Prayer for Ninure Saunders
Bible John
Rainbow baptists crowd.
A member of the unbeliever page
http://johnw.freeshell.org/bible/cult_list.htm
Dear Lord,
Bless Ninure Saunders Save her soul! Help Ninure Saunders to repent to
You and call
You Lord. Let her trust Jesus.
Help Ninure Saunders to read her Bible and understand it. Let her find
a
great
church
and start attending.
Send Christians to bless Ninure Saunders.
In Jesus' name, Amen.
God bless you Ninure Saunders!
Sincerely,
John Wolf
--
CERM-Church Education Resource Ministries
http://johnw.freeshell.org/bible/
John 14:6 Jesus answered, łI am the way and
the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father
except through me.
AIM-Crucifyself03
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
• Ninure Saunders
Bible John <john.d...@x-files.gov> wrote:
-* Please join me in daily prayer for Ninure Saunders A member of the
-Rainbow baptists crowd.
-
-A member of the unbeliever page
-
Which means YOU bear false witness against me.
I am a beliver in Jesus Christ as the Only Begotten Son of God, that
Jesus is my Lord and my Saviuor.
You, howber seem to think that YOU are God, and that belief in your
"bovinr drool" is somehow required for salvation.
Well guess what?
YOU are not God, nor did He make you the Judge over who is saved and who is not.
--
Pax Christi,
• Ninure Saunders aka Rainbow Christian
Jesus is my Shepherd and He knows I'm Gay
http://Ninure-Saunders.tk
My Yahoo Group
http://Ninure.tk
Universal Fellowship of Metropolitan Community Churches
http://www.MCCchurch.org
The Bible Site - help provide free scripture
http://www.thebiblesite.org
To send e-mail, remove nohate from address
Amazing Grace
"Bible John" <john.d...@x-files.gov> wrote in message
news:john.doggett-FBF2...@News-West.newsfeeds.com...
>* Please join me in daily prayer for Ninure Saunders A member of the
> Rainbow baptists crowd.
>
> A member of the unbeliever page
>
> http://johnw.freeshell.org/bible/cult_list.htm
>
> Dear Lord,
>
> Bless Ninure Saunders Save her soul! Help Ninure Saunders to repent to
> You and call
> You Lord. Let her trust Jesus.
>
> Help Ninure Saunders to read her Bible and understand it. Let her find
> a
> great
> church
> and start attending.
>
> Send Christians to bless Ninure Saunders.
>
> In Jesus' name, Amen.
>
> God bless you Ninure Saunders!
>
> Sincerely,
> John Wolf
>
I do not agree with your "unbelievers list". It is not up to you to decide
who believes and who does not. God is our judge.
I am happy to pray for anyone that needs prayer. Ninure posted in this
group a long time before we ever saw posts from you. If she needs prayer she
knows all she has to do is ask.God Bless,
Grace
Bible John
"Amazing Grace" <lad...@infionline.net> wrote:
> I do not agree with your "unbelievers list". It is not up to you to decide
> who believes and who does not. God is our judge.
> I am happy to pray for anyone that needs prayer. Ninure posted in this
> group a long time before we ever saw posts from you. If she needs prayer she
> knows all she has to do is ask.God Bless,
> Grace
We can know if they are saved or not by what they teach. Ninure
believes that she can be a homosexual and at the same time be saved.
John
markwise
Bible John wrote:
> In article <TAIcf.6519$2y....@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
> "Amazing Grace" <lad...@infionline.net> wrote:
>
> > I do not agree with your "unbelievers list". It is not up to you to decide
> > who believes and who does not. God is our judge.
> > I am happy to pray for anyone that needs prayer. Ninure posted in this
> > group a long time before we ever saw posts from you. If she needs prayer she
> > knows all she has to do is ask.God Bless,
> > Grace
>
> We can know if they are saved or not by what they teach. Ninure
> believes that she can be a homosexual and at the same time be saved.
Actually that implies that we can read and judge what's in their
hearts. That would be wrong.
We cannot *truly* know if a person isn't saved. We can only begin
understand the words they speak and rebuke false teaching if present
seeking repentance.
Now I agree that if someone *says* they are homosexual and can be saved
without seeking repentance for such a sin, or any sin, that their
salvation is certainly *questionable* from our external viewpoint. But
how are we to know what's truly in their heart simply by what they say?
And thus to devise an "unbeliever's list" is really a sinful practice
and not in accord with the love that Christ would command we show our
neighbor.
Bible Bob
<john.d...@x-files.gov> wrote:
>In article <TAIcf.6519$2y....@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
> "Amazing Grace" <lad...@infionline.net> wrote:
>
>> I do not agree with your "unbelievers list". It is not up to you to decide
>> who believes and who does not. God is our judge.
>> I am happy to pray for anyone that needs prayer. Ninure posted in this
>> group a long time before we ever saw posts from you. If she needs prayer she
>> knows all she has to do is ask.God Bless,
>> Grace
>
>We can know if they are saved or not by what they teach. Ninure
>believes that she can be a homosexual and at the same time be saved.
>
>
>John
John,
Are you changing doctrines again? I thought you said homosexuals
could be saved and now you say they are not saved. Make up your mind.
I should not have asked you to make up your mind because a double
minded man is unstable in all his ways and boy do you prove that verse
to be true. But at least we know why you lack wisdom and can not get
any wisdom for God and why you have to consort with Satan to get
information.
James 1:5 KJV
If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all
[men] liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.
James 1:6 KJV
But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. For he that wavereth is
like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed.
James 1:7 KJV
For let not that man think that he shall receive any thing of the
Lord.
James 1:8 KJV
A double minded man [is] unstable in all his ways.
You can NOT tell if a person is saved by what they teach. Homosexuals
CAN be saved just like anybody else. God is able to save anyone that
is not born of the seed of the serpent.
.....
BB
http://www.biblebob.net
Bible John
"markwise" <mark...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Actually that implies that we can read and judge what's in their
> hearts. That would be wrong.
>
> We cannot *truly* know if a person isn't saved. We can only begin
> understand the words they speak and rebuke false teaching if present
> seeking repentance.
No we cannot, but one who claims to live an active homosexual life and
then at the same time claims to be saved is preaching another message
than what is taught in the bible.
Homosexuals as well as all mankind can be saved and God wants them to be
saved. But one cannot claim salvation yet also claim to be a
homosexual. This is like claiming to be Mormon and then claiming to be
christian.
>
> Now I agree that if someone *says* they are homosexual and can be saved
> without seeking repentance for such a sin, or any sin, that their
> salvation is certainly *questionable* from our external viewpoint. But
> how are we to know what's truly in their heart simply by what they say?
> And thus to devise an "unbeliever's list" is really a sinful practice
> and not in accord with the love that Christ would command we show our
> neighbor.
How is it sinful when these are christian boards? Christians should be
the primary audience here and not unbelievers or atheists as is the case.
Bible John
Bible Bob <biblebo...@biblebob.net> wrote:
> John,
>
> Are you changing doctrines again? I thought you said homosexuals
> could be saved and now you say they are not saved. Make up your mind.
Of coarse they and all mankind can be saved. But one cannot live an
active homosexual life and then claim salvation.
John
--
CERM-Church Education Resource Ministries
http://johnw.freeshell.org/bible/
John 14:6 Jesus answered, "I am the way and
Bible Bob
<john.d...@x-files.gov> wrote:
>In article <1131634003.9...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> "markwise" <mark...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Actually that implies that we can read and judge what's in their
>> hearts. That would be wrong.
>>
>> We cannot *truly* know if a person isn't saved. We can only begin
>> understand the words they speak and rebuke false teaching if present
>> seeking repentance.
>
>No we cannot, but one who claims to live an active homosexual life and
>then at the same time claims to be saved is preaching another message
>than what is taught in the bible.
>
>Homosexuals as well as all mankind can be saved and God wants them to be
>saved. But one cannot claim salvation yet also claim to be a
>homosexual. This is like claiming to be Mormon and then claiming to be
>christian.
>
Your logic is faulty and not based on an accurate knowledge of the
Scriptures. Ye do error not know the scriptures or the power of God
and you never will until you repent of your allegiance to Satan to
serve the one true God.
>>
>> Now I agree that if someone *says* they are homosexual and can be saved
>> without seeking repentance for such a sin, or any sin, that their
>> salvation is certainly *questionable* from our external viewpoint. But
>> how are we to know what's truly in their heart simply by what they say?
>> And thus to devise an "unbeliever's list" is really a sinful practice
>> and not in accord with the love that Christ would command we show our
>> neighbor.
