John’s Farewell Greeting
Matt
John�s Farewell Greeting
12 Having many things to write to you, I did not wish to do so with
paper and ink; but I hope to come to you and speak face to face, that
our joy may be full.
13 The children of your elect sister greet you. Amen.
As I read this all I could think about is I wish there was a written
record of this conversation. Might have explained 2 John 1 in greater
detail.
God Bless
Matt
Randy �
In newsgroup "alt.bible",
Article <aqck45hk1oop42giq...@4ax.com>,
Matt <trdell1234@ns%gmail.com> wrote:
The idea that 2 John 1 is ambiguous, and therefore you can't
be held responsible for obeying it, is a lie:
Anyone who runs ahead and does not continue in the teaching of
Christ does not have God; whoever continues in the teaching
has both the Father and the Son. If anyone comes to you and
does not bring this teaching, do not take him into your house
or welcome him. Anyone who welcomes him shares in his wicked
work. (2 John 1:9-11 NIV)
If someone comes to "you", who does not abide in the doctrine
of Christ (for example, by publicly calling it "Anti-Christ"
and "Satan" and promoting a contrary doctrine from day to
day), do not receive or welcome such a person, or you will
share in his wicked works.
That you have seen what it says so many times, yet labored so
long to work your way around it, simply shows you are a
deliberate, rebellious liar.
--
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
______________________________________________
Sensi
> On Tue, 30 Jun 2009 07:49:49 -0800,
> In newsgroup "alt.bible",
> Article <aqck45hk1oop42giq...@4ax.com>,
> Matt <trdell1234@ns%gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>> 2 John 1
>>
>>
>> 12 Having many things to write to you, I did not wish to do so with
>> paper and ink; but I hope to come to you and speak face to face, that
>> our joy may be full.
>> 13 The children of your elect sister greet you. Amen.
>>
>>
>> As I read this all I could think about is I wish there was a written
>> record of this conversation. Might have explained 2 John 1 in greater
>> detail.
>>
>> God Bless
>
>
> The idea that 2 John 1 is ambiguous, and therefore you can't
> be held responsible for obeying it, is a lie:
>
> Anyone who runs ahead and does not continue in the teaching of
> Christ does not have God; whoever continues in the teaching
> has both the Father and the Son. If anyone comes to you and
> does not bring this teaching, do not take him into your house
> or welcome him.
Sensi:
What teaching in what house?
Randy �
In newsgroup "alt.bible",
Article <bqWdnSi45cPR39fX...@accessus.net>,
Sensi <sensi...@home.com> wrote:
>Randy � wrote:
>> On Tue, 30 Jun 2009 07:49:49 -0800,
>> In newsgroup "alt.bible",
>> Article <aqck45hk1oop42giq...@4ax.com>,
>> Matt <trdell1234@ns%gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> 2 John 1
>>>
>>> John�s Farewell Greeting
>>>
>>> 12 Having many things to write to you, I did not wish to do so with
>>> paper and ink; but I hope to come to you and speak face to face, that
>>> our joy may be full.
>>> 13 The children of your elect sister greet you. Amen.
>>>
>>>
>>> As I read this all I could think about is I wish there was a written
>>> record of this conversation. Might have explained 2 John 1 in greater
>>> detail.
>>>
>>> God Bless
>>
>>
>> The idea that 2 John 1 is ambiguous, and therefore you can't
>> be held responsible for obeying it, is a lie:
>>
>> Anyone who runs ahead and does not continue in the teaching of
>> Christ does not have God; whoever continues in the teaching
>> has both the Father and the Son. If anyone comes to you and
>> does not bring this teaching, do not take him into your house
>> or welcome him.
>
>
>Sensi:
>
>What teaching in what house?
Thanks for illustrating my point: You labor to make the plain
teaching of Scripture seem ambiguous or inapplicable, so you
can pretend like you're not responsible. Are we only to show
love or walk in the truth, or not welcome and show hospitality
to hereticks when we are in our local congregation, or our
house?
Even if we play along with your stupidity, where are you now?
In a garage, or public library? And what is that you're
reading and writing, if not teaching?
Dr. House
> On Tue, 30 Jun 2009 07:49:49 -0800,
> In newsgroup "alt.bible",
> Matt <trdell1234@ns%gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >2 John 1
>
> >John’s Farewell Greeting
>
> >12 Having many things to write to you, I did not wish to do so with
> >paper and ink; but I hope to come to you and speak face to face, that
> >our joy may be full.
> >13 The children of your elect sister greet you. Amen.
>
> >As I read this all I could think about is I wish there was a written
> >record of this conversation. Might have explained 2 John 1 in greater
> >detail.
>
> >God Bless
>
> The idea that 2 John 1 is ambiguous,
Why does it start with "The elder" rather than state it is from the
Apostle John?
Who is the chosen lady?
Who are her children?
How do you love someone "in the truth"?
Who are "some of your children"?
What is "walking in the truth"?
What is the command which is not new but old?
What is "walking in love"?
Who are these "many deceivers"?
What are the "teaching of Christ"?
What is the "wicked work"?
Who is "your chosen sister"?
Who are the children of "your chosen sister"?
All of 2 John is ambiguous and vague. The author didn't want to get
anybody killed if the letter fell into the wrong hands. That is why
it's in code.
> . . . and therefore you can't
> be held responsible for obeying it, is a lie:
Who said that?
> Anyone who runs ahead and does not continue in the teaching of
> Christ does not have God; whoever continues in the teaching
> has both the Father and the Son. If anyone comes to you and
> does not bring this teaching, do not take him into your house
> or welcome him. Anyone who welcomes him shares in his wicked
> work. (2 John 1:9-11 NIV)
>
> If someone comes to "you", who does not abide in the doctrine
> of Christ (for example, by publicly calling it "Anti-Christ"
> and "Satan" and promoting a contrary doctrine from day to
> day),
You cannot show what what "doctrine of Christ" is. All you can do is
assert what you believe it is, and hurt others based only on your
belief.
> . . . do not receive or welcome such a person, or you will
> share in his wicked works.
How do you know 2 John was not warning real Christians about people
like you? Look out the Trinitarians are coming. They will divide
Christianity, hunt down and murder the children of God.
> That you have seen what it says so many times, yet labored so
> long to work your way around it, simply shows you are a
> deliberate, rebellious liar.
"Liar" does not mean those who's views are different from yours.
Matt
wrote:
>On Tue, 30 Jun 2009 07:49:49 -0800,
> In newsgroup "alt.bible",
> Article <aqck45hk1oop42giq...@4ax.com>,
> Matt <trdell1234@ns%gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>2 John 1
>>
>>John�s Farewell Greeting
>>
>>12 Having many things to write to you, I did not wish to do so with
>>paper and ink; but I hope to come to you and speak face to face, that
>>our joy may be full.
>>13 The children of your elect sister greet you. Amen.
>>
>>
>>As I read this all I could think about is I wish there was a written
>>record of this conversation. Might have explained 2 John 1 in greater
>>detail.
>>
>>God Bless
>
>
>The idea that 2 John 1 is ambiguous, and therefore you can't
>be held responsible for obeying it, is a lie:
I did not say it did. All I said in this post was that I would have
liked to have heard that later conversation or read about it. I would
much rather have heard John explain it that Randy. Is that wrong?
>
>Anyone who runs ahead and does not continue in the teaching of
>Christ does not have God; whoever continues in the teaching
>has both the Father and the Son. If anyone comes to you and
>does not bring this teaching, do not take him into your house
>or welcome him. Anyone who welcomes him shares in his wicked
>work. (2 John 1:9-11 NIV)
>
>If someone comes to "you", who does not abide in the doctrine
>of Christ (for example, by publicly calling it "Anti-Christ"
>and "Satan" and promoting a contrary doctrine from day to
>day), do not receive or welcome such a person, or you will
>share in his wicked works.
>
>That you have seen what it says so many times, yet labored so
>long to work your way around it, simply shows you are a
>deliberate, rebellious liar.
I posted Scripture above and just wished I could have heard what John
remarks were. So where is the lie?
False witness is also a sin.
Matt
Dr. House
> On Tue, 30 Jun 2009 11:50:17 -0500,
> In newsgroup "alt.bible",
> Sensi <sensi4si...@home.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> >Randy ® wrote:
> >> On Tue, 30 Jun 2009 07:49:49 -0800,
> >> In newsgroup "alt.bible",
> >> Matt <trdell1234@ns%gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>> 2 John 1
>
> >>> John’s Farewell Greeting
>
> >>> 12 Having many things to write to you, I did not wish to do so with
> >>> paper and ink; but I hope to come to you and speak face to face, that
> >>> our joy may be full.
> >>> 13 The children of your elect sister greet you. Amen.
>
> >>> As I read this all I could think about is I wish there was a written
> >>> record of this conversation. Might have explained 2 John 1 in greater
> >>> detail.
>
> >>> God Bless
>
> >> The idea that 2 John 1 is ambiguous, and therefore you can't
> >> be held responsible for obeying it, is a lie:
>
> >> Anyone who runs ahead and does not continue in the teaching of
> >> Christ does not have God; whoever continues in the teaching
> >> has both the Father and the Son. If anyone comes to you and
> >> does not bring this teaching, do not take him into your house
> >> or welcome him.
>
> >Sensi:
>
> >What teaching in what house?
>
> Thanks for illustrating my point:
She illustrated that your antithesis is true.
> You labor to make the plain
> teaching of Scripture seem ambiguous or inapplicable,
There is no labor involved. Why is it you cannot point to these plain
teachings of Scripture?
> . . . so you
> can pretend like you're not responsible.
You have no idea what motivates other people. Assigning them evil or
bad motives is a sign that you cannot argue your case.
> Are we only to show
> love or walk in the truth, or not welcome and show hospitality
> to hereticks when we are in our local congregation, or our
> house?
What is this plain teaching "walk in the truth" mean? It can't mean
what it sounds like for so many of those who do "walk in the truth"
lie constantly. Is "walk in the truth" a euphemism for complete
dishonesty? Where is the crystal clarity?
> Even if we play along with your stupidity, where are you now?
What stupidity? You can't make a case so you attack the character of
anybody who has a different view.
> In a garage, or public library? And what is that you're
> reading and writing, if not teaching?
Carrot black no audio rule exhaustive fourth giant of when new by that
ink deal.
Oh, I thought we were playing the string random words together game.
Randy �
In newsgroup "alt.bible",
Article <tkhk45d9bimrrcgbb...@4ax.com>,
Matt <trdell1234@ns%gmail.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 30 Jun 2009 11:31:59 -0500, Randy � <pulpi...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 30 Jun 2009 07:49:49 -0800,
>> In newsgroup "alt.bible",
>> Article <aqck45hk1oop42giq...@4ax.com>,
>> Matt <trdell1234@ns%gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>2 John 1
>>>
>>>John�s Farewell Greeting
>>>
>>>12 Having many things to write to you, I did not wish to do so with
>>>paper and ink; but I hope to come to you and speak face to face, that
>>>our joy may be full.
>>>13 The children of your elect sister greet you. Amen.
>>>
>>>
>>>As I read this all I could think about is I wish there was a written
>>>record of this conversation. Might have explained 2 John 1 in greater
>>>detail.
>>>
>>>God Bless
>>
>>
>>The idea that 2 John 1 is ambiguous, and therefore you can't
>>be held responsible for obeying it, is a lie:
>
>I did not say it did.
I did not say you said it did. I simply said the idea it is,
or that you therefore can't be held responsible for obeying it
is a lie. I didn't put quote marks on it, and say those were
your words. If you are not promoting that idea, then it does
not apply.
>All I said in this post was that I would have
>liked to have heard that later conversation or read about it. I would
>much rather have heard John explain it that Randy. Is that wrong?
Is it not an implication that you do not yet understand what
it means, or have enough "detail" to come to a conclusion?
>>Anyone who runs ahead and does not continue in the teaching of
>>Christ does not have God; whoever continues in the teaching
>>has both the Father and the Son. If anyone comes to you and
>>does not bring this teaching, do not take him into your house
>>or welcome him. Anyone who welcomes him shares in his wicked
>>work. (2 John 1:9-11 NIV)
>>
>>If someone comes to "you", who does not abide in the doctrine
>>of Christ (for example, by publicly calling it "Anti-Christ"
>>and "Satan" and promoting a contrary doctrine from day to
>>day), do not receive or welcome such a person, or you will
>>share in his wicked works.
