else would act like they do or would.
Ašherah
> x-no-archive: yes
> On Tue, 16 Oct 2007 04:10:05 +0000 (UTC), "Ašherah" <Ašhe...@adat.el>
> wrote:
> © 2007 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
> may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
>>john w <johnw<no>@yahoo.com> wrote in
>>news:6sc7h3hoo63a24hrh...@4ax.com:
>>
>>> x-no-archive: yes
>>> On Mon, 15 Oct 2007 13:11:52 +0000 (UTC), mot <m...@eat.mud> wrote:
>>> © 2007 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this
>>> post
>>> may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
>>>>john w <johnw<no>@yahoo.com>
>>>>news:6lf6h39mas5fr56uu...@4ax.com
>>>>
>>>>> x-no-archive: yes
>>>>> On Sun, 14 Oct 2007 20:51:25 -0700, "Aaron Kim"
>>>>> <aa...@artbulla.com> wrote:
>>>>> © 2007 John D Weatherly
snip
>>> You're talking to the wrong person! I don't follow "men with
>>> white
>>> dog collars." I also don't follow men who wear funny hats and
>>> dresses (as Elaine the Insane once commented)
>>
>>Actually, for you do is follow the teachings of the men in the white
>>dog collars, as well as those that wear funny hats and dresses. Your
>>dogma is derived from or in opposition to their teachings.
>
> Actually, you are quite incorrect. My beliefs derive from the New
Which is at least a 3000 years after the Adat. Not to mention, man-made.
> Testament. The New Testament pre-dates the RCC and their false
> teachings by 300 years.
Yet, it does not. The two went together, and prior to the great split,
there was no RCC as such. Of course, it would help if you knew the
history of mythology, but you do not. Do you know much of anything?
> Just like your
>>prohibition against suicide, has nothing to do with Greek Testament's.
>> Or the Hebrew bible come to that.
> What "prohibition" against suicide? I have never expressed any
> belief that suicide is wrong!
It's part of the dogma of your mythology. You claim to be xian,and do not
understand this? one could anticipate this in somebody like yourself.
> It's strictly a Roman catholic
>>teaching, and you support it because, you don't have the balls to take
>>the journey.
>
> You are insane, and you are a liar!
And you are repetitive. But then, that's all you can do for you are a
small child who has just been told no and cannot stand the idea. It is
no fault of mine that you'd not understand your mythology, its
foundations, its history, or anything else about it. It's one thing to
profess to be a xian, and claim the right to be taken seriously, it's
quite another to act as you do.
che...@flapper.net
wrote:
>"<A John 3:16 Whosoever>" <kasey...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:1192422235.9...@k35g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
>> On Oct 14, 8:51 pm, "Aaron Kim" <aa...@artbulla.com> wrote:
>>> An atheist in a reply to a post of mine quoted the following:
>>>
>>> "Morality is doing what is right, no matter what you're told. Religion is
>>> doing what you're told, not matter what is right." - Jerry Sturdivant
>>
>> Quite true. Exactly why Jesus was not a religionist, and true
>> Christians aren't, either. Art Bulla teaches religion, just another
>> kind. A little of this, a little of that, a little Mormonism, a
>> little idol worship, alot of cultism.
>
>I testify that Art is a true Prophet of God and not a cultist. You probably
>would have wanted to straitjacket Jesus and all the prophets and Apostles.
I testify that art bulla is a FALSE prophet, NOT of God and is a
cultist. YOU would probably have shot Jesus, the Apostles, and all of
the prophets who condemn you and your false prophet, arty!
<snipped the mormon fiction> I'm not interested in your fiction.
>
> Paul advised the people to whom he wrote to try the spirits, whether
>they were of God or not;
He did indeed.
1 John 4:1-3
Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits , whether
they are of God; because many false prophets have gone out into the
world. 2 By this you know the Spirit of God: Every spirit that
confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God, 3 and
every spirit that does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the
flesh is not of God.