>
>How is it sinful when these are christian boards? Christians should be
>the primary audience here and not unbelievers or atheists as is the case.
>
You are showing yout stupidity again.
>
>John
.....
BB
http://www.biblebob.net
Bible Bob
<john.d...@x-files.gov> wrote:
>In article <kgn6n1dcjhomatr6o...@4ax.com>,
> Bible Bob <biblebo...@biblebob.net> wrote:
>
>> John,
>>
>> Are you changing doctrines again? I thought you said homosexuals
>> could be saved and now you say they are not saved. Make up your mind.
>
>Of coarse they and all mankind can be saved. But one cannot live an
>active homosexual life and then claim salvation.
Where does it say that in the Bible? You commit far worse sins that
homosexuality. Your perversions are vile and sadistic and you refuse
to repent. Does that mean that you are not saved?
Bible Bob
Mark,
That's right.
As I said in my response to John, a double minded man is unstable in
all his ways and John changes his doctrinal beliefs like a chameleon
changes color.
The word of God teaches that homosexuality is sin; but sin is not what
keeps people from getting saved. What keeps people from being saved
and living the more than abundant life that Jesus Christ came to make
available is rejection of the avior from sin - Jesus Christ. All
unrighteousness is sin and while the consequences of different sins
may differ the way to forgiveness is the same.
I have worked with many homosexuals over the years and am working with
several of them now. All three confess that homosexuality is wrong.
All three confess that marriage between people of the same sex is
wrong and two of them abstain from such behavior. One of them is more
"Christian" than John may ever be because he has a true heart and
places his love for God before his love for men. I have had the
privilege of watching this man grow in esteem and respect amonsgt
other believers. He manifests genuine fruit of the spirit in his life
which something that John will never manifest so long as he is bound
by the works of the flesh.
Many of the homosexuals (mostly females) that I have worked with over
the years have forsaken that behavior and have married. Several of
them have children and you would never know that they were ever
involved in that behavior. John and people like John bind people in
their behavior patterns by teaching false doctrines that cause people
to think that God can not forgive them and can not work with them to
deliver them from the motivations of Satan.
John has become an ambassador for Satan rather than an ambassador for
Christ. He wastes his potential to be profitable to God and the body
so that he can show off in the newsgroups.
.....
BB
http://www.biblebob.net
Moira de Swardt
". Ninure Saunders" <Ninure...@Rainbow-Christian.tk> wrote in
message
> Bible John <john.d...@x-files.gov> wrote:
> -* Please join me in daily prayer for Ninure Saunders A member of
the
> -Rainbow baptists crowd.
> I am a beliver in Jesus Christ as the Only Begotten Son of God,
that
> Jesus is my Lord and my Saviuor.
<Snip>
> YOU are not God, nor did He make you the Judge over who is saved
and who is not.
Hi Ninure, good to see you. I'm always happy to pray for you,
giving our gracious heavenly Father thanks for you and your
faithfulness. You are sorely missed on the clergy newsgroup, as is
Rowland.
Love and blessings
Moira
Dave
> * Please join me in daily prayer for Ninure Saunders A member
> of the Rainbow baptists crowd.
>
> A member of the unbeliever page
>
> http://johnw.freeshell.org/bible/cult_list.htm
>
> Dear Lord,
>
> Bless Ninure Saunders Save her soul! Help Ninure Saunders to
> repent to You and call You Lord. Let her trust Jesus.
>
> Help Ninure Saunders to read her Bible and understand it. Let
> her find a great church and start attending.
>
> Send Christians to bless Ninure Saunders.
Compare to this message:
http://groups.google.com/group/free.christians/msg/e0116ca1eedb49ac
Dear Gastrich-wannabe:
See Matthew 6:5, 6
Moira de Swardt
"Bible John" <john.d...@x-files.gov> wrote in message
> We can know if they are saved or not by what they teach. Ninure
> believes that she can be a homosexual and at the same time be
saved.
Jesus died on the cross for the "whosoever", not the "heterosexual
whosoever".
Moira de Swardt
"Bible John" <john.d...@x-files.gov> wrote in message
> No we cannot, but one who claims to live an active homosexual life
and
> then at the same time claims to be saved is preaching another
message
> than what is taught in the bible.
What is taught in the Bible? Where does Jesus say that homosexuals
are going to hell or are not saved?
--
Moira de Swardt
The most beautiful, most intelligent, most amusing, most charming,
richest, most talented woman currently posting to
soc.culture.south-africa
Diana
"Moira de Swardt" <moir...@wol.co.za> wrote in message
news:dl042k$kj1$5...@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net...
The FOFIS
It's feels sad we put each other off because of stuff like this. What
is good is that YOU never ever put anybody of us away from You. Thank
you very, very much for Ninura Sanders and her way to live in peace
with You.
I have always think Ninura was a man, but now I understand she is a
lady! Ha,ha.. I think you have much fun of us down here.. Well, that
was a parenthesis..
But in all cases. You are our Lord and Savior and I am happy You
continue to bring strength and care as needed down and up on her!
Thank you very much for bring your peace to her and all other people
that live in constant condemnation by many christian people!
Amen
(Take care Ninura!)
Pastor Dave
<thef...@priest.com> spake thusly:
>Yes, Lord Jesus!
>It's feels sad we put each other off because of stuff like this. What
>is good is that YOU never ever put anybody of us away from You. Thank
>you very, very much for Ninura Sanders and her way to live in peace
>with You.
Ninure is a heretic who promotes sin as righteousness.
--
Pastor Dave Raymond
1st Century Church of Christ
Preaching the truth of Scripture,
from Creation to Revelation!
http://home.tampabay.rr.com/1stcentury
The way of a fool is right in his own eyes,
But he who hates correction is stupid.
Go from the presence of a foolish man,
When you do not perceive in him the lips of knowledge.
He who despises the word will be destroyed.
- Proverbs (assorted)
The FOFIS
Mat 7:2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with
what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
Mat 7:3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye,
but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
Mat 7:4 Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote
out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?
Mat 7:5 Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye;
and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy
brother's eye.
Mat 7:6 Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye
your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and
turn again and rend you.
Mat 7:7 Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find;
knock, and it shall be opened unto you:
Mat 7:8 For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh
findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened.
Mat 7:9 Or what man is there of you, whom if his son ask bread, will
he give him a stone?
Mat 7:10 Or if he ask a fish, will he give him a serpent?
Mat 7:11 If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your
children, how much more shall your Father which is in heaven give good
things to them that ask him?
Mat 7:12 Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do
to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.
Mat 7:13 Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and
broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which
go in thereat:
Mat 7:14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which
leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.
Mat 7:15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's
clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
Mat 7:16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of
thorns, or figs of thistles?
Mat 7:17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a
corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
Mat 7:18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a
corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.
Mat 7:19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down,
and cast into the fire.
Mat 7:20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.
Mat 7:21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter
into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father
which is in heaven.
Mat 7:22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not
prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in
thy name done many wonderful works?
Mat 7:23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart
from me, ye that work iniquity.
Mat 7:24 Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth
them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a
rock:
Mat 7:25 And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds
blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded
upon a rock.
Mat 7:26 And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth
them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house
upon the sand:
Mat 7:27 And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds
blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of
it.
Mat 7:28 And it came to pass, when Jesus had ended these sayings, the
people were astonished at his doctrine:
Mat 7:29 For he taught them as one having authority, and not as the
scribes.
Amen!
markwise
The FOFIS wrote:
> Mat 7:1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.
This verse is not a defense for false teaching. It has been abused in
that way by people who have never been properly taught God's Word.
> Mat 7:2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with
> what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
> Mat 7:3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye,
> but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
> Mat 7:4 Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote
> out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?
> Mat 7:5 Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye;
> and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy
> brother's eye.
Hypocrisy is indeed different from rebuking false teaching, unless you
of course speak the same false teaching.
Sin is sin. Matthew 18 even says that when a brother sins against you
are to go and tell him his fault. Although that shouldn't be said
without the following phrase: "If he listens to you, you have gained a
brother.." Christian admonishment against sin and false teaching is
never for personal gain. It is always for the benefit of the Gospel,
that a brother/sister may be won to repentance.
markwise
Moira de Swardt wrote:
> "Bible John" <john.d...@x-files.gov> wrote in message
>
> > No we cannot, but one who claims to live an active homosexual life
> and
> > then at the same time claims to be saved is preaching another
> message
> > than what is taught in the bible.
>
> What is taught in the Bible? Where does Jesus say that homosexuals
> are going to hell or are not saved?