>>
>>That you have seen what it says so many times, yet labored so
>>long to work your way around it, simply shows you are a
>>deliberate, rebellious liar.
>I posted Scripture above and just wished I could have heard what John
>remarks were. So where is the lie?
There's enough "detail" in 2 John 1 for you to obey it. You
seem to be implying you haven't yet seen enough "detail" to
know what it means, or therefore obey what it says.
>False witness is also a sin.
Not disputed.
Dr. House
> On Tue, 30 Jun 2009 09:11:27 -0800,
> In newsgroup "alt.bible",
> Matt <trdell1234@ns%gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Tue, 30 Jun 2009 11:31:59 -0500, Randy ® <pulpitf...@gmail.com>
> >wrote:
>
> >>On Tue, 30 Jun 2009 07:49:49 -0800,
> >> In newsgroup "alt.bible",
> >> Matt <trdell1234@ns%gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>2 John 1
>
> >>>John’s Farewell Greeting
>
> >>>12 Having many things to write to you, I did not wish to do so with
> >>>paper and ink; but I hope to come to you and speak face to face, that
> >>>our joy may be full.
> >>>13 The children of your elect sister greet you. Amen.
>
> >>>As I read this all I could think about is I wish there was a written
> >>>record of this conversation. Might have explained 2 John 1 in greater
> >>>detail.
>
> >>>God Bless
>
> >>The idea that 2 John 1 is ambiguous, and therefore you can't
> >>be held responsible for obeying it, is a lie:
>
> >I did not say it did.
>
> I did not say you said it did.
Why do you refute positions that nobody here takes?
> I simply said the idea it is,
> or that you therefore can't be held responsible for obeying it
> is a lie.
Yet it has been demonstrated that your claim is false. 1 John is
indeed very ambiguous. How can someone obey what we can't even
understand?
> I didn't put quote marks on it, and say those were
> your words. If you are not promoting that idea, then it does
> not apply.
Why would you even bring it up?
> >All I said in this post was that I would have
> >liked to have heard that later conversation or read about it. I would
> >much rather have heard John explain it that Randy. Is that wrong?
>
> Is it not an implication that you do not yet understand what
> it means, or have enough "detail" to come to a conclusion?
You do not understand what 1 John means and you do not have enough
detail to come to a conclusion. Nobody does. Lying to yourself and
to others about this fact must be what you think "walking in truth"
means.
> >>Anyone who runs ahead and does not continue in the teaching of
> >>Christ does not have God; whoever continues in the teaching
> >>has both the Father and the Son. If anyone comes to you and
> >>does not bring this teaching, do not take him into your house
> >>or welcome him. Anyone who welcomes him shares in his wicked
> >>work. (2 John 1:9-11 NIV)
>
> >>If someone comes to "you", who does not abide in the doctrine
> >>of Christ (for example, by publicly calling it "Anti-Christ"
> >>and "Satan" and promoting a contrary doctrine from day to
> >>day), do not receive or welcome such a person, or you will
> >>share in his wicked works.
>
> >>That you have seen what it says so many times, yet labored so
> >>long to work your way around it, simply shows you are a
> >>deliberate, rebellious liar.
> >I posted Scripture above and just wished I could have heard what John
> >remarks were. So where is the lie?
>
> There's enough "detail" in 2 John 1 for you to obey it.
By doing whatever you _guess_ it means. Yeah, right.
> You
> seem to be implying you haven't yet seen enough "detail" to
> know what it means, or therefore obey what it says.
Your claim is false. Get it?
> >False witness is also a sin.
>
> Not disputed.
Good.
Sensi
> On Tue, 30 Jun 2009 11:50:17 -0500,
> In newsgroup "alt.bible",
> Article <bqWdnSi45cPR39fX...@accessus.net>,
> Sensi <sensi...@home.com> wrote:
>
>
>> Randy � wrote:
>>> On Tue, 30 Jun 2009 07:49:49 -0800,
>>> In newsgroup "alt.bible",
>>> Article <aqck45hk1oop42giq...@4ax.com>,
>>> Matt <trdell1234@ns%gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> 2 John 1
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 12 Having many things to write to you, I did not wish to do so with
>>>> paper and ink; but I hope to come to you and speak face to face, that
>>>> our joy may be full.
>>>> 13 The children of your elect sister greet you. Amen.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> As I read this all I could think about is I wish there was a written
>>>> record of this conversation. Might have explained 2 John 1 in greater
>>>> detail.
>>>>
>>>> God Bless
>>>
>>> The idea that 2 John 1 is ambiguous, and therefore you can't
>>> be held responsible for obeying it, is a lie:
>>>
>>> Anyone who runs ahead and does not continue in the teaching of
>>> Christ does not have God; whoever continues in the teaching
>>> has both the Father and the Son. If anyone comes to you and
>>> does not bring this teaching, do not take him into your house
>>> or welcome him.
>>
>> Sensi:
>>
>> What teaching in what house?
>
>
> Thanks for illustrating my point: You labor to make the plain
> teaching of Scripture seem ambiguous or inapplicable, so you
> can pretend like you're not responsible. Are we only to show
> love or walk in the truth, or not welcome and show hospitality
> to hereticks when we are in our local congregation, or our
> house?
>
That was legit question not meant by any means to be
ambiguous or inapplicable. It is a *REAL* question that
depends greatly on being responsible.
So where is this house? What does it look like?
> Even if we play along with your stupidity, where are you now?
> In a garage, or public library? And what is that you're
> reading and writing, if not teaching?
Sensi:
Why would it be stupid to ask you about this house you bring
up?
What house and where is it located?
Sensi
> On Jun 30, 9:31 am, Randy � <pulpitf...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 30 Jun 2009 07:49:49 -0800,
>> In newsgroup "alt.bible",
>> Article <aqck45hk1oop42giq6usblkbmsuu896...@4ax.com>,
>> Matt <trdell1234@ns%gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> 2 John 1
>>> 12 Having many things to write to you, I did not wish to do so with
>>> paper and ink; but I hope to come to you and speak face to face, that
>>> our joy may be full.
>>> 13 The children of your elect sister greet you. Amen.
>>> As I read this all I could think about is I wish there was a written
>>> record of this conversation. Might have explained 2 John 1 in greater
>>> detail.
>>> God Bless
>> The idea that 2 John 1 is ambiguous,
>
> Why does it start with "The elder" rather than state it is from the
> Apostle John?
> Who is the chosen lady?
> Who are her children?
> How do you love someone "in the truth"?
> Who are "some of your children"?
> What is "walking in the truth"?
> What is the command which is not new but old?
> What is "walking in love"?
> Who are these "many deceivers"?
> What are the "teaching of Christ"?
> What is the "wicked work"?
> Who is "your chosen sister"?
> Who are the children of "your chosen sister"?
Sensi:
Those are some very good questions that I wouldn't have a
problem answering and I sure wouldn't *insinuate* someone
was stupid for asking them. They're very delicate and
require thought and reflection. I like those kind of
questions, they make me have to think for myself.
Oops, I didn't mean to delete the rest of this.I was going
to copy a smiley face but somehow the rest of the post got
deleted from a previous copy, paste.
Randy ®
Happened to check in on Google, where there are no kill-filters.
While I hate to dignify your posts with a response, let's get one
thing settled here:
First, you admit, do you not, that you do not accept our Bibles as a
reliable record of God's authortative word, for both faith and
practice?
Second, if so, by what authority do you then make your claims? Didn't
you claim your standard was, "Reality"?
Third, if so, then "reality" as defined by whom? You?
If so, then ok, got it. Your authority is "Reality", as defined by
you, and you are therefore your own authority.
If that be the case, it's hard to see how you expect me regard you as
an authority, instead of my Bible, especially when you do not regard
my Bible as an authority.
Thus, as long as you are your own authority, and not the Bible, you
prove nothing to me, and do not deserve an hearing.
Randy ®
> I didn't mean to delete the rest of this.I was going
> to copy a smiley face but somehow the rest of the post got
> deleted from a previous copy, paste.- Hide quoted text -
Try hitting CTRL + Z until the text goes back the way it was.
Sensi
> On Jun 30, 9:31 am, Randy � <pulpitf...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 30 Jun 2009 07:49:49 -0800,
>> In newsgroup "alt.bible",
>> Article <aqck45hk1oop42giq6usblkbmsuu896...@4ax.com>,
>> Matt <trdell1234@ns%gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> 2 John 1
>>> 12 Having many things to write to you, I did not wish to do so with
>>> paper and ink; but I hope to come to you and speak face to face, that
>>> our joy may be full.
>>> 13 The children of your elect sister greet you. Amen.
>>> As I read this all I could think about is I wish there was a written
>>> record of this conversation. Might have explained 2 John 1 in greater
>>> detail.
>>> God Bless
>> The idea that 2 John 1 is ambiguous,
>
> Why does it start with "The elder" rather than state it is from the
> Apostle John?
> Who is the chosen lady?
> Who are her children?
> How do you love someone "in the truth"?
> Who are "some of your children"?
> What is "walking in the truth"?
> What is the command which is not new but old?
> What is "walking in love"?
> Who are these "many deceivers"?
> What are the "teaching of Christ"?
> What is the "wicked work"?
> Who is "your chosen sister"?
> Who are the children of "your chosen sister"?
Sensi:
Those are some very good questions that I wouldn't have a
problem answering and I sure wouldn't *insinuate* someone
was stupid for asking them. They're very delicate and
require thought and reflection. I like those kind of
questions, they make me have to think for myself.
>
Sensi
Sensi:
Oh, thanks, I didn't know that. I'll try the next time.
Dr. House
[...]
> . . . let's get one
> thing settled here:
We have. What is the point of going over it again? You are not going
to answer my questions.
> First, you admit, do you not, that you do not accept our Bibles as a
> reliable record of God's authortative word, for both faith and
> practice?
Like I told you last time. I do not claim that no part is God's
word. For all I know some parts of the Bible may contain the word of
God. Some of them certainly are very good. However I do not worship
the Bible, nor elevate it to the same level as God (thus lowering God
to the level of a work of man). Obviously the Bible is full of
contradictions and edits. To consider it in it's entirety to be a
reliable record of God's authoritative word would be to make God into
a schizophrenic.
> Second, if so, by what authority do you then make your claims?
What claims have I made that appeal to authority? I try my best to
avoid that.
> Didn't
> you claim your standard was, "Reality"?
That is correct.
> Third, if so, then "reality" as defined by whom? You?
Reality as defined by reality. How can you not understand? When it
is daytime where you are then reality is telling you it is daytime.
When you jump into a swimming pool reality is telling you that water
is wet.
> If so, then ok, got it.
Not so, you don't get it.
> Your authority is "Reality", as defined by
> you,
No, reality as defined by reality. As a human my perception of
reality is flawed. The difference between objective truth and my
perception of it will vary depending on a wide range of variables
including how hard I fight my own bias, how much sleep I've had, my
health, my diet, and so on.
> . . . and you are therefore your own authority.
A false conclusion based on false premises. Why do you obsess over
authority so much?
> If that be the case,
It is not.
> . . . it's hard to see how you expect me regard you as
> an authority,
I do not. However I would like you to present the merit of your ideas
and admit it when you can't provide an argument that withstands
testing. I have this standard for everyone.
> . . . instead of my Bible, especially when you do not regard
> my Bible as an authority.
Do you realize what nonsense this is? You need someone to recognize
the Bible as an authority before you recognize them as an authority?
> Thus, as long as you are your own authority, and not the Bible, you
> prove nothing to me, and do not deserve an hearing.
I have not, but don't let facts stop your imagination from self
justifying nonsense.
It has been demonstrated that 2 John is ambiguous. This is real. You
do not understand what 2 John means and you do not have enough detail
to come to a conclusion. Nobody alive today does. Do you think lying
to yourself and to others about this fact is what "walking in truth"
means? All that you can do is assert what you guess 2 John means.
Now how are people to obey this passage when the meaning is so
unclear? What are they going to be held accountable for - not
following your belief?
