Why is Jason Gastrich Dodging This Issue?
David Sienkiewicz
direct traffic to an allegedly christian web site?
< repost >
Jason, I asked twice why you bought the talkorigin.org domain and then
redirect people who are, more than likely, NOT looking for a christian
site to your site.
Of course, I am not the only person - or even the first person - to
ask. Yet you have dodged that question every time.
In sales, there are often methods that are used to blanket a potential
customer base. Mail-outs, particularly, are used, and there may be
thousands sent out. If there is a return of 1% to 2%, that is
considered good.
In the same way, most of the people who are deceived into seeing your
site will depart and will say nothing or, at most, will leave a
message in your guest book that you will then delete so that it can
appear that all of the responses you get are glowing praise.
Is that what your savior means to you - to resort to cheap hucksterism
and deception to get people to look at your site, or is it that he
doesn't matter at all, and all you REALLY care about are hits on the
site?
That's how it looks from here, Jason.
So can you actually answer the question? The only feedback mechanism
on your site is the guestbook from which, as I've said, you delete
criticism.
(At least those evil atheists at the REAL talkorigins Archive post
critical feed back, Jason, and they even ANSWER it. This is more than
can be said for you.)
OSAS, Jason, seems to mean that you can resort to any means necessary
to try to convert people. How far are you from inquisitors, then, and
crusaders?
It's a simple enough question, Jason. Why did you buy the
talkorigin.org domain and then set up a redirect so that anyone
looking for talkoriginS.org and forgetting to type the "S" would be
directed to a site - your site - that would at likely be of no
interest to them?
< /repost >
Jason has responded once, and here is his response my and rebuttal:
Tinyurl:
Notice that Jason made no attempt to explain his actions, only to
complain about being "stalked" and how he didn't appeciate his
"verification procedures" being labled "ridiculous" by me.
I have explained why Jason's "verification procedure" is ridiculous:
Tinyurl:
Again, there has been no reply from Jason.
This seems to be typical of the creationist and fundamentalist
behavior in the newsgroups. Rather than honestly, directly and in
upstanding fashion face the issues, creationists and fundamentalists
cower and hide, while continuing in dishonest behavior.
I have already suggested elsewhere that Jason's adherence to OSAS
(once-saved, always-saved) seems to serve as justification. No matter
what Jason does, he's going to Heaven, so he can engage in any number
of underhanded behaviors and act dishonestly and in cowardly fashion
and none of it matters. He's "saved," so his sins are gone,
apparently even before he commits them. This, of course, allows him
to justify his dishonest and cowardly behavior.
Jason has already been asked, effectively speaking, if this means that
he can commit any act, no matter how heinous. Where does one draw the
line? Jason would claim that it's rejection of the Gospel
("blasphemy" against the "Holy Spirit"). I guess, outside of that,
anything is fair game. But Jason dodged that question, too.
For his supreme arrogance, Jason has shown remarkably little courage
in answering these kinds of questions, so I put it the other
christians. The standard in newsgroups seems to be for creationists
and christians to behave as Jason does. He's certainly not the first
or only christian to do so. We have sheldon even now spewing his
homophobic ranting into the newsgroup, we have a sock-puppet calling
himself the Church of something-or-other. We have Mike Goodrich,
Nowhere Man, and Tony Pagano and many others.
They have all acted in dishonest fashion or as cowards - or both. They
all make assertions and then run when confronted. Some take longer to
run than others (sheldon, for example, will degenerate threads into
shouting matches and personality wars and THEN will run, which is no
less cowardly), but they all run.
I wonder about the opinions of other christians in this regard. Do
you approve? Do you actually feel comfortable with the likes of Jason
Gastrich representing you?
These questions have been asked before, of course, and no one ever
says much.
But I think it's worth asking again.
Derek Potter
114 lines to talk.origins
[...]
>I have already suggested elsewhere that Jason's adherence to OSAS
>(once-saved, always-saved) seems to serve as justification. No matter
>what Jason does, he's going to Heaven, so he can engage in any number
>of underhanded behaviors and act dishonestly and in cowardly fashion
>and none of it matters. He's "saved," so his sins are gone,
>apparently even before he commits them. This, of course, allows him
>to justify his dishonest and cowardly behavior.