He doesn't anywhere *directly* say that homosexuals are going to hell
or are not saved. Mark 16 says that we are condemned because of
unbelief. *However*, homosexuality like any other sin can condemn us
into unbelief when we do not have faith in Christ's forgiveness of that
sin and thusly repent of that sin before Christ.
The FOFIS
nought thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of
Christ.
Rom 14:11 For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee
shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God.
Rom 14:12 So then every one of us shall give account of himself to
God.
Rom 14:13 Let us not therefore judge one another any more: but judge
this rather, that no man put a stumblingblock or an occasion to fall in
his brother's way.
Rom 14:14 I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is
nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be
unclean, to him it is unclean.
Terrell
> In article <kgn6n1dcjhomatr6o...@4ax.com>,
> Bible Bob <biblebo...@biblebob.net> wrote:
>
>> John,
>>
>> Are you changing doctrines again? I thought you said homosexuals
>> could be saved and now you say they are not saved. Make up your mind.
>
> Of coarse they and all mankind can be saved. But one cannot live an
> active homosexual life and then claim salvation.
>
>
And what sins are in your life (rhetorical question I really don't want to
know)? Without looking up chapter/verse, I know the scriptures say two
things (at least) that apply -- 1)He who says he does not sin is a liar and
2)You'll be judged by the same standards you use to judge others.
And to paraphrase Paul, what I want to do, I do not do and what I don't want
to do, I do -- even Paul struggled with sin - and by what standard is your
sin any less sinful than those you judge?
--
Terrell
http://www.lastofall.com
Pastor Dave
<thef...@priest.com> spake thusly:
>Mat 7:1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.
Jesus said, "Judge righteous judgment".
You are acting foolish, when you claim that this verse means
that we are supposed to accept those who call sin
righteousness as brothers and sisters in Christ. The Bible
teaches us to reject the heretics and to make judgments all
the time. Read 1 Cor 5-6 and Titus 3:10-11.
Are you really that blinded, that you think that someone who
claims that homosexual fornication is righteousness before
God, is going to Heaven? Have you read 1 Cor 6:9-11?
Uncle Davey
Użytkownik "Bible John" <john.d...@x-files.gov> napisał w wiadomości
news:john.doggett-1A09...@News-West.newsfeeds.com...
> In article <TAIcf.6519$2y....@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
> "Amazing Grace" <lad...@infionline.net> wrote:
>
> > I do not agree with your "unbelievers list". It is not up to you to
decide
> > who believes and who does not. God is our judge.
> > I am happy to pray for anyone that needs prayer. Ninure posted in this
> > group a long time before we ever saw posts from you. If she needs prayer
she
> > knows all she has to do is ask.God Bless,
> > Grace
>
> We can know if they are saved or not by what they teach. Ninure
> believes that she can be a homosexual and at the same time be saved.
>
Well, a person can indeed be a homosexual and be saved.
A person can even be saved and go back to God in repentance and be
reconciled even after taking part in a lesbian or gay sex act.
70*7 times.
But repentance means that they should acknowledge their sin and call it sin,
and make every effort to avoid it, as if their lives depended on it.
But if they fail, then they have the same advocate with the father as you
do, if you slip up and have visit to a heterosexual brothel.
Homosexuals are sinners, but they are not necessarily worse sinners than we
are.
Uncle Davey
Dave
Snip
> But repentance means that they should acknowledge their
> sin and call it sin, and make every effort to avoid it, as if their
> lives depended on it.
Of course, there's always the "however," as we see here:
>
> But if they fail, then they have the same advocate with the
> father...
Which, in the end, makes it all right...right?
Uncle Davey
Uzytkownik "Dave" <hor...@gmail.com> napisal w wiadomosci
news:1131783098.5...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Hallelujah, you've understood it.
Uncle Davey
Dave
I also understand that you can use this doctrine to justify all kinds
of dishonest and even evil things, such as your "lesser of two evils"
justifications for deceptive behavior.
Uncle Davey
Well, typosquatting _is_ a lesser evil than allowing someone to hurtle into
a fiery abyss without letting them know how to reverse that process.
I stand by that.
Uncle Davey
Dave
> > I also understand that you can use this doctrine to justify
> > all kinds of dishonest and even evil things, such as your
> > "lesser of two evils" justifications for deceptive behavior.
>
> Well, typosquatting _is_ a lesser evil than allowing someone
> to hurtle into a fiery abyss without letting them know how to
> reverse that process.
>
> I stand by that.
Then you stand by deceptive behavior--the same sort of behavior used
by, among others, Internet porn merchants, and it prompts me to ask
again that question that I asked, but for which you never seemed to
have an answer. When Christians are commanded to avoid even the
*appearance* of evil, do you still justify this "lesser of two evils"
approach with Scripture? Can you show any occasion where Jesus allowed
that you could lie to people--or engage in any sort of deception, no
matter how minor you might believe it to be--in order to lead them to
the "truth" and the Gospel?
Dave
> Well, typosquatting _is_ a lesser evil than allowing someone
> to hurtle into a fiery abyss without letting them know how to
> reverse that process.
>
> I stand by that.
...and if you're willing to allow that form of deception, and presume
to justify it, and you are unwilling to avoid even the *appearance* of
evil, and you are willing to have at least *something* to do with the
forced of darkness, where does it stop? What lies are you not willing
to tell? What dishonest, deceptive acts, or acts that take advantage
of the unwitting mistake of another person, are you not willing to
engage?
Uncle Davey
Did He himself not say "be ye wise as serpents, and harmless as doves"?
It means, or seems to me to mean, that a bit of the old serpentine wisdom is
ok as long as the intent is not to harm but to bless.
If it means something else to you, then do kindly elucidate.
An internet porn merchant typosquats, but not to bless. Hence the means are
the same, but the end is opposite.
A criminal drives a fast car and breaks the speed limit, but his end is
different to that of the cop who is driving at the the same or higher speed,
chasing him.
When you chased criminals as a cop, did you break the speed limit, or did
you let them get away?
Best,
Uncle Davey
Uncle Davey
So a Christian by your interpretation would make a pretty lousy cop, as he
wouldn't be able to participate in car chases.
Uncle Davey
Dave
> Uzytkownik "Dave" <hor...@gmail.com> napisal w wiadomosci
> news:1131802849.4...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> So a Christian by your interpretation would make a pretty
> lousy cop, as he wouldn't be able to participate in car chases.
Wow...that's a pretty pathetic argument. Care to tell me how it
applies?
Uncle Davey
A cop, breaking the speed limit to catch a criminal, is applying the lesser
of two evils concept. It's less of an evil to break the speed limit than to
let a criminal go.
But you say a Christian shouldn't do this.
I think it's a valid argument, don't just dismiss it as pathetic. That's no
better than saying it's three steps below pathetic and then taking a month
to answer it.
I thought you were supposed to be better than me?
Uncle Davey
Dave
> > When Christians are commanded to avoid even the
> > *appearance* of evil, do you still justify this "lesser of
> > two evils" approach with Scripture? Can you show any
> > occasion where Jesus allowed that you could lie to
> > people--or engage in any sort of deception, no matter
> > how minor you might believe it to be--in order to lead
> > them to the "truth" and the Gospel?
>
> Did He himself not say "be ye wise as serpents, and
> harmless as doves"?
Yes, but where does he actually tell you that you may engage in
deceptive behavior to win others to the Gospel?
> It means, or seems to me to mean, that a bit of the old
> serpentine wisdom is ok as long as the intent is not to harm
> but to bless.
You don't see a difference between "wisdom" and "intent to deceive" or
"the appearance of evil?"
> If it means something else to you, then do kindly elucidate.
Uuuhhh...it's your argument. You are being challenged to justify the
deceptive behaviors and "the lesser of two evils." Jesus is quoted as
saying to be as wise as the serpent. Where does he say to engage in
the "lesser of two evils?"
> An internet porn merchant typosquats, but not to bless.
I suppose that depends on your interpretation.
> Hence the means are the same, but the end is opposite.
No, the end is not opposite. Gastrich engages in typosquatting to
divert others from opinions or materials with which he disagrees, and
you agree with that policy (you actually wrote that if there is a way
to keep people from seeing that sort of material, it should be done).
Stifling information flow is not a blessing. It is a means by which
one presumes to control.
> A criminal drives a fast car and breaks the speed limit, but
> his end is different to that of the cop who is driving at the
> the same or higher speed, chasing him.
The cop is not commanded by God to stay below the speed limit, but he
is directed by local policies with respect to pursuits, which may or
may not permit him to exceed the posted limits, depending on the reason
the officer may *wish* to engage in a pursuit. Remember, "you may be
faster than my motor, but you're not faster than my Motorola."