Dr. House
[...]
> > Why does it start with "The elder" rather than state it is from the
> > Apostle John?
> > Who is the chosen lady?
> > Who are her children?
> > How do you love someone "in the truth"?
> > Who are "some of your children"?
> > What is "walking in the truth"?
> > What is the command which is not new but old?
> > What is "walking in love"?
> > Who are these "many deceivers"?
> > What are the "teaching of Christ"?
> > What is the "wicked work"?
> > Who is "your chosen sister"?
> > Who are the children of "your chosen sister"?
>
> Sensi:
> Those are some very good questions that I wouldn't have a
> problem answering and I sure wouldn't *insinuate* someone
> was stupid for asking them. They're very delicate and
> require thought and reflection. I like those kind of
> questions, they make me have to think for myself.
TY
You know as I was going through 2 John making that list I noticed
something I've never noticed before. The elder had a lot of
matriarchs in his organization. It seems to be to a flock with a
female leader and includes a "say hi for me" from a flock with a
female leader.
This is a stark contrast to the male dominated Christianity I grew up
with and the patriarchal image they portrayed regarding the Bible.
It's a very short letter but chosen lady and chosen sister stick out.
God bless,
House
::: Jesus is LORD :::
Randy � <pulpi...@gmail.com> typed:
Correct.
>> False witness is also a sin.
>
>
> Not disputed.
Correct.
::: Jesus is LORD :::
news:57079c84-43e4-4fc6...@h8g2000yqm.googlegroups.com,
Dr. House <hso...@hotmail.com> typed:
Eh?
Banana?
>> I didn't put quote marks on it, and say those were
>> your words. If you are not promoting that idea, then it does
>> not apply.
>
> Why would you even bring it up?
It probably did apply?
>>> All I said in this post was that I would have
>>> liked to have heard that later conversation or read about it. I
>>> would much rather have heard John explain it that Randy. Is that
>>> wrong?
>>
>> Is it not an implication that you do not yet understand what
>> it means, or have enough "detail" to come to a conclusion?
>
> You do not understand what 1 John means and you do not have enough
> detail to come to a conclusion. Nobody does.
YOU obviously do not. That does nto mean others do not, either.
> Lying to yourself and
> to others about this fact must be what you think "walking in truth"
> means.
Actually that is what YOU, House, are doing.
>>>> Anyone who runs ahead and does not continue in the teaching of
>>>> Christ does not have God; whoever continues in the teaching
>>>> has both the Father and the Son. If anyone comes to you and
>>>> does not bring this teaching, do not take him into your house
>>>> or welcome him. Anyone who welcomes him shares in his wicked
>>>> work. (2 John 1:9-11 NIV)
>>
>>>> If someone comes to "you", who does not abide in the doctrine
>>>> of Christ (for example, by publicly calling it "Anti-Christ"
>>>> and "Satan" and promoting a contrary doctrine from day to
>>>> day), do not receive or welcome such a person, or you will
>>>> share in his wicked works.
>>
>>>> That you have seen what it says so many times, yet labored so
>>>> long to work your way around it, simply shows you are a
>>>> deliberate, rebellious liar.
>>> I posted Scripture above and just wished I could have heard what
>>> John remarks were. So where is the lie?
>>
>> There's enough "detail" in 2 John 1 for you to obey it.
>
> By doing whatever you _guess_ it means. Yeah, right.
Actually it is very easy to understand. Which of the words dod you not
understand? Whcih sentence do you not get?
>> You
>> seem to be implying you haven't yet seen enough "detail" to
>> know what it means, or therefore obey what it says.
>
> Your claim is false. Get it?
His claim is CORRECT! Get it?
>>> False witness is also a sin.
>>
>> Not disputed.
>
> Good.
YOU should think about it.
--
___________________________________________________
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/
dolf
The NYM seems to be a matter of issue for Kelly as well.
Matt <trdell1234@ns%gmail.com> wrote:
> 2 John 1
>
> John�s Farewell Greeting
::: Jesus is LORD :::
news:5320639e-102f-4210...@18g2000yqa.googlegroups.com,
Randy � <pulpi...@gmail.com> typed:
That is rght.
Randy �
In newsgroup "alt.bible",
Article <7ava83F...@mid.individual.net>,
Thanks.
Dr. House
> On Tue, 30 Jun 2009 22:18:11 +0200,
> In newsgroup "alt.bible",
> " ::: Jesus is LORD :::" <veral...@lycos.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> >In
> >news:57079c84-43e4-4fc6...@h8g2000yqm.googlegroups.com,
Yet nobody can explain how.
> >>>> All I said in this post was that I would have
> >>>> liked to have heard that later conversation or read about it. I
> >>>> would much rather have heard John explain it that Randy. Is that
> >>>> wrong?
>
> >>> Is it not an implication that you do not yet understand what
> >>> it means, or have enough "detail" to come to a conclusion?
>
> >> You do not understand what 1 John means and you do not have enough
> >> detail to come to a conclusion. Nobody does.
>
> >YOU obviously do not. That does nto mean others do not, either.
It is the fact that they cannot explain in a way that holds up to
testing which means nobody understands what these code phrases mean.
> >> Lying to yourself and
> >> to others about this fact must be what you think "walking in truth"
> >> means.
>
> >Actually that is what YOU, House, are doing.
Yet she can show no place where I have lied. If I was lying the way
it is claimed I was lying wouldn't there be plenty of examples for
people to point out?
How? Because you say so? Because she says so? Because crickets
chirp when people ask how?
> >>>> False witness is also a sin.
>
> >>> Not disputed.
>
> >> Good.
>
> >YOU should think about it.
>
> Thanks.
You are glad that she made a bunch of empty claims that she could not
support to save her life? Where is the substance? Where is the
merit? Why can't you guys explain what you constantly assert?
::: Jesus is LORD :::
Randy � <pulpi...@gmail.com> typed:
No need to thank me for the truth, Randy. I thank you for always
standing up for it. :-)
I
>>>> 2 John 1
>>>> John�s Farewell Greeting
>>>> 12 Having many things to write to you, I did not wish to do so with
>>>> paper and ink; but I hope to come to you and speak face to face, that
>>>> our joy may be full.
>>>> 13 The children of your elect sister greet you. Amen.
>>>> As I read this all I could think about is I wish there was a written
>>>> record of this conversation. Might have explained 2 John 1 in greater
>>>> detail.
>>>> God Bless
>>> The idea that 2 John 1 is ambiguous,
>>
>> Why does it start with "The elder" rather than state it is from the
>> Apostle John?
>> Who is the chosen lady?
>> Who are her children?
>> How do you love someone "in the truth"?
>> Who are "some of your children"?
>> What is "walking in the truth"?
>> What is the command which is not new but old?
>> What is "walking in love"?
>> Who are these "many deceivers"?
>> What are the "teaching of Christ"?
>> What is the "wicked work"?
>> Who is "your chosen sister"?
>> Who are the children of "your chosen sister"?
....
> Those are some very good questions that I wouldn't have a problem
> answering and I sure wouldn't *insinuate* someone was stupid for asking
> them. They're very delicate and require thought and reflection. I like
> those kind of questions, they make me have to think for myself.
I notice that Randy has answered NONE of the questions. If 2 John is so
unambiguous why can't he give specific answers?????
I
> You know as I was going through 2 John making that list I noticed
> something I've never noticed before. The elder had a lot of
> matriarchs in his organization. It seems to be to a flock with a
> female leader and includes a "say hi for me" from a flock with a
> female leader.
>
> This is a stark contrast to the male dominated Christianity I grew up
> with and the patriarchal image they portrayed regarding the Bible.
> It's a very short letter but chosen lady and chosen sister stick out.
The other things that sticks out about this letter is that one NEVER gets a
sermon or bible study on it. Romans is quoted every second week but 2 John
is unused. It really doesn't say that much of worth. If ALL the bible is
"God's Word" (though no-one has yet shown me ANY Bible Verse that says so)
then WHAT is the CONTENT of the letter that is so important?????
I
> you do not accept our Bibles as a reliable record of God's authortative
> word, > for both faith and practice?
Christ does not read the Bible, the New Testament, or the Gospel. He is the
norm of the Bible, the criterion of the New Testament, the incarnation of
the Gospel. ... The person, not the book, and the life, not the text, are
decisive and constitutive for us.
John Dominic Crossan "God & Emprire: Jesus against Rome, then and now,"
(HarperOne:2007) p. 95
> you do not regard my Bible as an authority.
--
The most pronounced characteristics [of fundamentalists] are the following:
(a) a very stong 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
Sensi
>
> No need to thank me for the truth, Randy. I thank you for always
> standing up for it. :-)
Sensi:
Can you elaborate on *the* truth?
House brought up some really good questions, can you answer
them as *the truth.*
Sensi
Sensi:
It is all very interesting especially that the female plays
a part in a mans inner world..
"Hello wisdom"
"Goodbye ignorance."
I'm not sure that it was written for *the Christians.*
Perhaps *the Christians* chose certain books with certain
verses to build a religion on and then left out some books
with many verses that might have caused a major uproar in
the churches.
::: Jesus is LORD :::
Sensi <sensi...@home.com> typed:
Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man
cometh unto the Father, but by me. (John 14:6 KJV)
Matt
We agree on something that verse is true.
I like the below translation as well
John 14:6 (New American Standard Bible)
Scripture taken from the NEW AMERICAN STANDARD BIBLE�, Copyright �
1960,1962,1963,1968,1971,1972,1973,1975,1977,1995 by The Lockman
Foundation. Used by permission
6 Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no
one comes to the Father but through Me.
The Below is also nice and true
Scripture taken from the New King James Version. Copyright � 1982 by
Thomas Nelson, Inc. Used by permission. All rights reserved
John 14
The Way, the Truth, and the Life
1 Let not your heart be troubled; you believe in God, believe also in
Me. 2 In My Father�s house are many mansions; if it were not so, I
would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you. 3 And if I go
and prepare a place for you, I will come again and receive you to
Myself; that where I am, there you may be also. 4 And where I go you
know, and the way you know.
5 Thomas said to Him, Lord, we do not know where You are going, and
how can we know the way?
6 Jesus said to him, I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one
comes to the Father except through Me.
Matt
Sensi
Sensi:
Lol...I figured you'd dodge the questions and add your own
little twist cause you *wouldn't* have an answer.
I
> Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh
> unto the Father, but by me. (John 14:6 KJV)
NOPE!
"Three I AM sayings have been combined in v.6 .... Like the other I AM
sayings ... this one too, has been formulated by the evangelist, possibly
out of older formulas." - Funk, Hoover & The Jesus Seminar "The Five
Gospels: Polebridge:1993) p.451
The120 Jesus Seminar Scholars designated this saying BLACK - "I would not
include this item in the primary database / Jesus did not say this; it
represents the perspective or content of a later or different tradition".
Putting it in Plain English - Jesus of Nazareth NEVER stated John 14:6. It
is the invention of the writer of the gospel (who WASN'T the apostle John.)
::: Jesus is LORD :::
Sensi <sensi...@home.com> typed:
>>> Sensi:
>>> Can you elaborate on *the* truth?
>>> House brought up some really good questions, can you answer
>>> them as *the truth.*
>>
>> Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man
>> cometh unto the Father, but by me. (John 14:6 KJV)
>>
>>
>
> Sensi:
> Lol...I figured you'd dodge the questions and add your own
> little twist cause you *wouldn't* have an answer.
Eh? It is not my fault that you reject God's Word...
I
> Eh? It is not my fault that you reject God's Word...
You are still unable to give ONE VERSE that says that ALL the Bible is
"God's Word".
The passage from II Timothy 3:16:
1. Is a forgery written 100 -150 CE when paul was DEAD.
2. ONLY refers to the Old Testament as the New Testament was still in the
process of being written.
Randy �
In newsgroup "alt.bible",
Article <cc6dnf9E45R-OdfX...@accessus.net>,
Sensi <sensi...@home.com> wrote:
By what standard of measure? Neither of you accepts the Bible
as the final authority for faith or practice, leaving
yourselves as the final authority.