>
>Jason has already been asked, effectively speaking, if this means that
>he can commit any act, no matter how heinous. Where does one draw the
>line? Jason would claim that it's rejection of the Gospel
>("blasphemy" against the "Holy Spirit"). I guess, outside of that,
>anything is fair game. But Jason dodged that question, too.
[...]
>I wonder about the opinions of other christians in this regard. Do
>you approve? Do you actually feel comfortable with the likes of Jason
>Gastrich representing you?
>These questions have been asked before, of course, and no one ever
>says much.
>But I think it's worth asking again.
Sounds like Jason has picked up a few tricks from the porn redirectors
who capture typos when people want Yahoo or Hotmail...
OK, I've just returned to TO and haven't read much of this thread but
here I go with both feet :)
Right and wrong are, according to Christianity absolutes, found in the
nature of God, not imposed arbitrarily by Him. Obviously, one cannot
*approve* of something, such as dishonesty, which is contrary to God.
It might, however, be argued that redirection of talk.origin.org to a
Christian site is not dishonesty but just a bit of fun. Deception done
for a practical joke is surely not a heinous sin? Still, it might
offend against charity and it would be a courtesy were Jason to
consider that some sensitive souls are mortally offended by such
pranks. ;)
As far as the doctrine of OSAS is concerned, it is a benign form of
Catch-22. When you get saved, you also get the Spirit of God into your
life. You can't have one without the other. This means that someone
could indeed do terrible things and still "go to Heaven" BUT the
problem is that such a person would have a hard time doing it as they
would be fighting God Himself working away in their heart. It also
runs headlong into Jesus's comment "by their fruits you shall know
them" - one would *expect* a properly functioning Christian to show
something of God's nature, not something devilish... That doesn't mean
Jason isn't a Christian; it might well mean he has lost the plot.
On a crude punishment and reward scale, a reprobate loses most of the
value of his salvation - the "crown" alluded to in Scripture. Sinning
while saved could only be a worthwhile strategy if you thought you
were smarter than God and can trick Him into rewarding you for
breaking all His ground rules as long as you're fulfilling His conrete
agenda of ramming the Gospel down atheist's throats. In actual fact,
of course, Christainity has been plagued for centuries by a distorted
view of God's justice - "if you don't join us, you'll burn in hell
forever" which, in these more compassionate times, is ameliorated by
the rider: "...and I'll feel responsible". This produces a distinct
non-linearity in the gradation between reward and punishment - it
makes it worth sacrificing your own crown, your integrity, your very
life, if only you can rescue some poor lost soul from the intolerable
horror of eternal punishment. It's an unbelievable Gordian knot of
double-think and yet it's a prime example of mimetic fitness a la
Dawkins.
HTH
Frank Pericope
</de-lurks>
I do not approve. Jason does not represent me, nor Christians
as a group, nor Christianity as a whole. He represents only
himself.
At the risk of losing my free e-mail address, I would direct any
fundamentalist/literalist Christian who believes 'OSAS' and asserts
that lying will not separate them from God, to this reading:
Revelation 21:8 (NKJV)
"But the cowardly, unbelieving, abominable, murderers,
sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars
shall have their part in the lake which burns with fire
and brimstone, which is the second death."
To continue to lie knowingly and intentionally after salvation
is no different than to continue to murder or worship idols.
That's plain in the literal meaning of the word of God, and
will result in the second death.
I'm sure that Jason Gastrich, Uncle Davey, CPT, and others who craft
in their minds a rationale which permits them to deceive without
spriitual consequence can cite any number of other verses to support
the notion that lying for God is acceptable. But to do so, they must
either deny the literal meaning of the verse above, or admit of a
contradiction and abandon the literal interpretation of the Bible.
I see no other path for them.
Exodus commands us so:
Exodus 23:1
"You shall not circulate a false report. Do not put your hand with
the wicked to be an unrighteous witness."