> When you chased criminals as a cop, did you break the
> speed limit, or did you let them get away?
I didn't "break the speed limit," because, following the local policies
and the local laws, a police officer exceeding the posted limit while
engaged in a lawful pursuit is not violating the law.
Dave
> Uzytkownik "Dave" <hor...@gmail.com> napisal w wiadomosci
> news:1131803702....@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > Uncle Davey wrote:
> > > Uzytkownik "Dave" <hor...@gmail.com> napisal w wiadomosci
> > > news:1131802849.4...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > > So a Christian by your interpretation would make a pretty
> > > lousy cop, as he wouldn't be able to participate in car chases.
> >
> > Wow...that's a pretty pathetic argument. Care to tell me how it
> > applies?
>
> A cop, breaking the speed limit to catch a criminal, is applying
> the lesser of two evils concept. It's less of an evil to break the
> speed limit than to let a criminal go.
A speed limit is a legally defined limit imposed as a result of a
determination of the safest maximum speed allowable in normal traffic
through a given area. When a police officer engages in a lawful
pursuit, he is not violating a "speed limit" because, for him or her,
there is no "speed limit." Instead, the pursuit is governed by the
policies of the local Department with respect to how a pursuit must be
conducted, and the means by which one may engage or disengage in a
pursuit.
> But you say a Christian shouldn't do this.
Police officers aren't told by God to stay below the speed limit.
Christians are told to avoid even the *appearance* of evil.
> I think it's a valid argument, don't just dismiss it as pathetic.
It's not a valid argument; and it is pathetic.
> That's no better than saying it's three steps below pathetic
> and then taking a month to answer it.
Since it was *you* who claimed that the argument of another was "three
steps below pathetic" and you *still* haven't rebutted it, are you now
criticizing your own, ill-advised statements?
> I thought you were supposed to be better than me?
Define "better."
Dave
> A criminal drives a fast car and breaks the speed limit...
And, by doing so, violates the law.
> ...but his end is different to that of the cop who is driving
> at the the same or higher speed, chasing him.
I've already explained why this isn't a valid analogy, and another
reason that it is not valid is that the suspect in this scenario is not
making a "mistake" or mistying something. He has intent to violate the
law, and the pursuit is a mechanism by which the law is enforced.
When a person mistypes a web address and is unwittingly taken to a
Gastrich site to which he had no intention of going, what law was he
violating? How is Gastrich's typosquatting an enforcement of anything
other than his (and your) desire to divert someone from seeing
something that Gastrich (and you) don't want him to see?
There are lots of other reasons why your analogy doesn't work.
Uncle Davey
I am willing to agree to disagree with you on these points.
Uncle Davey
Dave
> I am willing to agree to disagree with you on these
> points.
In other words, as usual, your pride won't allow you to concede
anything. It's not simply a matter of "agreeing to disagree." Your
analogy was flawed and you were wrong to apply it. You condone
deception and you refuse to avoid even "the appearance of evil." This
causes problems with your witness. You may gain a point or two with
those whom already agree with your theology, but I remain curious about
your feelings with respect to the utility of such things when it comes
to evangelism. If Christians are perceived as engaging in deceptive
acts, wouldn't it be better to avoid them, entirely, than to try to
excuse them as "the lesser of two evils?"
Uncle Davey
In that case, since you are saying that it's one law for the criminal who is
driving fast for bad reasons and another law for the cop who is driving fast
for good reasons, then I'm saying it's one level of disapproval for the
typosquatter who typosquats for bad reasons, and only the mildest
disapproval for those who typosquat for good reasons.
Now you may disagree as to whether the reasons are good, but allow for the
sake of argument my contention that they are.
You are probably aware that public disapproval for police driving fast is
not unanimous, especially seeing as they have also been responsible for
fatal accidents when doing so.
And Bible Bob says that they only drive fast in North Carolina when there
are fresh Krispy Kremes at the 7/11.
I've seen a 7/11, as there are a few in London, but what a Krispy Kreme is I
have absolutely no idea.
Uncle Davey
Uncle Davey
I did go on to explain in the next post to you why I don't think it is a
flawed analogy. What I concede is that you have well-thought out arguments
which mean that it could appear like a bad analogy to you. But we are
getting subjective now. That's why I am ready to agree to disagree.
Uncle Davey
Dave
> Uzytkownik "Dave" <hor...@gmail.com> napisal w wiadomosci
> news:1131804939....@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> In that case, since you are saying that it's one law for
> the criminal who is driving fast for bad reasons and another
> law for the cop who is driving fast for good reasons...
So, now it's not a matter of violating the speed limit...not it's a
matter of "driving fast," which isn't quite the same thing, is it?
> ...then I'm saying it's one level of disapproval for the
> typosquatter who typosquats for bad reasons...
Again, what are the "bad reasons?" If one does so to keep others from
seeing information with which he does not agree, while engaging in
self-promotion, which is what Gastrich does, isn't that a "bad reason?"
> ...and only the mildest disapproval for those who typosquat
> for good reasons.
See above.
> Now you may disagree as to whether the reasons are good,
> but allow for the sake of argument my contention that they are.
No, I will not allow that for the sake of argument. Gastrich does not
"typosquat" for "good reason," and he does not avoid even the
*appearance* of evil, which he (and you) are commanded to do.
> You are probably aware that public disapproval for police driving
> fast is not unanimous, especially seeing as they have also been
> responsible for fatal accidents when doing so.
There are a number of communities that have police oversight by
civilian panels, and these things often come under their scrutiny.
There are probably lots of policies, procedures, and even laws of which
the public is either unaware or does not approve, not fully
understanding the whys and wherefores of them. But all of that is
another debate.
> And Bible Bob says that they only drive fast in North Carolina
> when there are fresh Krispy Kremes at the 7/11.
Whatever.
> I've seen a 7/11, as there are a few in London, but what a Krispy
> Kreme is I have absolutely no idea.
It's a pastry--a donut. You aren't missing anything.
Uncle Davey
> Uncle Davey wrote:
> > Uzytkownik "Dave" <hor...@gmail.com> napisal w wiadomosci
> > news:1131804939....@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> > In that case, since you are saying that it's one law for
> > the criminal who is driving fast for bad reasons and another
> > law for the cop who is driving fast for good reasons...
>
> So, now it's not a matter of violating the speed limit...not it's a
> matter of "driving fast," which isn't quite the same thing, is it?
Violating the speed limit is only a formalisation of "driving too fast".
There is no formalisation of acceptable/unacceptable typosquatting. It is
not a crime and the rules are unwritten. But it serves for an analogy.
>
> > ...then I'm saying it's one level of disapproval for the
> > typosquatter who typosquats for bad reasons...
>
> Again, what are the "bad reasons?" If one does so to keep others from
> seeing information with which he does not agree, while engaging in
> self-promotion, which is what Gastrich does, isn't that a "bad reason?"
See below.
>
>
> > ...and only the mildest disapproval for those who typosquat
> > for good reasons.
>
> See above.
See below.
>
> > Now you may disagree as to whether the reasons are good,
> > but allow for the sake of argument my contention that they are.
>
> No, I will not allow that for the sake of argument. Gastrich does not
> "typosquat" for "good reason," and he does not avoid even the
> *appearance* of evil, which he (and you) are commanded to do.
>
Well that is a separate argument. If we were to say for the sake of argument
that he did typosquat for a good reason, you might be arguing differently.
Hence our discussion is not really about the relative goodness and badness
of typosquatting for good and bad reasons, and therefore whether it is or is
not a valid "lesser of two evils". Our argument is about whether Brother
Jason's motives are actually good or bad, whether they are at heart sincere
and pressed by circumstance into being overly commercial, as I have argued
all along, or completely cynical, as you think.
You have still not managed to convince me of your side of that argument, and
the worst thing you've got on him is that he used a designatory Dr. in front
of his name, when his doctorate is an honorary one from a religious
organisation. Not exactly the archtypal villain. I can't see why you don't
find yourself a more fitting Moriarty. Could it be because he sends out more
evangelical messages to more people than most other evangelists whom it's
within your compass to hurt? I think that's what it all boils down to.
> > You are probably aware that public disapproval for police driving
> > fast is not unanimous, especially seeing as they have also been
> > responsible for fatal accidents when doing so.
>
> There are a number of communities that have police oversight by
> civilian panels, and these things often come under their scrutiny.
> There are probably lots of policies, procedures, and even laws of which
> the public is either unaware or does not approve, not fully
> understanding the whys and wherefores of them. But all of that is
> another debate.
>
> > And Bible Bob says that they only drive fast in North Carolina
> > when there are fresh Krispy Kremes at the 7/11.