Matt
wrote:
>On Tue, 30 Jun 2009 18:50:55 -0500,
> In newsgroup "alt.bible",
> Article <cc6dnf9E45R-OdfX...@accessus.net>,
> Sensi <sensi...@home.com> wrote:
>
>
>> ::: Jesus is LORD ::: wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> No need to thank me for the truth, Randy. I thank you for always
>>> standing up for it. :-)
>>
>>
>>Sensi:
>>Can you elaborate on *the* truth?
>>House brought up some really good questions, can you answer
>>them as *the truth.*
>
>
>By what standard of measure? Neither of you accepts the Bible
>as the final authority for faith or practice, leaving
>yourselves as the final authority.
OK Randy if you can try to answer the questions?
Matt
I
> Neither of you accepts the Bible
> as the final authority for faith or practice, leaving
> yourselves as the final authority.
Randy still remains ignorant.
I
>>>Can you elaborate on *the* truth?
>>>House brought up some really good questions, can you answer
>>>them as *the truth.*
....
> OK Randy if you can try to answer the questions?
Randy has enough problem tyrying to tie his shoe laces let alone answering
ANY question. I've never seen anyone duck and dive more.
The questions Randy can't answer on 2 John are:
Why does it start with "The elder" rather than state it is from the Apostle
John?
Who is the chosen lady?
Who are her children?
How do you love someone "in the truth"?
Who are "some of your children"?
What is "walking in the truth"?
What is the command which is not new but old?
What is "walking in love"?
Who are these "many deceivers"?
What are the "teaching of Christ"?
What is the "wicked work"?
Who is "your chosen sister"?
Who are the children of "your chosen sister"?
If Randy is the expert on "God's Word" WHY can't Randy answer??????
Sensi
> In news:M8GdnUpJMtxZKdfX...@accessus.net,
> Sensi <sensi...@home.com> typed:
>>>> Sensi:
>>>> Can you elaborate on *the* truth?
>>>> House brought up some really good questions, can you answer
>>>> them as *the truth.*
>>> Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man
>>> cometh unto the Father, but by me. (John 14:6 KJV)
>>>
>>>
>> Sensi:
>> Lol...I figured you'd dodge the questions and add your own
>> little twist cause you *wouldn't* have an answer.
>
> Eh? It is not my fault that you reject God's Word...
Sensi:
You've taught me more than you'd care to admit to. Because
of you I've done a lot of homework, soul searching you might
say.
On one side of your tongue you spit Jesus is Lord and on the
other side you spit venom & hate, then you spit Jesus is
Lord and with the next spit comes things you don't even
realize how damaging you are to the Christian religion.
I reject how you display Jesus as Lord, I also reject how
you use Jesus as Lord to play your dirty filthy mind games.
So Yes, I reject your words and how you word scripture to
justify your nasty behavior.
If I had to have a teacher it would not be someone like you
who wakes up every day with a forked tongue spitting Jesus
is Lord on one side and then striking every person you can
find who plain and simple does not like you because you are
what you are whether you say Jesus is Lord or not it doesn't
change what you've come to be.
If you shouted Jesus is Lord with a megaphone over the whole
country of Germany you're still you and that's what people
see as a model for Christianity and it's not a pretty sight.
If you can't control your own thoughts and actions to become
at least a halfway decent person then reading what you call
'God's word" isn't something anyone would be interested in
reading let alone have any desire to turn into.
Why would you want anyone to be like you?
::: Jesus is LORD :::
Randy � <pulpi...@gmail.com> typed:
> On Tue, 30 Jun 2009 18:50:55 -0500,
> In newsgroup "alt.bible",
> Article <cc6dnf9E45R-OdfX...@accessus.net>,
> Sensi <sensi...@home.com> wrote:
>
>
>> ::: Jesus is LORD ::: wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> No need to thank me for the truth, Randy. I thank you for always
>>> standing up for it. :-)
>>
>>
>> Sensi:
>> Can you elaborate on *the* truth?
>> House brought up some really good questions, can you answer
>> them as *the truth.*
>
>
> By what standard of measure? Neither of you accepts the Bible
> as the final authority for faith or practice, leaving
> yourselves as the final authority.
That is true.
I
>> By what standard of measure? Neither of you accepts the Bible
>> as the final authority for faith or practice, leaving
>> yourselves as the final authority.
>
> That is true.
That is a LIE.
<<kêllÿ>>
wrote:
> >> Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man
> >> cometh unto the Father, but by me. (John 14:6 KJV)
> > Sensi:
> > Lol...I figured you'd dodge the questions and add your own
> > little twist cause you *wouldn't* have an answer.
> Eh? It is not my fault that you reject God's Word...
It's always amusing to me how out of one side of your mouth you claim
to be concerned about the souls of the perishing in Usenet and then
out of the other side of your mouth you say things like "it is not my
fault...".
If you truly understood God's Word, Jesus' instruction, and what
Christian evangelism actually is, you would know it actually *is your
fault* if those you come in contact with in Usenet (under the pretense
of being a witness for Christ to those you think are unsaved) are
still in the dark regarding Scripture. They are your responsibility
as an (alleged) ambassador for Jesus Christ. For all of those you put
down, lie about, were sarcastic to, mean to, cruel to, and hateful to
rather than being a lifestyle evangelist (as Jesus called all of His
followers to be), you will be called into account one day in front of
the throne of God's judgement (see 2 Cor. 5:10) for that which you did
and that which you did not do in reference to furthering God's
Kingdom.
How do you plan to answer God when He asks you why you behaved in
Usenet the way you do, Vera? Are you just going to shrug your
shoulders and say, "Eh? It's not my fault!" ("Was? Es ist nicht meine
Störung!")...?
Look forward to it - because if you don't change your attitude, that's
what you have in store. Don't forget - "...it is appointed unto men
once to die, but after this the judgment." (Hebrews 9:27) And as
we're seeing lately in the news, death can come at anytime, anyplace,
to anyone.
Count on it.
Sensi
> On Tue, 30 Jun 2009 18:50:55 -0500,
> In newsgroup "alt.bible",
> Article <cc6dnf9E45R-OdfX...@accessus.net>,
> Sensi <sensi...@home.com> wrote:
>
>
>> ::: Jesus is LORD ::: wrote:
>>
>>> No need to thank me for the truth, Randy. I thank you for always
>>> standing up for it. :-)
>>
>> Sensi:
>> Can you elaborate on *the* truth?
>> House brought up some really good questions, can you answer
>> them as *the truth.*
>
>
> By what standard of measure? Neither of you accepts the Bible
> as the final authority for faith or practice, leaving
> yourselves as the final authority.
Sensi:
Lets see... My life experience of being a child growing into
an adult, having children,being a mother, a grandmother
having neighbors, co workers,gardening,farming,reading,
writing, my job, etc. have all taught me many valuable
lessons. Who authorizes these lessons?
I sure can't take a Bible with me everywhere I go and
consult it like it's an oracle for everything I do or have
learned or have experienced.
So did you know there is life to live beyond a Bible?
Do you take it with you in the bathtub or read it while you
prepare a meal, or take it on the tractor as you plow the
fields? Do you take it to Wal-Mart and read it as you shop?
Do you take it on a job interview or read it as you drive
your car?
Sometimes you have to live.. and know in your heart that
their is an authority greater than you that sends you on
these life journeys to learn about many other things that
really count as specific lessons to learn.
The Bible is not an authoritarian. God lives beyond a Bible
and gives us lessons that aren't even in the Bible.
So why are you so afraid to live your life?
Sensi
Sensi:
Good question Matt,...He dodged it just like Vera did.
What was his answer? Let's see.
Randy wrote:
By what standard of measure? Neither of you accepts the Bible
as the final authority for faith or practice, leaving
yourselves as the final authority.
Yep, that was it... He didn't answer not one of those
questions cause he doesn't know the answers!!!
<<kêllÿ>>
> You labor to make the plain
> teaching of Scripture seem ambiguous or inapplicable, so you
> can pretend like you're not responsible.
Exactly what you do. And exactly what Vera does in a post earlier
today (to which I have recently responded).
Hypocrite. Blind guide. Pharisee. (see Matthew 23:23-28)
<<kêllÿ>>
> So why are you so afraid to live your life?
Same reason he's afraid of strong women - he's still an insecure,
emotionally-stunted boy inside and scared, scared, scared.
Think about it - all of that hatred comes from somewhere and is not an
emotion unto itself - hatred *always* stems from fear and usually
begins with the hatred of oneself.
Randy �
In newsgroup "alt.bible",
Article
<<k�ll�>> <rosie...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
>On Jun 30, 8:07�pm, " ::: Jesus is LORD :::" <veral...@lycos.com>
>wrote:
>
>> >> Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man
>> >> cometh unto the Father, but by me. (John 14:6 KJV)
>
>> > Sensi:
>> > Lol...I figured you'd dodge the questions and add your own
>> > little twist cause you *wouldn't* have an answer.
>
>> Eh? It is not my fault that you reject God's Word...
>
>It's always amusing to me how out of one side of your mouth you claim
>to be concerned about the souls of the perishing in Usenet and then
>out of the other side of your mouth you say things like "it is not my
>fault...".
And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who
are perishing. 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.
(2 Corinthians 4:3-4 NIV)
It _isn't_ our fault that you and other unregenerate people
are blinded by Satan, so that you reject God's word. You, for
example, reject God's word to try and justify homosexuality,
instead of repenting and accepting the atonement Christ made
for it.
Randy �
In newsgroup "alt.bible",
Article <Zemdnbn5FP6EfdfX...@accessus.net>,
Sensi <sensi...@home.com> wrote:
Unlike the Bible, I do not regard your impression of your own
life experiences, or other random thoughts that may come to
your mind, as an authoritative standard for faith and
practice.
Sensi
Sensi:
I'm taking that as a compassionate way of looking at him
rather than an accusation but it's hard to display such on a
screen so a heads up on that.
Hatred of oneself is a horrible way to live. I use to live
that way myself only cause it was ingrained in me that I had
to live that way or God would smite me for trying to live up
to certain standards for myself.
Often times it's ingrained in people to live in misery,
shame & guilt which results in a very low self esteem and a
fear of life that has no end.
That's suppose to change after being *reborn.*
The person then should feel comfortable with everything
life hands you and deal with it as if it's a lesson and not
a sin to live and enjoy life.
My heart goes out to people who are afraid to live and enjoy
their life. God provides every opportunity to live a good,
happy joyous life within oneself yet people are still afraid
that God would hand them a serpent.
Randy �
In newsgroup "alt.bible",
Article
<<k�ll�>> <rosie...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
Anyone who claims God is ok with "loving", monogamous,
homosexual relationships, is a conscience seared liar who
tries to justify their own sin apart from Christ. You have
absolutely no credibility as a Bible expositor or christian,
and you certainly _have_ no shame.
Randy �
In newsgroup "alt.bible",
Article
<<k�ll�>> <rosie...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
Anyone who claims God is ok with a "loving, monogamous,
homosexual relationships, instead of repenting and accepting
Christ's atonement for it, has no credibility as a christian
or Bible expositor, and certainly has no shame.
Dr. House
> On Tue, 30 Jun 2009 18:50:55 -0500,
> In newsgroup "alt.bible",
> Sensi <sensi4si...@home.com> wrote:
>
> > ::: Jesus is LORD ::: wrote:
>
> >> No need to thank me for the truth, Randy. I thank you for always
> >> standing up for it. :-)
>
> >Sensi:
> >Can you elaborate on *the* truth?
> >House brought up some really good questions, can you answer
> >them as *the truth.*
>
> By what standard of measure?
Reality.
> Neither of you accepts the Bible
> as the final authority for faith or practice, leaving
> yourselves as the final authority.
No, it doesn't leave me as the final authority on anything. Get your
head right.
Sensi
Sensi:
That's just it. You only have your very own life and that is
ALL you have.
The Bible is not your life, it doesn't live your life for
you, it doesn't learn your lessons for you. It doesn't even
teach you how to be a father to your children or a good
husband to your wife. It may give you guidelines but it
doesn't do what you have to experience for yourself.
If you have faith that you can be a good father and faith
that you can be a good husband, etc.. then your faith is in
good shape cause God is counting on you to be the faithful
husband, father etc that He wants you to be for the good of
everyone concerned.