It was written in Matthew that Jesus says:
Matthew 5:19-20
(19) "Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these
commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least
in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them,
he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
(20)For I say to you, that unless your righteousness exceeds
the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, you will
by no means enter the kingdom of heaven."
I think these verses, unvarnished and untwisted, make it clear
that those who lie will be far from God. The scribes and Pharisees
were 'convicted' by Christ of lies and hypocrisy. If one falls
to their level, one will _by_no_means_ enter the kingdom of heaven.
The other half of the lying Christian's self-rationalization
is likely to be something like "It's okay if I'm lying if
it brings souls to Christ." To which I say, phooey. Again,
the literalist must heed the commands of God:
Titus 2:7-8
(7) "In everything set them an example by doing what is good.
In your teaching show integrity, seriousness
(8) and soundness of speech that cannot be condemned, so that
those who oppose you may be ashamed because they have nothing
bad to say about us."
If a Christian's actions do not meet this standard after they
have been 'convicted' by another Christian for lack of integrity
and unsound speech, you can be sure they do not know God:
1 John 2:4
"He who says, 'I know Him,' and does not keep His commandments,
is a liar, and the truth is not in him."
Jeremiah 23:11, 21-22, 31
(11) "'For both prophet and priest are profane;
Yes, in My house I have found their wickedness,' says the LORD.
(21) 'I have not sent these prophets, yet they ran. I have not
spoken to them, yet they prophesied. (22) But if they had stood
in My counsel, and had caused My people to hear My words,
they would have turned them from their evil way
And from the evil of their doings.
(31)Behold, I am against the prophets,' says the LORD, 'who use their
tongues and say, 'He says.''"
With all that said, let me be clear: I do not speak for God; instead,
I strive to follow him. My reading of the bible is my own, and is no
more authoritative than Lenny Flank's pizza delivery boy's. And no,
there is no scientific theory of creation.
- F.
Frank Pericope
I am a 43 year-old Christian man, and I am motivated
to minister to Christians in jeopardy.
***NOTE: The e-mail address above is spam bucket***
To contact the author, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye,
then send e-mail to:
frank.p...@believeandrepentTHEBEAMOUTOFTHINEOWNEYE.com
Therion Ware
On Mon, 8 Mar 2004 14:50:51 +0000 (UTC) in free.christians, Frank
Pericope (frank.p...@oneimage.com (Frank Pericope)) said,
directing the reply to free.christians
[snip]
"Ouch".
--
"Do Unto Others As You Would Have Them Do Unto You."
- Attrib: Pauline Reage.
Inexpensive VHS & other video to CD/DVD conversion?
See: <http://www.Video2CD.com>. 35.00 gets your video on DVD.
all posts to this email address are automatically deleted without being read.
** atheist poster child #1 ** #442.
Jason Gastrich
I'm not posting messages to David because he has been stalking me and
actling like a jerk to me. I will write to Frank, though.
Frank, why don't you start a new thread and we can discuss the OSAS
doctrine? I see that you reject it. I do not reject it. There is ample,
scriptural evidence that a person cannot lose their eternal life.
I do not lie or promote lying. I do not think it is good to lie. Frank,
when some unbelievers chase me around usenet and call me a liar for
believing in a young earth and a literal Genesis, for instance, you don't
have to humor them.
God bless,
Jason
--------
Jesus Christ Saves Ministries
http://www.jcsm.org
Over 60,000 web pages!
John 8:36 reads, "Therefore if the Son makes you free, you shall be
free indeed."
Galatians 5:1 reads, "Stand fast therefore in the liberty by which
Christ has made us free, and do not be entangled again with a yoke of
bondage."
ICQ#: 20731140
AIM: MrJasonGastrich
YIM: Jesus_Saved_Jason
Ken Shaw
Jason Gastrich wrote:
Then please explain to me your rationale for buying the name
talkorigin.org and using it to redirect people to your site? Why do you
delete posts critical of your site and/or your behavior from your
message board?
Ken
AC
I wonder why you don't respond to me, Jason.
>
> Frank, why don't you start a new thread and we can discuss the OSAS
> doctrine? I see that you reject it. I do not reject it. There is ample,
> scriptural evidence that a person cannot lose their eternal life.