>
> Whatever.
>
> > I've seen a 7/11, as there are a few in London, but what a Krispy
> > Kreme is I have absolutely no idea.
>
> It's a pastry--a donut. You aren't missing anything.
>
OK, thanks for that. I expect it's a bit like one of those "kremowki" from
Wadowice that John Paul II was famously addicted to and had regularly
airlifted in to the Vatican from Malopolska.
This reminds me of the way Mohammed chose Medina as a holy site for no
better reason than that it would improve the local economy in the place he
came from. JP2's albeit unwitting promotion of the confectionary products of
his hometown has also impacted on the tourist business there.
Uncle Davey
www.usenetposts.com
Bible Bob
Bible Bob
wrote:
>
>Uzytkownik "Dave" <hor...@gmail.com> napisal w wiadomosci
>news:1131802016....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>> Uncle Davey wrote:
>> > Uzytkownik "Dave" <hor...@gmail.com> napisal w wiadomosci
>> > news:1131783098.5...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> > > Uncle Davey wrote:
>> > >
>> > > Snip
>> > >
>> > > > But repentance means that they should acknowledge their
>> > > > sin and call it sin, and make every effort to avoid it, as if their
>> > > > lives depended on it.
>> > >
>> > > Of course, there's always the "however," as we see here:
>> > > >
>> > > > But if they fail, then they have the same advocate with the
>> > > > father...
>> > >
>> > > Which, in the end, makes it all right...right?
>> >
>> > Hallelujah, you've understood it.
>>
>> I also understand that you can use this doctrine to justify all kinds
>> of dishonest and even evil things, such as your "lesser of two evils"
>> justifications for deceptive behavior.
>>
>
>Well, typosquatting _is_ a lesser evil than allowing someone to hurtle into
>a fiery abyss without letting them know how to reverse that process.
>
>I stand by that.
>
>Uncle Davey
>
>
Davey,
Never heard of typosquatting. What is it?
"We" do not "allow" unbelievers to be cast into the lake of fire. We
are not accountants that keep the book of life. That is between God,
the Righteous and Just Judge and those who decide to refuse His kind
offers. We are ambassadors for Christ and our job is to speak what we
are told to speak. If what we speak is rejected; then maybe they will
listen to the next ambassador. If they chose to paddle their canoe in
the lake of fire, they best know how to swim.
.....
BB
http://www.biblebob.net
Bible Bob
wrote:
Davey,
Ouch!
Matthew 10:16 KJV
Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye
therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves.
The verse is marked by the figure Asterismos "Behold" which places
emphasis on what follows the word "behold." Th sheep, wolves,
serpents and doves are put by the figure Simile. There is no article
preceding sheep and wolves but the article does precede serpents and
doves because not all sheep are in the midst of wolves; but all
serpents are prudent and all doves are harmless.
The word "wise" is not translated from "sophos;" wise, clever,
skilled, etc. but from "phronimos;" prudent, understanding,
thoughtful, practically wise, sensible, sagacious, discreet - implying
a cautious character. Jesus told the disciples to be cautious or
prudent as serpents who have to crawl on the bellies and use all of
their senses to survive and to be harmless as doves. Doves have no
bitterness, no bile because they have no gall bladder. That is why
the dove represents the holy spirit; no bitterness.
There is no lesser of two evil doctrine spoken of in that verse. Some
disciples will find themselves amongst wolves and when they do they
need to be cautious and lack bitterness. Kind of like we have to be
when we deal with atheists, agnostics and skeptics (and people from
other denominations) on the newsgroups - not that I always achieve
that standard because I don't. I do get along better with unbelievers
because I know they don't know any better and can only be what they
are while believers do know better or should know better and don't
behave or speak as they should. I expect wolves to be wolves and
sheep to be sheep but sometimes the sheep are more ravenous than the
wolves.
.....
BB
http://www.biblebob.net
Bible Bob
Romans covers this pretty well:
Romans 3:1-9 KJV
1 What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit [is there] of
circumcision?
2 Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the
oracles of God.
3 For what if some did not believe? shall their unbelief make the
faith of God without effect?
4 God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is
written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest
overcome when thou art judged.
5 But if our unrighteousness commend the righteousness of God, what
shall we say? [Is] God unrighteous who taketh vengeance? (I speak as a
man)
6 God forbid: for then how shall God judge the world?
7 For if the truth of God hath more abounded through my lie unto his
glory; why yet am I also judged as a sinner?
8 And not [rather], (as we be slanderously reported, and as some
affirm that we say,) Let us do evil, that good may come? whose
damnation is just.
9 What then? are we better [than they]? No, in no wise: for we have
before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin;
I've been racking my little brain and can not think of a lesser evil
doctrine in the Bible. I have heard that the Assembly of God
denomination pretend to be Messianic Jews in order to lure Jews into
the church and that is despicable; but I do not know what passages
they use to justify their aberrant behavior.
Davey, while looking up the word aberrant to make sure I was using it
correctly I ran across this game page that asks the question "What
would you do if you had the power of God." Wonder if John Wolf has
anything to do with it.
http://www.white-wolf.com/Games/Pages/Aberranthome.html
Ran across this one, too:
http://www.apologeticsindex.org/a26.html
.....
BB
http://www.biblebob.net
Terrell
"Bible Bob" <biblebo...@biblebob.net> wrote in message
news:2b9cn15aegkdb40c1...@4ax.com...
Can't say for sure, but would bet it's probably where Paul says he became
all things to all people that he might save some.
--
Terrell
http://www.lastofall.com
Bible Bob
Davey,
I've been trying to keep up with this discussion and trying to view
both sides of the argument. Bottom line is that God expects His
children to have a true heart that He can work with. We see that all
the way through the Bible from Noah, to Daniel, to Shadrack, Meshak
and Abedngo, to David, to Job, to Jonah, to Mary, to Nicodemus, etc.
etc. God needs a true heart to mold a pure heart in us.
Look what happens when the skeptics read where Abraham tells Pharaoh
that his wife is his sister. The skeptics go nuts and speak against
God not realizing that she was indeed his sister (the daughter of his
father but not the daughter of his mother).
When God ordered the enemies of the children Israel destroyed; it was
not dishonest or wrong or evil, but necessary to eliminate the hosts
that maintained a symbiotic relationship with devil spirits. A parent
faced with the decision to allow his child to die or to kill another
child that is attempting to kill his child will kill the aggressive
child and thank God that he was able to save his own child.
.....
BB
http://www.biblebob.net
Bible Bob
wrote:
>
Uncle Davey.
A Krispy Kreme is a donut. An American stereotype of cops is that
they sit around eating donuts and drinking coffee which is why in
movies you will sometimes see a cop hiding behind a billboard spill
his coffee all over himself when he takes off in hot pursuit.
.....
BB
http://www.biblebob.net
Bible Bob
wrote:
Terrell,
Thanks.
Romans 12:17 KJV
Recompense to no man evil for evil. Provide things honest in the sight
of all men.
I quoted part of that section from Corinthians to BJ, yesterday:
1 Corinthians 9:14-27 KJV
14 Even so hath the Lord ordained that they which preach the gospel
should live of the gospel.
15 But I have used none of these things: neither have I written these
things, that it should be so done unto me: for [it were] better for me
to die, than that any man should make my glorying void.
16 For though I preach the gospel, I have nothing to glory of: for
necessity is laid upon me; yea, woe is unto me, if I preach not the
gospel!
17 For if I do this thing willingly, I have a reward: but if against
my will, a dispensation [of the gospel] is committed unto me.
18 What is my reward then? [Verily] that, when I preach the gospel, I
may make the gospel of Christ without charge, that I abuse not my
power in the gospel.
19 For though I be free from all [men], yet have I made myself
servant unto all, that I might gain the more.
20 And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews;
to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain
them that are under the law;
21 To them that are without law, as without law, (being not without
law to God, but under the law to Christ,) that I might gain them that
are without law.
22 To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am
made all things to all [men], that I might by all means save some.
23 And this I do for the gospel's sake, that I might be partaker
thereof with [you].
24 Know ye not that they which run in a race run all, but one
receiveth the prize? So run, that ye may obtain.
25 And every man that striveth for the mastery is temperate in all
things. Now they [do it] to obtain a corruptible crown; but we an
incorruptible.
26 I therefore so run, not as uncertainly; so fight I, not as one
that beateth the air:
27 But I keep under my body, and bring [it] into subjection: lest
that by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be
a castaway.
Thus verse 22 must be understood in light of the above context which
speaks about contending legally.
1 Corinthians 9:22 KJV
To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made
all things to all [men], that I might by all means save some.