Dr. House
> "Matt" wrote:
> >>>Can you elaborate on *the* truth?
> >>>House brought up some really good questions, can you answer
> >>>them as *the truth.*
> ....
> > OK Randy if you can try to answer the questions?
>
> Randy has enough problem tyrying to tie his shoe laces let alone answering
> ANY question.
Hey it's not Randy's fault that no Bible verse gives him the authority
to tie his shoes.
>I've never seen anyone duck and dive more.
>
> The questions Randy can't answer on 2 John are:
>
> Why does it start with "The elder" rather than state it is from the Apostle John?
> Who is the chosen lady?
> Who are her children?
> How do you love someone "in the truth"?
> Who are "some of your children"?
> What is "walking in the truth"?
> What is the command which is not new but old?
> What is "walking in love"?
> Who are these "many deceivers"?
> What are the "teaching of Christ"?
> What is the "wicked work"?
> Who is "your chosen sister"?
> Who are the children of "your chosen sister"?
>
> If Randy is the expert on "God's Word" WHY can't Randy answer??????
Randy said there was nothing ambiguous in the entire chapter. I
welcome him to step up and show that.
Randy ®
You said "reality" is your standard, did you not? If so, then reality
as defined by whom? Do you have some book called "Reality" that you
consult, or is it just you deciding what is and is not "reality"? If
the latter, how does that not make you your own authority?
Dr. House
wrote:
[..]
> >>> No need to thank me for the truth, Randy. I thank you for always
> >>> standing up for it. :-)
>
> >> Sensi:
> >> Can you elaborate on *the* truth?
> >> House brought up some really good questions, can you answer
> >> them as *the truth.*
>
> > By what standard of measure? Neither of you accepts the Bible
> > as the final authority for faith or practice, leaving
> > yourselves as the final authority.
>
> That is true.
Yet I say that I am not any kind of authority? How can I be making
myself the final authority when I am not?
Oops, time to insult me some more.
Dr. House
[..]
> Sensi:
> Lets see... My life experience of being a child growing into
> an adult, having children,being a mother, a grandmother . . .
I had not heard. Congrats!
I'm sure it's old news but congrats anyway.
God bless,
House
Dr. House
> On Jun 30, 11:54 pm, "Dr. House" <hsot...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jun 30, 8:27 pm, Randy ® <pulpitf...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Tue, 30 Jun 2009 18:50:55 -0500,
> > > In newsgroup "alt.bible",
> > > Article <cc6dnf9E45R-OdfXnZ2dnUVZ_j1i4...@accessus.net>,
> > > Sensi <sensi4si...@home.com> wrote:
>
> > > > ::: Jesus is LORD ::: wrote:
>
> > > >> No need to thank me for the truth, Randy. I thank you for always
> > > >> standing up for it. :-)
>
> > > >Sensi:
> > > >Can you elaborate on *the* truth?
> > > >House brought up some really good questions, can you answer
> > > >them as *the truth.*
>
> > > By what standard of measure?
>
> > Reality.
>
> > > Neither of you accepts the Bible
> > > as the final authority for faith or practice, leaving
> > > yourselves as the final authority.
>
> > No, it doesn't leave me as the final authority on anything. Get your
> > head right.
>
> You said "reality" is your standard, did you not?
Yes. Why do you keep asking me the same questions even though I give
you strait answers? This be not rocket surgery.
> If so, then reality
> as defined by whom?
The answer is not going to change no matter how many times you ask.
It will always be "reality as defined by reality". Ask me this
question again and again I will tell you "reality defined by
reality". What what do you not understand?
> Do you have some book called "Reality" that you
> consult,
No, but there is an experience called reality. Try it sometime.
> . . . or is it just you deciding what is and is not "reality"?
No. You can ask me this over and over again but the answer will not
change. I do not define reality. Reality defines reality. Go on and
ask me again. We know you want to.
> If
> the latter, how does that not make you your own authority?
It's not the latter. Get it yet or do you need to ask the same
questions again? You said 2 John was not ambiguous so I asked you to
explain a few of the phrases in 2 John. Are you going to do that now?
Sensi
Sensi:
Thank you. She's almost 5 mo's old now.
A real joy and a blessing that I can't even describe.
I shower her with kisses constantly cause she's so sweet and
adorable. Lots of beautiful lessons and fun headed my way
and I'm looking forward to every one of them.
I'll never tell her she's a worthless sinner like these
people who start em out young only to turn them into
miserable people later in life.
<<kêllÿ>>
> >> You labor to make the plain
> >> teaching of Scripture seem ambiguous or inapplicable, so you
> >> can pretend like you're not responsible.
> >Exactly what you do. =A0And exactly what Vera does in a post earlier
> >today (to which I have recently responded).
>
> >Hypocrite. =A0Blind guide. =A0Pharisee. =A0(see Matthew 23:23-28)
>
> Anyone who claims God is ok with "loving", monogamous,
> homosexual relationships, is a conscience seared liar who
> tries to justify their own sin apart from Christ. =A0You have
> absolutely no credibility as a Bible expositor or christian,
> and you certainly _have_ no shame.
Nice try at ad hominem, Randy. However, those here who know you for
who and what you are and how you behave in these forums are able to
recognize who's right here and who's just plain running away from
facing the truth about themselves.
Hey...how's the job hunt going?
<<kêllÿ>>
> And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who
> are perishing. 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.
> (2 Corinthians 4:3-4 NIV)
It's very interesting that you chose just those two verses, yet
ignored what came before and after them. Here, let me help you by
putting those verses back into context (rather than cherry-picking
them as you so shamelessly have)...
II Corinthians 4:1-
Therefore, since we have this ministry, as we received mercy, we do
not lose heart, but we have renounced the things hidden because of
shame, not walking in craftiness or adulterating the Word of God, but
by the manifestation of truth commending ourselves to every man's
conscience in the sight of God. And even if our Gospel is veiled, it
is veiled to those who are perishing, in whose case the god of this
world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving so that they might not
see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image
of God. For we do not preach ourselves but Christ Jesus as Lord, and
ourselves as your bond-servants for Jesus' sake. For God, who said,
"Light shall shine out of darkness," is the One who has shone in our
hearts to give the Light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the
face of Christ. But we have this treasure in earthen vessels, so that
the surpassing greatness of the power will be of God and not from
ourselves...".
Hmmm..."not walking in craftiness or adulterating the Word of God..."
Wow - that's exactly what you did here, Randy - you cherry-picked that
which might appear to bolster your case, yet when brought into the
light, what you did was chop off an arm to spite your face by leaving
out a key portion of what Paul was trying to convey here. In so
doing, you were walking in craftiness and adulterating the Word of
God. And all for what? To make a point? To make you feel like more
of a man? You know, if wasn't already a born-again Christian, saved
by grace through faith in Jesus Christ, I would take one look at you
and your behavior and possibly say, "no thanks - if being a Christian
means being like Randy Young, I'm not interested."
>It _isn't_ our fault that you and other unregenerate people
> are blinded by Satan,
Except those in here who are not already saved aren't blinded by
Satan, they are blinded by your bad behavior - in fact, your chosen
bad behavior speaks so loudly that no one could hear what you think
you are saying (if you were really saying it). You think you're being
a witness for Jesus Christ when in fact, you're just being a very,
very bad advertisement for Him.
> so that you reject God's word.
I don't reject God's Word - I love God's Word. And if you look above
(and in several posts I've made tonight), you can see that it's
actually me who is representing God's Word here honestly and correctly
- where you have just chopped it up to fit your hateful agenda.
You see, it is your fault that rather than trying to show Jesus is the
Light of the world and the Living Water through the example Christ
told you to give as one of His ambassadors, you spend your time in
here condemning those you don't like and telling everyone they're
going to Hell and that it's not your fault they're going. LIght is
supposed to shine out of darkness, but you've decided that light isn't
worthy of darkness and you'd rather waste your time shining the light
of Christ in and on that which already has light!
For every soul you have come in contact with that has been predestined
to receive eternal life in God's Kingdom and didn't see Jesus Christ
in you (don't forget, we are all He has to use here on earth to reach
the lost, Randy) because you were more concerned with self and ego and
pride and anger and hatred... What are you going to tell God when He
asks why *you* didn't do your job? Are you going to say, "it's not my
fault, Lord"...?
I'm not so sure that excuse is going to fly in front of the throne of
God when you receive His judgement, Randy. But...unlike you and Vera,
I'm happy admitting that I am not God and I don't know your heart -
only He does.
Randy �
In newsgroup "alt.bible",
Article
<<k�ll�>> <rosie...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
>On Jun 30, 9:19=A0pm, Randy <pulpitf...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who
>> are perishing. 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.
>> (2 Corinthians 4:3-4 NIV)
>
>It's very interesting that you chose just those two verses, yet
>ignored what came before and after them.
What a liar. Unless you quote the Bible from cover to cover,
there will always be a verse that comes before and after.
>Here, let me help you
<PUKE>
The puke factor in your statements is overwhelming. I don't
need liar who looks right at the Bible condemning
homosexuality, and who then tells me it means God is ok with
loving, monogamous, homosexual relationships, to tell me what
the Bible means.
Randy �
In newsgroup "alt.bible",
Article
<<k�ll�>> <rosie...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
>Randy is so afraid of reading what I reply (and wants so
>desperately to appear like the big man on campus) that
>he's dishonestly and craftily redirected any replies I make
>to a group I do not beling to and would never post in on
>my own volition
What's the matter, are you afraid that even your fellow
lesbians will chastise you for being an hypocrite?
No one who claims God is ok with a "loving", monogamous,
homosexual relationship is anything less than an unregenerate,
conscience seared liar, who has absolutely no credibility as
either a Bible expositor or Christian.
<<kêllÿ>>
> On Tue, 30 Jun 2009 22:13:56 -0700 (PDT),
> In newsgroup "alt.bible",
> Article
>
> <<kêllÿ>> <rosie_be...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
> >On Jun 30, 9:19=A0pm, Randy <pulpitf...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who
> >> are perishing. 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.
> >> (2 Corinthians 4:3-4 NIV)
>
> >It's very interesting that you chose just those two verses, yet
> >ignored what came before and after them.
>
> What a liar. Unless you quote the Bible from cover to cover,
> there will always be a verse that comes before and after.
>
> >Here, let me help you
>
> <PUKE>
>
> The puke factor in your statements is overwhelming. I don't
> need liar who looks right at the Bible condemning
> homosexuality, and who then tells me it means God is ok with
> loving, monogamous, homosexual relationships, to tell me what
> the Bible means.
Truth is, Randy (and I know that truth is a foreign concept to you),
you don't believe anyone can tell you anything about the Bible because
you believe you have it all figured out.
No matter - the Holy Spirit of God is bigger and more powerful that
all of us combined. That still, small voice of the Holy Spirit (you
know...the one you keep trying to squelch?) can even work on a hater
like you. When the truth of the Word is made available for you to see
and read, the Lord is working on you - even if the truth of the Word
is brought to you by someone you hate so vehemently. Guess why...?
Because God's Word shall not return void (see Isaiah 55:11).
Randy �
In newsgroup "alt.bible",
Article
<<k�ll�>> <rosie...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
[]
<PUKE>
Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom
of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor
idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual
offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor
slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.
(1 Corinthians 6:9-10 NIV)
dolf
their US counterparts, have traditionally been reluctant to bring God
into politics: Prime Minister Kevin Rudd has promised two nuns that he
will press the Pope on the canonisation of Mary MacKillop.
The Archdiocese of Sydney said Mr Rudd would raise the issue in a
meeting with Pope Benedict XVI in Rome on July 9.
The Prime Minister had made the promise to two nuns at a Sydney church
"over a cup of tea'' on yesterday evening: 29 June 2009.
But a new study shows federal MPs are invoking Christian beliefs with
increasing frequency to justify their policies and articulate their
personal values and visions for the nation." [In the name of the father
-- MPs flock to Jesus, Mark Davis, National Editor to The Australian
Newspaper, 30 June 2009]
(ru) dolf: "I cannot believe, that not a single journalist on 2009.6.29
asked the fashionable Bruno whether women confuse his hysterical Prince
Albert (Prince of Thurn and Taxis) performance as accessory helmet
carrying knight of the Austrian Order of the Golden Fleece, with an IUD
or IOU?