>
> I do not lie or promote lying.
Of course you do. You have Philip Johnson's lies on your site. You are a
liar and a promoter of lies.
>I do not think it is good to lie.
Then I suggest you prove that and take those mined quotes off.
> Frank,
> when some unbelievers chase me around usenet and call me a liar for
> believing in a young earth and a literal Genesis, for instance, you don't
> have to humor them.
I call you a liar because you have Philip Johnson's lies on your site. YOu
are a deceiver and spreader of deceits.
--
Aaron Clausen
tao_of_cow/\alberni.net (replace /\ with @)
lizzard woman
news:Ue53c.16145$4o3...@twister.socal.rr.com...
(snip)
| I do not lie or promote lying. I do not think it is good to lie. Frank,
| when some unbelievers chase me around usenet and call me a liar for
| believing in a young earth and a literal Genesis, for instance, you don't
| have to humor them.
I haven't been chasing you around calling you a liar. Will you then answer
me whether or not you are being deceptive in buying the talk.origin domain
and using it to misdirect traffic meant for talk.origins?
Thank you in advance.
--
sharon, aa #2153
"(of creationism) ... Only apocryphal tales told by goat herders around the
campfire after it became too dark to continue to molest their charges." --
TvG (Rec.Equestrian, 2003)
"Easy -- he's the Right Reverend Admiral Jason Gastrich, BSc, MSc, DVM, ThD,
PhD, MD, JD, Esq, US Navy (Ret). If the bible happened to put things in the
wrong order, well, our boy the Doctor will just fix it right up there!" --
Rightshu (IIDB, 2004)
Jason Gastrich
No, I will not discuss the talkorigin.org domain name.
I delete offensive messages from JCSM's Guest Book. I also delete messages
that are off-topic, ads, etc. The JCSM Guest Book is simply for people to
talk about the site and what they enjoyed. It's NOT a message board or a
place for people to chat, curse, belittle, judge, etc.
Dana Tweedy
"Jason Gastrich" <newsg...@jcsm.org> wrote in message
news:Ue53c.16145$4o3...@twister.socal.rr.com...
> I'm not posting messages to David because he has been stalking me and
> actling like a jerk to me. I will write to Frank, though.
>
> Frank, why don't you start a new thread and we can discuss the OSAS
> doctrine? I see that you reject it. I do not reject it. There is ample,
> scriptural evidence that a person cannot lose their eternal life.
>
> I do not lie or promote lying. I do not think it is good to lie.
Then why do you keep supporting Phillip Johnson's out of context quotations?
If you don't think it's good to lie, then perhaps you should go on record as
opposing lies of omission.
> Frank,
> when some unbelievers chase me around usenet and call me a liar for
> believing in a young earth and a literal Genesis, for instance, you don't
> have to humor them.
No one is calling you a liar for supporting Creationism, Jason. You are
being called a liar for continuing to publish lies of omission.
DJT
Ken Shaw
At this point I renew my offer to donate funds to help force this person
to give up this site.
snip equally unresponsive response.
Ken
lizzard woman
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank
Jason Gastrich wrote:
> No, I will not discuss the talkorigin.org domain name.
I don't blame you. If I were caught being deceiptful and dishonest like
that, I wouldn't want to discuss it either.
===============================================
Lenny Flank
"There are no loose threads in the web of life"
Creation "Science" Debunked:
http://www.geocities.com/lflank
DebunkCreation Email list:
http://www.groups.yahoo.com/group/DebunkCreation
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank
Jason Gastrich wrote:
> Frank, why don't you start a new thread and we can discuss the OSAS
> doctrine? I see that you reject it. I do not reject it. There is ample,
> scriptural evidence that a person cannot lose their eternal life.
>
And why is your religious opinion on the matter any more authoritative
than Frank's or mine or my next door neighbor's or my sister's dog's
former owner's or ,my pizza delivery boy's?
Please be specific.
> I do not lie or promote lying.
Liar.
harvest dancer
That's a lie already. Great way to start a post.