The "as" in "as weak" produces a Simile (a declaration that one thing
resembles another). The word "all" must always be understood as
either "all without exception" or "all without distinction" and here
there is a distinction provided in the context so that the all things
refers to all right things; or all things in harmony with the gospel.
.....
BB
http://www.biblebob.net
Dave
> I did go on to explain in the next post to you why I don't
> think it is a flawed analogy.
And I explained why it is.
> What I concede is that you have well-thought out arguments
> which mean that it could appear like a bad analogy to you.
No, I explained why it was a bad analogy, not why I simply thought that
it was.
> But we are getting subjective now.
It's not subjective, at all. There are some pretty clear-cut standards
here, as well as policies and procedures that govern the specifics of
your "analogy." The facts render your analogy invalid.
> That's why I am ready to agree to disagree.
"Agree to disagree" is, in my view, just another retreat under the
"that's just your opinon" guise. You didn't make a case for your
justification of the "lesser of two evils" that you have presumed to
defend, and your analogies don't work, because they ignore certain
unequivocal facts.
Dave
> > So, now it's not a matter of violating the speed
> > limit...not it's a matter of "driving fast," which isn't
> > quite the same thing, is it?
>
> Violating the speed limit is only a formalisation of "driving
> too fast".
No, it is a specific application of with with respect to the law. One
may, for example, "drive too fast" for a given weather or road
condition and still be within or even below the posted speed limit.
> There is no formalisation of acceptable/unacceptable
> typosquatting.
That's true. In fact, it's generally considered to be *unacceptable*
in all cases. I am ware of no "formalisation" of "acceptable"
typosquatting.
> It is not a crime and the rules are unwritten.
The issue is not whether or not it is a crime.
> But it serves for an analogy.
Claiming that it serves for an analogy when it has already been exposed
as failing in that regard shows, in part, the weakness of the argument
and the analogy.
Snip
> > > Now you may disagree as to whether the reasons are
> > > good, but allow for the sake of argument my contention
> > > that they are.
> >
> > No, I will not allow that for the sake of argument. Gastrich
> > does not "typosquat" for "good reason," and he does not avoid
> > even the *appearance* of evil, which he (and you) are
> > commanded to do.
>
> Well that is a separate argument.
No, it is part of *this* argument--my argument--and it has been, all
along.
> If we were to say for the sake of argument that he did
> typosquat for a good reason, you might be arguing differently.
But we are not arguing that for the sake of argument, and I do not see
him doing that "for a good reason."
> Hence our discussion is not really about the relative goodness
> and badness of typosquatting for good and bad reasons, and
> therefore whether it is or is not a valid "lesser of two evils". Our
> argument is about whether Brother Jason's motives are actually
> good or bad, whether they are at heart sincere and pressed by
> circumstance into being overly commercial, as I have argued
> all along, or completely cynical, as you think.
No, I do not couch my arguments in single dimensions in this forum or
on this subject. Gastrich typosquats and has no good intentions,
regardless of your rather overly sycophantic and frequently poor
defenses of these practices (defenses which, it should be noted, he
never engages, in part, likely, because he cannot think it through as
well as you can). Gastrich typosquats in order to take advantage of
mistyped addresses in hopes that even mildly careless users will not
see information or web sites of which he does not approve. I don't see
that as having "good motive." Since Gastrich has discovered that he
can't always silence his opposition, typosquatting is a way that he
hopes he can conceal that opposition. You, of course, have agreed that
this is something that should be done, "if it can be done," that is, if
there is some method of preventing users to see information or web
sites of which you disapprove, you're all for it. Gastrich cannot
intelligently argue against those points of view or show why his POV is
better, so he uses devious means to try to keep people from going to
those sites. In so doing, and without providing a link at the
destination of his redirect, he exposes his dishonest intent. The
redirection does not go to a version of the JCSM page that says, "if
you were looking for..." and then providing a link, which is what some
of the marginally honest typosquatters do). Instead, one is taken to
the JCSM page or to content that *Gastrich*, not the surfer, wants
displayed.
> You have still not managed to convince me of your side of
> that argument...
I never expeceted to do that. You have too much at stake. However,
every time you launch into these silly defenses, especially since
Gastrich, himself, doesn't have the courage to do so, himself (and even
when he showed some modicum of that, he didn't come up with the quality
of your excuses, such as it is, he just called it a "business
decision"), it simply provides me with another opportunity to expose
his underhanded practices.
> ...and the worst thing you've got on him is that he used a
> designatory Dr. in front of his name, when his doctorate is
> an honorary one from a religious organisation.
"Religious organisation" = diploma mill, that is, Shepherd Bible
College, a fly-by-night outfit that has changed its address three times
in the last year or so.
> Not exactly the archtypal villain. I can't see why you don't
> find yourself a more fitting Moriarty. Could it be because he
> sends out more evangelical messages to more people than
> most other evangelists whom it's within your compass to hurt?
You are free to believe Gastrich's self-promotion efforts, if you wish,
but the more you engage in promoting him, yourself, the more you
compromise what Christian principles you may have left.
And I am still waiting on how you can justify any activity that can be
viewed as the "lesser of two evils," particularly with Scripture, when
that same Scripture is pretty specific about whether or not you should
be engaging in evil, *at* *all*.
> I think that's what it all boils down to.
And you would be wrong to think that.
Snip
Dave
> Uncle Davey wrote:
> > Uzytkownik "Dave" <hor...@gmail.com> napisal w wiadomosci
> > news:1131802016....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> When Christians are commanded to avoid even the *appearance*
> of evil, do you still justify this "lesser of two evils" approach with
> Scripture? Can you show any occasion where Jesus allowed
> that you could lie to people--or engage in any sort of deception,
> no matter how minor you might believe it to be--in order to lead
> them to the "truth" and the Gospel?
And you know what? Through all of the attempts that you have made in
order to defend the actions of Gastrich, you still haven't answered
these two, rather general questions.
Dave
That's exactly what I've been asking Davey, who, keep in mind, believes
in "once saved, always saved," which allows that may engage in all
kinds of things as long as he or she repents of it, later. In
defending some of the rather underhanded behaviors of Jason Gastrich,
most notably but only *one* of which is typosquatting, Davey has used a
"lesser of two evils" approach, that is, that if it leads to a Gospel
component or direction to the "truth," it's all good. I've been asking
for some sort of scriptural support for that for some time, and even
though we do get into quite a bit of detail back and forth, and Davey
has used two misapplied analogies (both of which I was able to refute,
easily), there has been no scriptural justification and only token
reference to irrelevant verses.
Anyway, you're asking the wrong guy. It's not my doctrine. I'm
*challenging* it, in fact.
Dave
> Davey,
>
> Never heard of typosquatting. What is it?
Since Davey didn't answer and Google is again available, I will:
http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/T/typosquatting.html
http://searchwebservices.techtarget.com/sDefinition/0,,sid26_gci342237,00.html
Bible Bob
The Bible doesn't say once saved always saved; but it does say that we
are given the gift of eternal life and that the gifts and callings of
God are without repentence. So once saved, always saved is accurate.
I think that people seem to think that it is what they do that get's
them saved; when in truth it is what Christ did that did so. We are
saved by grace through the faith of Jesus Christ. All we have to do
is confess Jesus as Lord and beleive that God raised Jesus from the
dead. Works, has to do with rewards - what we get for service in the
body at the Bema. Rewards can be lost due to bad behavior; but
sonship can not because it is seed.
Yes, all we have to do when we sin is confess the broken fellowship
and the blood of Jesus Christ cleanses us from all unrighteousness and
it does take some people lots and lots of sins before the love of and
conviction via the Comforter sinks into their thick heads.
The way I look at is, what I can obtain via rewards is worth more than
the short range benefit of sin. Besides, I would rather have my
Father proud of me than disappointed in me. It's all a matter of
heart. A true heart (being honest with God) is what God needs to
produce a pure heart in a person.
.....
BB
http://www.biblebob.net
Bible Bob
>Bible Bob wrote:
>
>> Davey,
>>
>> Never heard of typosquatting. What is it?
>
>Since Davey didn't answer and Google is again available, I will:
>
>http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/T/typosquatting.html
>
>http://searchwebservices.techtarget.com/sDefinition/0,,sid26_gci342237,00.html
Thanks Dave.
I had found some info on it and supected that it was along the lines
of getting diverted to a porn site when you type a URL incorrectly.
For example, whitehouse.com takes you to a people search site.