That not only does he continue to steal my creative ideas, but he
perpetuates a grotesque parody of me and other gay participants within
our Community. Media reports (the Australian 2009.6.30) gives his
justification as follows: "Look, what I'm trying to do is undo all the
damage done to my community by the movie Milk (about gay activist Harvey
Milk, starring Sean Penn). Apparently the lead actor from that wasn't
even gay."
Bruno wore a skimpy schoolboy uniform changing into shining armour for
the State Theatre premiere. The uniform appeared an obvious homage to
AC/DC guitarist Angus Young, although Bruno feigned ignorance. Rather,
he's inspired by the great leaders, Gandhi and Jesus Christ, who like
him, look good in underwear.
"I want to be the gay stereotype, I want to be the gay role model --
accept it," Cohen said in a brief press conference.
Given past discrimination by Jews of gay persons in this country, I have
vowed never to attend the Jew Synagogue Elizabeth Street Sydney and this
prohibition extends to my attendance at the Jewish Museum on the grounds
I will derive too much pleasure and contemptuous disdain for you as a
people.
Has anyone seen that rosy belle <<k�ll�>> (316...@gmail.com) following
close behind? How's that itchy vagina of yours?"
This use to be a funhouse...
-- The Adventures of the Heimelijk Schimmel heer Bruno
Sydney Jewish Museum
Darlinghurst Road
Darlinghurst NSW 2010
1 July 2009 .jackNote@zen: 5, row: 3, col: 6, nous: 16 [Date: 2009.7.1,
Time: 1120 hrs, Super: #204 / #1 - To Guide with Names, Reason's
Realisation; I-Ching: H58 - Joy; Tetra: 24 - Joy, Ego: #171 / #16 -
Being a Guide, Returning to the Root; I-Ching: H28 - Excess; Tetra: 75 -
Failure]
I have no ignorance over the definition of the word fascist and neither
do I use hummous in some 'dark occulted shit' smear campaign to ferment
hatred of homosexuals as Australians by Australians. Perhaps you've got
me confused with that heimelijk schimmel heer Sacha Baron Cohen!
We waited for Bruno (Borat) to do his number in the Sydney streets...
Foisted / Hoisted with his own petard, now that his billboard has gone
up in Taylor Square, Oxford Street: According to Wikipedia, a Mr. Petar
Bojovi? (July 16, 1858 in Misevici near Nova Varos � January 20, 1945 in
Belgrade) was one of four Serbian vojvodas (field-marshals) in Balkan
Wars and World War I. He was, by origin Montenegrin Serb from the
Vasojevii clan.
I cannot believe, that not a single journalist on 2009.6.29 asked the
fashionable Bruno whether women confuse his hysterical Prince Albert
(Prince of Thurn and Taxis) performance as accessory helmet carrying
knight of the Austrian Order of the Golden Fleece, with an IUD or IOU?
That not only does he continue to steal my creative ideas, but he
perpetuates a grotesque parody of me and other gay participants within
our Community. Media reports (the Australian 2009.6.30) gives his
justification as follows: "Look, what I'm trying to do is undo all the
damage done to my community by the movie Milk (about gay activist Harvey
Milk, starring Sean Penn). Apparently the lead actor from that wasn't
even gay."
Bruno wore a skimpy schoolboy uniform changing into shining armour for
the State Theatre premiere. The uniform appeared an obvious homage to
AC/DC guitarist Angus Young, although Bruno feigned ignorance. Rather,
he's inspired by the great leaders, Gandhi and Jesus Christ, who like
him, look good in underwear.
"I want to be the gay stereotype, I want to be the gay role model --
accept it," Cohen said in a brief press conference.
Given past discrimination by Jews of gay persons in this country, I have
vowed never to attend the Jew Synagogue Elizabeth Street Sydney and this
prohibition extends to my attendance at the Jewish Museum on the grounds
I will derive too much pleasure and contemptuous disdain for you as a
people.
- dolf
- http://www.grapple.id.au/Chronicles/automata.html
Bazza Magoo (Barry [Lucy Boots] OGrady): "What is Qolan Dolt? You should
quore something before your reply. Only fools top post."
(ru) dolf: "But how honest is his Karl Stefanovic impersonation?
According to 2009.6.24 media reports by Jason Koutsoukis courtesy: The
Age Newspaper, former treasurer Peter Costello and Ms Gillard visiting
Jerusalem, have called for a different kind of conversation from world
leaders trying to promote freedom and justice: "If the root of democracy
is conversation, then the true root of friendship is honesty," Ms
Gillard said.
"We should be honest about the difficulty of achieving a just and
lasting settlement to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict."
"We should be honest about where we all fail to live up to our ideals.
We should be honest about how, despite its importance, politics is only
one small part of what shapes our lives and our actions. We should be
honest about what each of our nations still has to learn.
"And we should use honesty to make our exchanges and our differences
more valuable and better appreciated." [(c) 2009 Fairfax Digital, The
Australian Newspaper 2009.6.24 on-line edition]
Carl McCluskey (sai...@nettally.com): "This public service announcement
has been brought to you by 'Citizens For Truth In Advertising' {tm}
which is solely responsible for its content."
(ru) dolf: "That's qolon spelt without a 'u' and semantical
justification for that is found in the zeitgeist inspired name Qantas as
spirit of a nation!"
Monkfish (monkfish@nowhere): "Ther[e] are many many things you don't
understand. Get over it soon."
(ru) dolf: "Such as e=mc�? How then do you explain the semiotic and
cosmological basis to language and mind? "
Monkfish (monkfish@nowhere): "Do you really want the universe to be only
with things you understand?"
(ru) dolf: "If empty conjecture is all you are capable of conveying then
you do have the alternative where you don't need to speak."
Monkfish (monkfish@nowhere): "Do I have to? How about something much
more complex than us?"
(ru) dolf: "Are you an �bermensch American, what other than Br�no could
be more complex than that?"
Carl McCluskey (sai...@nettally.com): "I see you haven't had any success
arresting anyone at hotmail nor any place else as you threatened."
(ru) dolf: "Did my foot slip upon the way or did Cardinal George Pell
continue to show disrespect to State by failing to proffer an
apology--which by any artful accomplishment is now opportunity past?"
Carl McCluskey (sai...@nettally.com): "You need psychiatric counseling
for the mental illnesses of which you admitted."
(ru) dolf: "Treason is what treason does! I used that www-page as a
reference on Bill Feuerer ("the Dolt")
And mention the 'Mental Block' on 2009.2.18 in a discussion tread 'The
Truth Behind Leviticus 18:22' in newsgroups: alt.bible,
alt.christnet.christianlife, alt.religion.christian,
alt.religion.christian.baptist, aus.religion.christian
As comment which was applied to me just the other day--wherein I falsely
was accused: "Much like the Dolt, aren't you...twist reality to sooth
your senses...
Correct yourself... But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his
brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and
whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the
council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool {ie. *Dolt* a stupid
person}, shall be in danger of hell fire.
Therefore if thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest
that thy brother hath ought against thee;
Leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be
reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift.
Agree with thine adversary quickly, whilst thou art in the way with him;
lest at any time the adversary deliver thee to the judge, and the judge
deliver thee to the officer, and thou be cast into prison.
Verily I say unto thee, Thou shalt by no means come out thence, till
thou hast paid the uttermost farthing--a former monetary unit and coin
of the UK, withdrawn in 1961, equal to a quarter of an old penny."
[Matthew 5:22-26 (KJV)]
Fasgnadh (fasg...@yahoo.com.au): "How could God so ACCURATELY predict
the fate of EVERY ATHEIST REGIME, Centuries ago!?!?!!!"
Virgil (vir...@nowhere.com): "Depends on which 'God' or 'Gods' are
alleged to have done so and what evidence that 'gods' followers have of
such prediction."
Fasgnadh (fasg...@yahoo.com.au): "Atheists can't answer, real men know,
little boys run away... ;-)"
Virgil (vir...@nowhere.com): "In this respect, both Buddha and Brahma
trump Ya[h]weh."
Linda Freeman (lfreemanli...@webtv.net): "Christian belief
doesn't save Amen bruddah..."
Fasgnadh (fasg...@yahoo.com.au): "The One that counts, you poor deluded
moron!"
Linda Freeman (lfreemanli...@webtv.net): "Most of us wish we
could die in our sleep. Not many want to die in pain or face another
plane of existence of which they have not prepared for.
If you do not believe you are immortal, then what a Christian says
shouldn't bother you. Your just gonna die like a animal, right?
If you ask me, from what I've heard, a plane crash is a pretty fast way
to go. You could liken it to being taken, like in the rapture."
(ru) dolf: "I've heard of Yahweh, and of statues to Buddha and Brahma,
but who is Bruddah?"
Virgil (vir...@nowhere.com): "They all count, to their worshippers, but
none of them count otherwise."
Fasgnadh (fasg...@yahoo.com.au): "You snipped it."
Virgil (vir...@nowhere.com): "It wasn't ever there to be snipped. All I
have snipped from fasgnadh's delusional maunderings are some of his less
coherent ones."
Zencycle (abandoned the argument he has lost): "Islam considers every
one who does not follow islam to be a non-believer."
Virgil (vir...@nowhere.com): "No more twaddley than christian delusions."
<<kêllÿ>>
> What's the matter, are you afraid that even your fellow
> lesbians will chastise you for being an hypocrite?
I'm not afraid of anything you could possibly do or say. You see...no
weapon (or plot or clever action birthed out of deceptive practices)
formed against me (or any born-again believer in jesus Christ) shall
prosper (see Isaiah 54:17) You should be afraid, however - your
deceptive behavior is certainly no witness for Jesus Christ, but for
the father of lies.
> No one who claims God is ok with a "loving", monogamous,
> homosexual relationship is anything less than an unregenerate,
> conscience seared liar, who has absolutely no credibility as
> either a Bible expositor or Christian.
Truth is, Randy (and I know that truth is a foreign concept to you),
you don't believe anyone can tell you anything about the Bible
because
you believe you have it all figured out.
No matter - the Holy Spirit of God is bigger and more powerful than
Randy �
In newsgroup "alt.bible",
Article <7b0a4eF...@mid.individual.net>,
"Diana" <shech...@reborn.com> wrote:
>> I'll never tell her she's a worthless sinner like these people who start
>> em out young only to turn them into miserable people later in life.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>Wow where has the time gone !!! Seems like yesterday you told us she was
>just being born. Never let anyone else tell her that either. Always tell her
>about the love of Jesus and never the hate of these people here. May God
>surround your Grand-Daughter with protection from the world and people who
>spew hatred and bitterness. May His hand always be upon her life that she
>may be a living testamony to His Goodness and Mercy and Love.
>
If it gets to the point where you won't tell someone Christ
died for their sins and rose from the dead, because you think
that would be an evil spewing of bitterness and hatred, you
will have just earned the title: Total Moron.
<<kêllÿ>>
> Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom
> of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor
> idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual
> offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor
> slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.
> (1 Corinthians 6:9-10 NIV)
Interesting. You do realize that the above verses are referring to
temple prostitution and idolatry don't you? Of course there is also
that part about "slanderers"...
...Hmmm.
Randy �
In newsgroup "alt.bible",
Article
<<k�ll�>> <rosie...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
Thanks for publicly demonstrating (again), that you
deliberately lie about what the Bible says, and will not
inherit eternal life unless you repent and accept Christ's
atonement for your homosexuality:
Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters
nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor practicing homosexuals
nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor
swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. (1 Corinthians
6:9-10 TNIV)
Dr. House
[...]
> >Wow where has the time gone !!! Seems like yesterday you told us she was
> >just being born. Never let anyone else tell her that either. Always tell her
> >about the love of Jesus and never the hate of these people here. May God
> >surround your Grand-Daughter with protection from the world and people who
> >spew hatred and bitterness. May His hand always be upon her life that she
> >may be a living testamony to His Goodness and Mercy and Love.
>
> If it gets to the point where you won't tell someone Christ
> died for their sins and rose from the dead, because you think
> that would be an evil spewing of bitterness and hatred . . .