NKJV
Of course John is speaking of the REAL Jesus Christ, not the false
christs, the jesus of joe smith, one god amongst many other gods in
his make-believe system.
Joe's fiction:
PGP Abraham 4 (which he "translated" from a common funeral paparus
that had NOTHING to do with the text of that book)
1 And then the Lord said: Let us go down. And they went down at the
beginning, and they, that is the aGods, borganized and formed the
cheavens and the earth.
2 And the earth, after it was formed, was empty and desolate,
because they had not formed anything but the earth; and adarkness
reigned upon the face of the deep, and the Spirit of the Gods bwas
brooding upon the face of the waters.
3 And they (the Gods) said: Let there be light; and there was light.
4 And they (the Gods) comprehended the light, for it was abright;
and they divided the light, or caused it to be divided, from the
darkness.
5 And the Gods called the light Day, and the darkness they called
Night. And it came to pass that from the evening until morning they
called anight; and from the morning until the evening they called day;
and this was the first, or the beginning, of that which they called
day and night.
6 And the Gods also said: Let there be an aexpanse in the midst of
the waters, and it shall divide the waters from the waters.
7 And the Gods ordered the expanse, so that it divided the waters
which were under the expanse from the waters which were above the
expanse; and it was so, even as they ordered.
The Bible: (FACT, TRUTH)
Isa 43:10
10 "You are My witnesses," says the LORD,
"And My servant whom I have chosen,
That you may know and believe Me,
And understand that I am He.
Before Me there was no God formed,
Nor shall there be after Me.
NKJV
The Bible debunks joe smith and his (and arty's) make-believe jesus.
<snipped> the rest of the heretic's trash.
in the Name of Jesus (the REAL one, not joe smith and arty's
make-believe one),
Checker
che...@flapper.net
wrote:
><NOs...@no.spam> wrote in message
Not according to the God of the Bible. Only according to joe smith and
his real and (like you guys) self-invented followers.
I'll stick with the God of the Bible. You can go to the place He has
prepared for your father and you.
Checker
@there Vernono O
Is that a hood full of black priests?
che...@flapper.net
>Priesthood
>Is that a hood full of black priests?
>
No, that is where Joey Priest lives. . .
Checker
che...@flapper.net
wrote:
>x-no-archive: yes
>On Tue, 16 Oct 2007 09:05:50 -0600, che...@flapper.net wrote:
> Š 2007 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
>may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
>>On Mon, 15 Oct 2007 13:11:52 +0000 (UTC), mot <m...@eat.mud> wrote:
>>
>>>john w <johnw<no>@yahoo.com>
>>>news:6lf6h39mas5fr56uu...@4ax.com
>>>
>>>> x-no-archive: yes
>>>> On Sun, 14 Oct 2007 20:51:25 -0700, "Aaron Kim" <aa...@artbulla.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>> Š 2007 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
>>>> may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
>>>>>An atheist in a reply to a post of mine quoted the following:
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"Morality is doing what is right, no matter what you're told. Religion
>>>>>is doing what you're told, not matter what is right." - Jerry
>>>>>Sturdivant
>>>>
>>>> ^ ^ ^ Simplistic and untrue! All Christians-- whether they know it
>>>
>>>Simplistic, yes, extremely true. When xians see a person with a white
>>>dog collar, and make the mistaken assumption that that person actually
>>>knows the bible, the ability to question goes off.
>>
>>That is a lie that atheists often make.
>
> The correct word would be, "That is a lie that atheists often
>TELL."
>
> The TRUTH is that we
>>Christians are just as smart as you, and that we DO check what our
>>pastors say, whether they wear white collars or sports shirts.
>
> ????? I thought you didn't consider me a Christian!
> you are double-minded and double-tongued,
> as well as being a hypocrite!
Did I say I was including you as part of "we Christians?" Despite
your lying and calling names, I think you might be, but it appears you
don't take your meds and you keep lashing out at those of us who will
post to you at all!