>
>
>>
>> "We" do not "allow" unbelievers to be cast into the lake of fire. We
>> are not accountants that keep the book of life. That is between God,
>> the Righteous and Just Judge and those who decide to refuse His kind
>> offers. We are ambassadors for Christ and our job is to speak what we
>> are told to speak. If what we speak is rejected; then maybe they will
>> listen to the next ambassador. If they chose to paddle their canoe in
>> the lake of fire, they best know how to swim.
>>
>> .....
>> BB
>> http://www.biblebob.net
.....
BB
http://www.biblebob.net
Uncle Davey
On the contrary, if we could give a person the gospel, and we don't bother,
then we acquiesce in that person's ignoring of the gospel or unfamiliarity
with the gospel, which is allowing them to continue on the way to the lake
of fire.
Uncle Davey
Bible Bob
wrote:
>
Davey,
The "watchman" was responsible and accountible for sounding the alarm.
If he warned the city of the approach and the city failed to respond,
the blood was not on his hands. I was not talking about reading John
3:16, handing a person a tract, and then moving on down the road.
An ambassador delivers the complete message and stays until the
addressee understands the message and since he is trained well is able
to answer the appropriate questions. With ambassadorship comes both
the ministry of reconciliation and the word of reconciliation. The
ambassador is fully equipped and able and presumably delivers the
complete message. When the addressee rejects the message; the blood
is on his hands. The ambassador has to believe that the seed he
planted will be watered ands that God will give the increase - else
why would he be sent.
.....
BB
http://www.biblebob.net
Jim Ledford
http://www.gnmagazine.org/issues/gn61/christmas.htm
http://www.gnmagazine.org/issues/gn61/christmas_christians.htm
Eze 3:17 Son of man, I have made thee a watchman unto
the house of Israel: therefore hear the word at my mouth,
and give them warning from me.
Eze 3:18 When I say unto the wicked, Thou shalt surely die;
and thou givest him not warning, nor speakest to warn the wicked
from his wicked way, to save his life; the same wicked man shall
die in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at thine hand.
Eze 3:19 Yet if thou warn the wicked and he turn not from his
wickedness nor from his wicked way, he shall die in his iniquity;
but thou hast delivered thy soul.
http://www.gnmagazine.org/issues/gn61/christmas.htm
http://www.gnmagazine.org/issues/gn61/christmas_christians.htm
Dave
In light of the topic under discussion and the fact that your witness
is problematic, at best, as we have also discussed here,
http://www.infidelguy.com/ftopicp-285767-.html#285767
Well, let's just say that I still have those same questions. Among
other things, I wrote, "it seems to me that the first rule of
evangelism, like the first rule of medicine, should be 'do no harm.'"
Regardless of what I think of the Gospel, it is clear that you and
people like Gastrich bring harm to the efforts to spread the "good
news." Your antics hurt your own cause, and this thread is just an
example. No matter how you slice it, typosquatting is pretty
universally reviled in the Internet world, yet Gastrich indulges in it
quite a bit, he doesn't do it to spread the Gospel, but to prevent
others from seeing content with which he doesn't agree (*and* to
inflate his own numbers), and you defend the practice as one of your
"lesser of two evils," precisely because it shows the "truth" to
someone whom, I guess, otherwise wouldn't see it. Gastrich does not
engage in the presentation of "truth," and neither do you, but if we
assume that he does, it seems to me that a truth message is damaged if
the messenger engages in deceitful or underhanded means to dispense the
message. One needn't read far to see that Gastrich's methods put
people off. He clearly does more harm than good, and so do you, though
to a lesser extent (at least you can display some humility, though I'm
not convinced that it's all that sincere). Since it's pretty clear
that you both do more harm than good, and that there are some whom are
even on record as saying that Gastrich helped push them into full-blown
atheism, it's also clear that the two of you should, at least,
reconsider your methods. Of course, Gastrich is far too arrogant for
that (and has too much invested, which also, in part, exposes his true
intent).
Dave
Snip
> You have still not managed to convince me of your side of
> that argument, and the worst thing you've got on him is that
> he used...
UseS...
> ...a designatory Dr. in front of his name, when his doctorate is
> an honorary one from a religious organisation. Not exactly the
> archtypal villain.
Since you felt free enough to bring this up, again, I feel free to
revisit it. Here's some pretty good coverage of that issue:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.christian/msg/2920c9ef366cf7df?output=gplain
Uncle Davey
Uzytkownik "Jim Ledford" <jim...@bellsouth.net> napisal w wiadomosci
news:4376D190...@bellsouth.net...
100%.
That's why we have to give the gospel message to a dying world.
Uncle Davey
Uncle Davey
It is obvious that one of the first things people who do not want to believe
the gospel message will do is blame the faultiness of the messenger.
This is of no interest to God as an excuse. He knows how faulty I am, and
Jesus paid on the cross for those sins.
A person does not have to be perfect to be a witness. I am a witness that
God forgives highly imperfect people, and keeps on forgiving them, because
of what Jesus did.
We are not commanded to ensure that we are very advanced in discipleship
before we speak the truth, but we are told to speak the truth and spread the
Gospel. You are knocking on an open door when you criticise my state of
holiness.
But I'm not asking you to join the pharisees, I'm asking you to join the
forgiven sinners.
Uncle Davey
Uncle Davey
Uzytkownik "Bible Bob" <biblebo...@biblebob.net> napisal w wiadomosci
news:0acdn1hpkvu175omo...@4ax.com...
We are to deliver as complete a message as we can. Sometimes the seed is a
very small seed, like a poppy seed, and sometimes we get to plant a coconut.
Uncle Davey
Bible Bob
wrote:
Amen.
.....
BB
http://www.biblebob.net
Dave
> It is obvious that one of the first things people who do not
> want to believe the gospel message will do is blame the
> faultiness of the messenger.
Oh, I dont' think that's the obvious matter, at all.
> This is of no interest to God as an excuse. He knows how
> faulty I am, and Jesus paid on the cross for those sins.
As far as anyone who bothers to reason about this can tell, the only
party making excuses here is *you*. "Never mind that I engage in
deception and try to justify deceit, God will getcha if you don't
listen to *my* message, and it doesn't matter that I'm flawed as a
Christian." This is what you seem to be telling me, though you would
never say it in exactly those words, because you would never admit that
it's *your* message and not necessarily God's. Not for *you* is the
humility to accept and state that all of this is based on *your*
interpretation, *your* understanding (such as it is) and *your*
beliefs...oh, no!
But, as usual, you just don't see it. Your theology teaches that there
is a "Holy Spirit" that convicts of sin, leading to that ever-important
confession and repentance, which should remain manifest in you, as it
is alleged to have been in the New Testament believers after the
Resurrection. Believers, remaining human and flawed, still reflect
that spirit--even at the least, they represent it. Even unbelievers
can see that the person is no longer a slave to sin, but freed of its
bonds by the blood of Christ, shed for those sins. The appreciation of
the true believer is the resolve to sin no more (though occasional
lapses are to be expected--not one Apostle stopped being human, and
neither have you). They were to follow the commands of Christ: Turn
the other cheek; if a many would have you go with him one mile, go with
him two; if he wants your coat, give him your cloak, as well. You were
to be in the world, but not of the world, and you are to separate
yourself from even the appearance of evil. An evangelist *must* be
above reproach. At least, that was understood, then, but self-serving
types like Gastrich--and you--dilute *that* part of the message at your
leisure. The original writers of the Gospels, whether they are the
original Apostles and the New Testament is the inspired word of God or
whether they are simply a collection of writings by persons unknown--or
some grade, in between--they understood that the behavior of the
evangelist, the pastor, and the teacher was always subject to scrutiny,
which is why there are so many standards for them, explained in detail,
in the New Testament books and letters.
It is pretty clear that your entire line of "reasoning" in this message
has been to try to shift the burden of blame for your bad behavior from
yourself to those whom don't accept the "messenger" because of his
flaws; but everyone expects *flaws*, Davey, even in the most devout and
sincere. On the other hand, when one gets what one gets from *you*, on
a basis that is all too frequent, one has every right to question your
sincerity. And if your sincerity is questionable, then the basis for
the message that you would presume to preach is questionable--and
that's *at* *best*...it's even assuming for the sake of argument that
there is any truth to your message, and that's not something that we
can automatically assume.
And that takes us to the second part of my refutation of your claims.
You state that God will not accept disdain for your behavior as an
"excuse" to reject your message, but you state that as if it's
unequivocal and not subject to doubt or challenge. Those things aren't
true. For one thing, you don't speak for God. You cannot tell us what
he will "accept" or "not accept" as "an excuse" because you simply
*don't* *know*.
> A person does not have to be perfect to be a witness.
Nobody's expecting perfection. No one has ever said that or implied
that. Your excuses continue.