Trust me Randy, that is not what we are talking about. If you have
questions ask and we will explain.
Randy �
In newsgroup "alt.bible",
Article <7b0bofF...@mid.individual.net>,
"Diana" <shech...@reborn.com> wrote:
>> If it gets to the point where you won't tell someone Christ
>> died for their sins and rose from the dead, because you think
>> that would be an evil spewing of bitterness and hatred, you
>> will have just earned the title: Total Moron.
>>
>
>Randy you don't tell anyone that.
That's another documented lie. I tell people that all the
time, in person, in direct conversation in the news groups,
and in every single signature:
<<kêllÿ>>
> >> Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom
> >> of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor
> >> idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual
> >> offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor
> >> slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.
> >> (1 Corinthians 6:9-10 NIV)
> >Interesting. You do realize that the above verses are referring to
> >temple prostitution and idolatry don't you? Of course there is also
> >that part about "slanderers"...
>
> >...Hmmm.
> Thanks for publicly demonstrating (again), that you
> deliberately lie about what the Bible says,
I "demonstrated" no such thing. Go ahead - see if you can prove me
wrong by actually doing a Greek word study of I Corinthians 6:9-10.
Go ahead and do it (if you're not afraid to) and then report your
findings back here for all to see your superior Biblical knowledge and
study skills.
> and will not
> inherit eternal life unless you repent and accept Christ's
> atonement for your homosexuality:
>
> Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters
> nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor practicing homosexuals
> nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor
> swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. (1 Corinthians
> 6:9-10 TNIV)
You do realize that the part "practicing homosexuals" was never in the
original Greek, don't you Randy? You claim to have been a student in
a Bible college at one time - did you not learn there how to properly
divide the Word of Truth (or so you still think that "studying the
Word to show yourself approved unto God" means merely reading the
words on the page of the Bible version that suits your bias and
prejudices best)?
You know...if you were so sure that I am wrong and you are right about
what the Word says regarding homosexuality and if you really were the
superior side of the species as you believe you are, you wouldn't be
redirecting my replies to a group where no one in your usual groups
can read them. In short...
...you're a coward, Randy Young.
Borg Master
"Randy �" <pulpi...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:3psl451rj4kbsfptv...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 30 Jun 2009 22:11:22 -0700 (PDT),
> In newsgroup "alt.bible",
> Article
> <a572907f-69d2-4e9d...@t13g2000yqt.googlegroups.com>,
> <<k�ll�>> <rosie...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Randy is so afraid of reading what I reply (and wants so
>>desperately to appear like the big man on campus) that
>>he's dishonestly and craftily redirected any replies I make
>>to a group I do not beling to and would never post in on
>>my own volition
>
>
> What's the matter, are you afraid that even your fellow
> lesbians will chastise you for being an hypocrite?
Ah! she's a lesbian....that answers a lot....
<<kêllÿ>>
> Your copy paste signature says it but Randy your actions and words in your
> posts do not. You judge others according to whether you like them or not.
> You judge others according to whether they believe as you do or not. Do you
> have a degree in Theology? Do you have a Masters degree in Bible
> interpretation?
>
> I don't think you have either. You are just like the rest of us trying to do
> what is right in God's sight but you do yours with hatred in your heart and
> condemn those of us who rather teach the Love of God. Randy you lie, you
> twist words you manipulate and you rearrange posts to leave out text to suit
> your own personal agenda.
>
> You go so far as to even "put words in others mouths" when you post... Thank
> you for your confession etc. There is no confessions you just want others to
> look bad to make yourself seem to look good.
>
> You Randy need to repent of your judgment on others and your condemnation of
> others before it is too late. Remember Randy There is no more condemnation
> to those who are in Christ Jesus and whether you like it or not Mr. "I" do
> belong to Jesus and I am saved whether you like it or not and I will be with
> Jesus one day for eternity whether you like it or not.
Randy will likely be one of my neighbors in Heaven - one of those
neighbors I will enjoy knocking on his door and bringing a festive-
looking muffin basket to before I ask to come inside his mansion to
share it with him. ;-)
Randy �
In newsgroup "alt.bible",
Article <7b0cohF...@mid.individual.net>,
"Diana" <shech...@reborn.com> wrote:
[Your solution for getting caught in one lie? Simply make up
a new one.]
> You judge others according to whether you like them or not.
No, you do. That's why someone can blaspheme the Christ you
profess to believe in as "Anti-Christ", and "Satan" every
single day for five consecutive years, but as long as they say
nice things to you personally, you welcome them as a "brother
in Christ". Meanwhile, you continuously attack and try to
undermine the reputation of anyone who proclaims or defends
the true gospel, if they dare to say anything at all that puts
you in an unfavorable light (thanks for illustrating that in
this very post, and on a daily basis also).
Randy �
In newsgroup "alt.bible",
>There is no more condemnation
>to those who are in Christ Jesus
And there's no one in Christ Jesus who did not get there
through faith that Christ died for their _sins_, and rose from
the dead. It's not evil to tell someone they are a sinner in
need of Christ, and trying to portray it as evil bitterness to
do so (especially while you welcome people who blaspheme the
God you claim to trust, as a "brother in Christ", is to oppose
the gospel you claim to believe.
<<kêllÿ>>
> Ha ! this coming from a man who bullies his wife into having sex with him
> then wants to complains about her unplanned pregnancy.
Do you have posts to back up these claims?
I
> I sure can't take a Bible with me everywhere I go and consult it like it's
> an oracle for everything I do or have learned or have experienced.
Then obviously you aren't a Trew Kristyun! ..... Thank God! ;-)
> So did you know there is life to live beyond a Bible?
>
> Do you take it with you in the bathtub or read it while you prepare a
> meal, or take it on the tractor as you plow the fields? Do you take it to
> Wal-Mart and read it as you shop?
> Do you take it on a job interview or read it as you drive your car?
"Man shall not live by bread alone but by ....."
Do you live by the bible?
Do you consciously take a breath or make your heart beat as a result of
reading the bible?
If we give bibles to starving people will it help them live?
Can they eat the pages to get nutrition?
I
> Anyone who claims God is ok with a "loving, monogamous,
> homosexual relationships ... has no credibility as a christian
> or Bible expositor, and certainly has no shame.
Anyone who claims that genocide, slavery, sexism, homophobia and other hate
crimes are "God's Word" is deranged and doesn't know God who is love.
I
> Unlike the Bible, I do not regard your impression of your own
> life experiences, or other random thoughts that may come to
> your mind, as an authoritative standard for faith and
> practice.
Randy still does not understand and mistakes a finite fallible man-made book
as his "god".
#########################################################
Christ does not read the Bible, the New Testament, or the Gospel. He is the
norm of the Bible, the criterion of the New Testament, the incarnation of
the Gospel. ... The person, not the book, and the life, not the text, are
decisive and constitutive for us.
John Dominic Crossan "God & Emprire: Jesus against Rome, then and now,"
(HarperOne:2007) p. 95
########################################################
I
> <PUKE>
The puke factor in your statements is overwhelming. I don't need an
ignorant fundamentalist who thinks God condones hate to tell me what to do.
--
'As rare as a Fundamentalist who loves his enemy.
#################################################
... quoting from James Barr's book "Fundamentalism" on the three
distinguishing features of the Fundamentalist '... an assurance that those
who do not share their religious viewpoint are not really true Christians at
all.' - Peter Cameron "Heretic" (Doubleday; Sydney: 1994) p. 178
#################################################
I
I
> Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom
> of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor
> idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual
> offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor
> slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.
> (1 Corinthians 6:9-10 NIV)
(Romans 1) Paul is asserting that homosexuality is the punishment given by
God to those who fail to worship God properly. ... Paul is saying that God
infects people with homosexual desire if they engage in improper worshiop or
use improper images of God. ... If God could or would do that, would God be
worthy of anyone's worship? Would not God be an ogre, a demion or something
worse? p.136
In I Corinthians 5:10 and 6:9 Paul uses the word malekos, which means "soft"
or "lacking in self control", and the word arsenokoitis, which means " a
male lying" and is frequently used for male prostitutes. The normal
translation of these words has been "sexual perverts," by which most people
mean homosexuals. There is much debate in New testament circles as to
whether this translation is accurate. Is Paul referring to male
p-rostitutes or even to abusive homosexual relationships, then a word of
condemnation might well be in order. For that condemnation to extend to
include faithful, loving, non-exploitive gay and lesbian partnerships would
be to stretch the text to the breaking point in service to one's own
prejudice. pp140-141
from John Shelby Spong "The Sins Of Scripture: Eposing The Bible's Texts of
Hate To Reveal The God of Love" (HarperCollins: 2005)
I
dolf
their US counterparts, have traditionally been reluctant to bring God
into politics: Prime Minister Kevin Rudd has promised two nuns that he
will press the Pope on the canonisation of Mary MacKillop.
The Archdiocese of Sydney said Mr Rudd would raise the issue in a
meeting with Pope Benedict XVI in Rome on July 9.
The Prime Minister had made the promise to two nuns at a Sydney church
"over a cup of tea'' on yesterday evening: 29 June 2009.
But a new study shows federal MPs are invoking Christian beliefs with
increasing frequency to justify their policies and articulate their
personal values and visions for the nation." [In the name of the father
-- MPs flock to Jesus, Mark Davis, National Editor to The Australian
Newspaper, 30 June 2009]
(ru) dolf: "I cannot believe, that not a single journalist on 2009.6.29
asked the fashionable Bruno whether women confuse his hysterical Prince
Albert (Prince of Thurn and Taxis) performance as accessory helmet
carrying knight of the Austrian Order of the Golden Fleece, with an IUD
or IOU?
That not only does he continue to steal my creative ideas, but he
perpetuates a grotesque parody of me and other gay participants within
our Community. Media reports (the Australian 2009.6.30) gives his
justification as follows: "Look, what I'm trying to do is undo all the
damage done to my community by the movie Milk (about gay activist Harvey
Milk, starring Sean Penn). Apparently the lead actor from that wasn't
even gay."
Bruno wore a skimpy schoolboy uniform changing into shining armour for
the State Theatre premiere. The uniform appeared an obvious homage to
AC/DC guitarist Angus Young {ie. Rivers Bob's cover as dirty deeds done
with sheep done to the tune of AC/CD's Dirty Deeds Done Dirt Cheap: The
category comparitor is to fanatics with whom you'd shake hands and leave
your children with}, although Bruno feigned ignorance. Rather, he's
inspired by the great leaders, Gandhi and Jesus Christ, who like him,
look good in underwear.
Olrik (olri...@yahoo.com): "dolf lost it...Mary had a little lamb,
little lamb, little lamb, Mary had a little lamb, whose fleece was white
as snow. [words by Sarah Josepha Hale]"
(ru) dolf: "Look I'm not interested in providing anymore foundational
cognitive elements for multi-media Alice marketing opportunities."
Olrik (olri...@yahoo.com): "Pure quote fabrication. 'dolf', you're a
dishonest person. Shame on you. You should buy a gun, at least one
bullet, and do the honorable thing."
(ru) dolf: "Do you have any relationship with media, radio, television
and the arts that might derive some benefit from your stalking?"
Olrik (olri...@yahoo.com): "Yes."
(ru) dolf: "Because I'm not into organized crime... "
Sasha Baron Cohen is reported to have said at his conference: "I want to
be the gay stereotype, I want to be the gay role model -- accept it!"
(ru) dolf: "Given past discrimination by Jews of gay persons in this
country, I have vowed never to attend the Jew Synagogue Elizabeth Street
Sydney and this prohibition extends to my attendance at the Jewish
Museum on the grounds I will derive too much pleasure and contemptuous
disdain for you as a people.
Has anyone seen that rosy belle <<k�ｿｽll�ｿｽ>> (316...@gmail.com) following
close behind? How's that itchy vagina of yours? This use to be a
funhouse... "
Bazza Magoo (Barry [Lucy Boots] OGrady): "What is Qolan Dolt? You should
quore something before your reply. Only fools top post."
(ru) dolf: "But how honest is his Karl Stefanovic impersonation?