> Frank, why don't you start a new thread and we can discuss the OSAS
> doctrine? I see that you reject it. I do not reject it. There is ample,
> scriptural evidence that a person cannot lose their eternal life.
Nice side issue, but why are you lying?
> I do not lie or promote lying. I do not think it is good to lie.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!1
> Frank,
> when some unbelievers chase me around usenet and call me a liar for
> believing in a young earth and a literal Genesis, for instance, you don't
> have to humor them.
That's not why he calls you a liar. talkorigin.org is why he calls you a liar.
Jason, the honest one
harvest dancer
Why not?
> I delete offensive messages from JCSM's Guest Book. I also delete messages
> that are off-topic, ads, etc. The JCSM Guest Book is simply for people to
> talk about the site and what they enjoyed. It's NOT a message board or a
> place for people to chat, curse, belittle, judge, etc.
As well as anything critical of you.
Jason, the honest one.
Victor Eijkhout
> I'm not posting messages to David because he has been stalking me
Nah. David just keeps asking a question, and like the good lawyer that
he is he only asks questions that he already knows the answers to. Your
refusal to answer makes it clear that you know the answer too, and it
would expose you.
V.
--
email: lastname at cs utk edu
homepage: cs utk edu tilde lastname
Richard Forrest
<snipped>
> No, I will not discuss the talkorigin.org domain name.
>
We'll draw our own conclusion from that.
> I delete offensive messages from JCSM's Guest Book. I also delete messages
> that are off-topic, ads, etc. The JCSM Guest Book is simply for people to
> talk about the site and what they enjoyed. It's NOT a message board or a
> place for people to chat, curse, belittle, judge, etc.
So you'll only allow message to remain on the board if they say what a
wonderful site it is. If anyone points out any errors or lies, that's
'judging'. Glad we're clear on that one.
I wonder: how many of those messages did you write yourself?
>
> God bless,
Please spare me the blessing of your god. You actions and fruits
demonstrate his value.
> Jason
>
> --------
>
<advertising snipped>
RF
David Sienkiewicz
> > Jason Gastrich wrote:
< snip >
> >> I'm not posting messages to David because he has been stalking me and
> >> actling like a jerk to me.
My, my! What a loving and christian thing to say about another
person, Jason!
Oh, dear. Well, I've already addressed this tendency of yours to play
the wounded person, Jason. It's just a ploy.
The fact is that I have actually been quite polite, and you have been
evasive and cowardly.
I am quite amused when one of you tries to play the victim in these
newsgroups, but you clearly don't understand how this works.
You are not immune to criticism, Jason; and your actions are very
worthy of criticism.
And let's be honest, okay? You don't post to me because I have asked
you questions for which you have no answers.
> >> I will write to Frank, though.
> >>
> >> Frank, why don't you start a new thread and we can discuss the OSAS
> >> doctrine? I see that you reject it. I do not reject it. There is
> >> ample, scriptural evidence that a person cannot lose their eternal
> >> life.
It seems to me that Frank has already given you considerable to
address, Jason, in one of the better messages I have ever seen on the
subject.
Why don't you address it?
> >> I do not lie or promote lying. I do not think it is good to lie.
> >> Frank, when some unbelievers chase me around usenet and call me a
> >> liar for believing in a young earth and a literal Genesis, for
> >> instance, you don't have to humor them.
No one is asking you to humor anyone, Jason. What you are being asked
to do is explain what certainly appear to be dishonest actions.
I don't call you a liar, for example, for believing in a young Earth
and a "literal genesis," but I have been involved in the thread in
which you presume that this position on your part has scientific
justification.
I have asked about that scientific justification and you have refused
to answer. I guess that's because I'm a jerk.
But don't you realize that if you could actually answer the question
and provide your evidence, you'd accomplish more to show me up than
the tactic thus far, that is, to ignore the questions?
When you answer honestly, Jason, you at least appear to be honest.
You can be honestly wrong, but it's easier to respect a wrong opinion
honestly presented than it is to respect a coward.
When you run, you are only playing the coward.