> I am a witness that God forgives highly imperfect people, and
> keeps on forgiving them, because of what Jesus did....
You are a witness that *you* are flawed and imperfect. You are not a
witness that God forgives anyone. You simply assume that you are
"forgiven," and that you will continue to be "forgiven," regardless of
what you do, and so you use that as an excuse to continue to do it--and
to easily succumb to temptation when it knocks.
Snip remaining attempt at evangelism.
You're done, Davey. In fact, you were done long ago. You have no
excuses. Nothing you say that attempts to justify the behavior of
Gastrich, or you, in defense of Gastrich, will stand up to scrutiny or
rational evaluation, and it is you left making excuses.
Dave
> Can you show any occasion where Jesus allowed that you could
> lie to people--or engage in any sort of deception, no matter how
> minor you might believe it to be--in order to lead them to the
> "truth" and the Gospel?
In short, and repeating, where is the scriptural justification for the
use of "lesser of two evils," especially in evangelism? I'm *still*
waiting for an answer to this question.
Uncle Davey
Oddly enough, this time I came into this thread to defend Ninure, as I
thought some of the criticisms of her assumed too much.
But whatever.
Uncle Davey
Dave
I also want to explore this statement by you:
"...the worst thing you've got on him is that he used a designatory Dr.
in front of his name, when his doctorate is an honorary one from a
religious organisation."
By stating that this is something that I've "got on him," are you
conceding that this is, in fact, something that he should *not* be
doing? And I find it interesting that you, knowing as you do how he
came by the "degree," you chose to be very vague about the organization
that bestowed it upon him. It was and is, as you know, a
self-described "Bible College," not just some "religious organisation."
It is, in fact, a Bible college that not only is unaccredited by any
recognized agency and has changed its address three times in the last
year or so, it is thought far and wide to be a diploma mill. Is that
why you chose not to be more specific--because you know that the
institution that awarded this "doctorate" has no credibility?
It doesn't stop there. You then write, "not exactly the archtypal
villain." Well, no, of course not. On the other hand, you seem to be
granting that his parading of this bogus doctorate is something he
should not be doing, but then you want to tell us that it's really not
as bad as some other things one might expect of an "archtypal villain."
You seem to be granting that this is a wrong thing ("the worst thing
you've got on him" would indicate that you agree that I've "got"
*something*), but then you want to minimize it as best you can.
Question: What does the Bible have to say about such things? Do you
believe in "little sins" and "big sins," to put it simply? Except for
the unforgivable sin, aren't all sins the same? And if that's so, what
difference does it make whether or not the touting of a phony degree is
not a characteristic of the "archtypal villain?"
Dave
> Uzytkownik "Dave" <hor...@gmail.com> napisal w wiadomosci
> news:1131915044.6...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> Oddly enough, this time I came into this thread to defend Ninure,
> as I thought some of the criticisms of her assumed too much.
>
> But whatever.
That's certainly beside the point of any issue between you and me.
Sylvester Stallone will get a best actor Oscar before you get thread
integrity in lengthy discussions in free.christians.
Uncle Davey
> >> > Uncle Davey wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Snip
> >> >
> >> > > But repentance means that they should acknowledge their
> >> > > sin and call it sin, and make every effort to avoid it, as if their
> >> > > lives depended on it.
> >> >
> >> > Of course, there's always the "however," as we see here:
> >> > >
> >> > > But if they fail, then they have the same advocate with the
> >> > > father...
> >> >
> >> > Which, in the end, makes it all right...right?
> >>
> >> Hallelujah, you've understood it.
> >
> >I also understand that you can use this doctrine to justify all kinds
> >of dishonest and even evil things, such as your "lesser of two evils"
> >justifications for deceptive behavior.
>
> Lesser of two evil doctrine? Chapter and verse please.
I don't have a "lesser of two evils doctrine".
I said that to typosquat on a domain that people who are hellbound could
find themselves in if they made a typo may be considered a bad thing by
some, as typosquatting is frowned upon, but it is the "lesser of two evils"
in comparison with failing to try some such techniques to save the lost out
of pure apathy, which is what most Christians do.
Maybe you agree with that, and maybe not.
You gave an illustration of some Neo-Pentacostalists pretending to be Jews
in order to get alongside Jews. I agree with you that this is utterly
distasteful. Let those pretend to be Jews now, in London and New York in
2005, who would also have been ready and willing to pretend to be Jews in
Berlin and in Warsaw in 1942.
And yet, what do missionary schools tell us but to try to "get alongside"
the people we are evangelising to?
We teach our missionaries to learn the languages and get into the customs of
the local tribes, of Africa. We even ask them to change their names to make
it easier for them to get into the culture and make friends there. Is that
also dishonest in a way?
I could give an example of one missionary I heard of who baulked at this
name-changing. Someone told me about three British missionaries, Lawrence,
Daniel and William who were going to witness long term to the Banka tribe in
the Congo area.
The outgoing missionary met with them at their Bible school and gave them a
final briefing about getting alongside the natives. He said "You will all
have to change your names to Banka equivalents. This is a vital aspect to
your being accepted. Lawrence, you are from now on Lawrence no longer. From
this moment you must refer to yourself as "Larry-lanka". Daniel, from now on
you are to be known only as "Danny-danka", and you William..."
"...I've changed my mind. I'm not going."
Dave
> > Lesser of two evil doctrine? Chapter and verse please.
>
> I don't have a "lesser of two evils doctrine".
Yes, you do.
> I said that to typosquat on a domain that people who are
> hellbound could find themselves in if they made a typo may
> be considered a bad thing by some, as typosquatting is frowned
> upon, but it is the "lesser of two evils" in comparison with
> failing to try some such techniques to save the lost out
> of pure apathy, which is what most Christians do.
It's not only something that is considered a "bad thing by some," it
engages in deceit in order to keep people from seeing what Gastrich
doesn't want them to see, while, at the same time, redirecting them to
his web site--something you have said should be done if it could be
done. As such, though you have made lots of noises about the right of
free and unfettered expression with which there should be no
inteference, you fully advocate Gastrich's actions, and you called them
"the lesser of two evils." As such, you concede that it *is* *evil* to
do so, but it is a "lesser" evil.
What I have asked, over and over again, is for justification from
Scripture, and you have failed to provide that justification. Instead,
you have engaged in the use of a couple of failed analogies and you
misapplied one Bible verse.
Snip
Uncle Davey
I wouldn't use a designation prematurely any more than you would. I'm not a
great fan of typosquats. I have pre-reserved a whole bunch of .eu domain
names outside of sunrise for resale but most of them are creative
cybersquats and not the classic cybersquat or typosquats. I have a small
amount of non-intrusive advertising on a minority of my site, with
absolutely no spyware or pop-ups tolerated in my site, and any funds
obtained from them will be put back in there or used for prizes in
cometitions or for get togethers of participants. You can see the
differences in approach between what I do and would do, and what he does but
I refuse to censure, judge or part company with him over, even though I
personally would not do them, and probably would smile all the more if he
stopped doing them.
And the reason is that the overriding matter is that he has a heart for the
lost and is giving more of the message through the world than anyone else I
know.
His encouragements to me have also greatly increased my technical reach in
getting out my message.
Now it may be incorrect to put that over and above the less positive sides
and see them as a reason to defend him even when he has things going on that
I would not do, but to be frank, that is my gut reaction. I see so many
people with no zeal, or who have zeal but major doctrinal problems and so
when I do see a person who is both zealous and sound, I will do whatever I
can to support someone like that, as there as so very few of them.
Most of them have succumbed to the likes of you attacking them.
Thankfully, he seems a bit more thick-skinned than most.
And willing to put the boot back into his oppressors, which you might also
say doesn't square with turning the other cheek, but once again, my instinct
is to think "good for you, Brother" rather than worry too much about it.
Which probably means we are all bad Christians together, but at least we are
standing up and being counted, imperfect as the witness may be. This means
that we are obedient in the critical point. I don't know what is worse than
apathy. God says He spits the apathetic out of His mouth.
And the message is not how good we are, the message is about forgiveness to
sinners. That includes the failure to live up to perfect obedience to
Christ.
But "when we see Him, we shall be like Him". I have no scriptural guarantees
that is will happen any earlier than that.
Uncle Davey
Dave
> great fan of typosquats...
And then you proceed to go off on an irrelevant speech and refuse to
answer the questions. Let's try to remember that you opened the door
to this subject, so before I totally destroy what little "reasoning" I
snipped this time around (Google will save it for us, have no fear),
would you care to actually deal with the *point*?
Snip
Uncle Davey
Dave
> That was the answer.
Wrong question, as noted.