According to 2009.6.24 media reports by Jason Koutsoukis courtesy: The
Age Newspaper, former treasurer Peter Costello and Ms Gillard visiting
Jerusalem, have called for a different kind of conversation from world
leaders trying to promote freedom and justice: "If the root of democracy
is conversation, then the true root of friendship is honesty," Ms
Gillard said.
"We should be honest about the difficulty of achieving a just and
lasting settlement to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict."
"We should be honest about where we all fail to live up to our ideals.
We should be honest about how, despite its importance, politics is only
one small part of what shapes our lives and our actions. We should be
honest about what each of our nations still has to learn.
"And we should use honesty to make our exchanges and our differences
more valuable and better appreciated." [(c) 2009 Fairfax Digital, The
Australian Newspaper 2009.6.24 on-line edition]
Carl McCluskey (sai...@nettally.com): "This public service announcement
has been brought to you by 'Citizens For Truth In Advertising' {tm}
which is solely responsible for its content."
(ru) dolf: "That's qolon spelt without a 'u' and semantical
justification for that is found in the zeitgeist inspired name Qantas as
spirit of a nation!"
Monkfish (monkfish@nowhere): "Ther[e] are many many things you don't
understand. Get over it soon."
(ru) dolf: "Such as e=mc�ｿｽ? How then do you explain the semiotic and
cosmological basis to language and mind? "
Monkfish (monkfish@nowhere): "Do you really want the universe to be only
with things you understand?"
(ru) dolf: "If empty conjecture is all you are capable of conveying then
you do have the alternative where you don't need to speak."
Monkfish (monkfish@nowhere): "Do I have to? How about something much
more complex than us?"
(ru) dolf: "Are you an �ｿｽbermensch American, what other than Br�ｿｽno could
be more complex than that?"
Carl McCluskey (sai...@nettally.com): "I see you haven't had any success
arresting anyone at hotmail nor any place else as you threatened."
(ru) dolf: "Did my foot slip upon the way or did Cardinal George Pell
continue to show disrespect to State by failing to proffer an
apology--which by any artful accomplishment is now opportunity past?"
Carl McCluskey (sai...@nettally.com): "You need psychiatric counseling
for the mental illnesses of which you admitted."
(ru) dolf: "Treason is what treason does! I used that www-page as a
reference on Bill Feuerer ("the Dolt")
And mention the 'Mental Block' on 2009.2.18 in a discussion tread 'The
Truth Behind Leviticus 18:22' in newsgroups: alt.bible,
alt.christnet.christianlife, alt.religion.christian,
alt.religion.christian.baptist, aus.religion.christian
As comment which was applied to me just the other day--wherein I falsely
was accused: "Much like the Dolt, aren't you...twist reality to sooth
your senses...
Correct yourself... But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his
brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and
whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the
council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool {ie. *Dolt* a stupid
person}, shall be in danger of hell fire.
Therefore if thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest
that thy brother hath ought against thee;
Leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be
reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift.
Agree with thine adversary quickly, whilst thou art in the way with him;
lest at any time the adversary deliver thee to the judge, and the judge
deliver thee to the officer, and thou be cast into prison.
Verily I say unto thee, Thou shalt by no means come out thence, till
thou hast paid the uttermost farthing--a former monetary unit and coin
of the UK, withdrawn in 1961, equal to a quarter of an old penny."
[Matthew 5:22-26 (KJV)]
Fasgnadh (fasg...@yahoo.com.au): "How could God so ACCURATELY predict
the fate of EVERY ATHEIST REGIME, Centuries ago!?!?!!!"
Virgil (vir...@nowhere.com): "Depends on which 'God' or 'Gods' are
alleged to have done so and what evidence that 'gods' followers have of
such prediction."
Fasgnadh (fasg...@yahoo.com.au): "Atheists can't answer, real men know,
little boys run away... ;-)"
Virgil (vir...@nowhere.com): "In this respect, both Buddha and Brahma
trump Ya[h]weh."
Linda Freeman (lfreemanli...@webtv.net): "Christian belief
doesn't save Amen bruddah..."
Fasgnadh (fasg...@yahoo.com.au): "The One that counts, you poor deluded
moron!"
Linda Freeman (lfreemanli...@webtv.net): "Most of us wish we
could die in our sleep. Not many want to die in pain or face another
plane of existence of which they have not prepared for.
If you do not believe you are immortal, then what a Christian says
shouldn't bother you. Your just gonna die like a animal, right?
If you ask me, from what I've heard, a plane crash is a pretty fast way
to go. You could liken it to being taken, like in the rapture."
(ru) dolf: "I've heard of Yahweh, and of statues to Buddha and Brahma,
but who is Bruddah?"
Virgil (vir...@nowhere.com): "They all count, to their worshippers, but
none of them count otherwise."
Fasgnadh (fasg...@yahoo.com.au): "You snipped it."
Virgil (vir...@nowhere.com): "It wasn't ever there to be snipped. All I
have snipped from fasgnadh's delusional maunderings are some of his less
coherent ones."
Zencycle (abandoned the argument he has lost): "Islam considers every
one who does not follow islam to be a non-believer."
Virgil (vir...@nowhere.com): "No more twaddley than christian delusions."
Randy �ｿｽ pulpi...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wed, 1 Jul 2009 01:22:10 -0400,
> In newsgroup "alt.bible",
> Article <7b0a4eF...@mid.individual.net>,
> "Diana" <shech...@reborn.com> wrote:
>
>
>>> I'll never tell her she's a worthless sinner like these people who start
>>> em out young only to turn them into miserable people later in life.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> Wow where has the time gone !!! Seems like yesterday you told us she was
>> just being born. Never let anyone else tell her that either. Always tell her
>> about the love of Jesus and never the hate of these people here. May God
>> surround your Grand-Daughter with protection from the world and people who
>> spew hatred and bitterness. May His hand always be upon her life that she
>> may be a living testamony to His Goodness and Mercy and Love.
>>
>
>
> If it gets to the point where you won't tell someone Christ
> died for their sins and rose from the dead, because you think
> that would be an evil spewing of bitterness and hatred, you
> will have just earned the title: Total Moron.
>
Pastor Dave
<rosie...@rocketmail.com> spake thusly:
>Hmmm..."not walking in craftiness or adulterating the Word of God..."
Which is what you're doing when you claim that God
does not condemn homosexual acts, if the two people
decide not to date anyone else but each other.
In other words, you are trying to claim that the rule
against fornication (marriage out of wedlock) doesn't
apply if it's two homosexuals who are monogamous
with each other doing it.
You like to demand that others show you where what
they say is found in the Bible and yet, are never able
to do that for the things you claim, like what you do
about "monogamous homosexuals", nor do you even
offer to, nor will you face up to it when asked to!
So now I will ask you the question that you keep asking
Matt hen he says the Bible says something and I will ask
it about your "monogamous homosexuals being okay
with God and not a sin for them to have sex" claim:
"Where do you find that in the Bible?"
--
Pastor Dave
The following is part of my auto-rotating sig file
and not part of the message above.
"Anybody who has been seriously engaged in scientific
work of any kind realizes that over the entrance to
the gates of the temple of science are written the
words: 'Ye must have faith'. It is a quality which
the scientist cannot dispense with." - Max Planck
Pastor Dave
<rosie...@rocketmail.com> spake thusly:
>On Jun 30, 10:40�pm, Randy � <pulpitf...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom
>> of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor
>> idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual
>> offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor
>> slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.
>> (1 Corinthians 6:9-10 NIV)
>
>Interesting. You do realize that the above verses are referring to
>temple prostitution and idolatry don't you?
That is your claim. But there is more to it than that.
I know you want to exclude only homosexuals from
committing the sin of fornication, by trying to claim
that monogamous homosexuals are okay with God,
but it doesn't work that way! Sex out of wedlock
is fornication, period and so, even without worrying
about what the Bible says about homosexual sex,
you are already wrong!
--
Pastor Dave
The following is part of my auto-rotating sig file
and not part of the message above.
The Last Days were in the first century:
Speaking to His disciples that were standing
in front of Him, Jesus said...
Luke 21:20-22
20) And when YE shall see JERUSALEM compassed
with armies, then know that the desolation
THEREOF IS NIGH.
21) Then let them which are IN JUDEA flee to
the mountains; and let them which are in the
midst of it depart out; and let not them that
are in the countries enter thereinto.
22) For THESE be the days of vengeance, that
ALL THINGS WHICH ARE WRITTEN, MAY BE FULFILLED.
And this happened in 70 AD, when the Temple
was also torn apart, stone by stone, just
as Jesus said would happen! So you either
believe Jesus when He said that it meant
that "all things written were fulfilled",
or you don't and you can claim that Jesus
didn't know what you know today, thereby
worshipping a supposed "Lord" that you make
inferior in knowledge to you and who stated
things as true that He didn't know, thereby
making Him a liar. It's your choice.
As for me, I believe Him. Especially over
what vain, egotistical men today have to say!
Pastor Dave
<rosie...@rocketmail.com> spake thusly:
>> Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters
>> nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor practicing homosexuals
>> nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor
>> swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. (1 Corinthians
>> 6:9-10 TNIV)
>
> You do realize that the part "practicing homosexuals"
> was never in the original Greek, don't you Randy?
Folks, the homosexuals always want to play their word games!
And they don't even realize how stupid they look when doing it!
Fact: It would be fornication, regardless, as it is sex outside
of marriage.
Fact: Nowhere did God say; "It's okay to have homo sex"
and nowhere did God say;"It's okay to fornicate,
as long as you keep doing it with the same person"
and nowhere did God say; "The sin of fornication
becomes okay with Me, as long as you just keep
doing it over and over again"!
Fact: You are trying to claim that God has no problem with
homosexual sex, as long as you keep at it.
What're you, on glue?! Please! Bawahahaha! <chuckle>
--
Pastor Dave
The following is part of my auto-rotating sig file
and not part of the message above.
In the beginning, God created...
And He did it in six days and said He did it
in six days (Exodus 20:11). Jesus believed
that and referenced it, in Matthew 19:3-8
and in other places. The original Hebrew
word for "day" ("yom"), is never used to mean
anything but a literal day in the Bible, when
a numerical adjective is present ("second, third,
etc.). Are we to believe that this is somehow
the one exception?
Randy �
In newsgroup "alt.bible",
Article <qijm45lss9vfm33bt...@4ax.com>,
Pastor Dave <ananias917_@_gmail.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 30 Jun 2009 22:46:41 -0700 (PDT), <<k�ll�>>
><rosie...@rocketmail.com> spake thusly:
>
>
>>On Jun 30, 10:40�pm, Randy � <pulpitf...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom
>>> of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor
>>> idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual
>>> offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor
>>> slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.
>>> (1 Corinthians 6:9-10 NIV)
>>
>>Interesting. You do realize that the above verses are referring to
>>temple prostitution and idolatry don't you?
>
>That is your claim. But there is more to it than that.
>
>I know you want to exclude only homosexuals from
>committing the sin of fornication, by trying to claim
>that monogamous homosexuals are okay with God,
>but it doesn't work that way! Sex out of wedlock
>is fornication, period and so, even without worrying
>about what the Bible says about homosexual sex,
>you are already wrong!
Correct.
--
Randy �
In newsgroup "alt.bible",
Article <08jm45h7dgajpi9op...@4ax.com>,
Pastor Dave <ananias917_@_gmail.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 30 Jun 2009 22:13:56 -0700 (PDT), <<k�ll�>>
><rosie...@rocketmail.com> spake thusly:
>
>
>>Hmmm..."not walking in craftiness or adulterating the Word of God..."
>
>Which is what you're doing when you claim that God
>does not condemn homosexual acts, if the two people
>decide not to date anyone else but each other.
>
>In other words, you are trying to claim that the rule
>against fornication (marriage out of wedlock) doesn't
>apply if it's two homosexuals who are monogamous
>with each other doing it.
>
>You like to demand that others show you where what
>they say is found in the Bible and yet, are never able
>to do that for the things you claim, like what you do
>about "monogamous homosexuals", nor do you even
>offer to, nor will you face up to it when asked to!
>
>So now I will ask you the question that you keep asking
>Matt hen he says the Bible says something and I will ask
>it about your "monogamous homosexuals being okay
>with God and not a sin for them to have sex" claim:
>
>"Where do you find that in the Bible?"