> > Then please explain to me your rationale for buying the name
> > talkorigin.org and using it to redirect people to your site? Why do
> > you delete posts critical of your site and/or your behavior from your
> > message board?
> >
> > Ken
>
> No, I will not discuss the talkorigin.org domain name.
That is because you have no honest justification for your actions in
that regard. It was a very dishonest thing for you to do, you cannot
explain it, you know it, so you dodge the issue.
The fact is that the issue will not go away, Jason, and you can dodge
all of the "jerks" who ask and you will still appear to be dishonest
and a coward.
> I delete offensive messages from JCSM's Guest Book.
Define "offensive messages."
> I also delete messages
> that are off-topic, ads, etc.
I didn't post an ad, Jason. I posted a critique. You're dodging.
> The JCSM Guest Book is simply for people to
> talk about the site and what they enjoyed.
My comments WERE about the site, but not about what was enjoyed. So I
guess the guest book is to keep the fawning, sycophantic messages in,
and the messages that are critical are removed?
You are within your rights to do that, Jason, but it's dishonest.
> It's NOT a message board or a
> place for people to chat, curse, belittle, judge, etc.
All *I* did was ask why you use a redirect to get people to go to the
site when it's likely they have no interest in the "content."
I fully expected you to remove that criticism, Jason. I expected it
to happen fairly quickly, but most honest sites don't remove
criticism. And honest web masters have answers to questions such as
mine.
I ask again: What are you afraid of?
By the way, Jason, what do you charge for baptisms and marriages?
Lab Rat
> Ken Shaw wrote:
> > Then please explain to me your rationale for buying the name
> > talkorigin.org and using it to redirect people to your site? Why do
> > you delete posts critical of your site and/or your behavior from your
> > message board?
> >
> > Ken
>
> No, I will not discuss the talkorigin.org domain name.
>
> I delete offensive messages from JCSM's Guest Book. I also delete messages
> that are off-topic, ads, etc. The JCSM Guest Book is simply for people to
> talk about the site and what they enjoyed. It's NOT a message board or a
> place for people to chat, curse, belittle, judge, etc.
>
> God bless,
> Jason
>
Why won't you discuss your deceitful appropriation of the talkorigin
name? Feeling guilty? Or do you have a perfectly reasonable
explanation? Lying for the Lord? Tricking people deliberately for
Jesus? Nice one. If you were so humble as to stop using your unearned
doctor title, perhaps you could be big enough to stop you underhanded
techniques.
I asked you ages ago about this and you never gave me a straight
answer. Am I stalking you too? What about all the other people who
have asked you about this? Getting paranoid, Jason?
Ratty
Martin Kings
"Lab Rat" <lab_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1459fe6b.04030...@posting.google.com...
Jason is doing nothing wrong in the eyes of the Lord Jesus and don't think
the persecution you're all
subjecting him to hasn't gone unnotised. And it all started when Therino
ware and
Annmarie started to critize Jason in aboutjasongastrich.org. They started
it. God through
Jason will finish it.
If one person comes to the Lord Jesus because they type talkorigin.org
instead
of talkorigins.org then whatever hes done in the eyes of human law and
morals is
justified before God and thats what counts.
--
Rev 20:12.
And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books
were opened. Another book was opened, which is the book of life. The dead
were judged according to what they had done as recorded in the books.
Richard Forrest
> I delete offensive messages from JCSM's Guest Book. I also delete messages
> that are off-topic, ads
Why do you delete ads from your site when you are quite happy to use
this forum to advertise your services, and finish most of your
postings with an advertisement for your web site?
, etc. The JCSM Guest Book is simply for people to
> talk about the site and what they enjoyed. It's NOT a message board or a
> place for people to chat, curse, belittle, judge, etc.
>
> God bless,
> Jason
>
> --------
>
> Jesus Christ Saves Ministries
> http://www.jcsm.org
> Over 60,000 web pages!
>
> John 8:36 reads, "Therefore if the Son makes you free, you shall be
> free indeed."
>
> Galatians 5:1 reads, "Stand fast therefore in the liberty by which
> Christ has made us free, and do not be entangled again with a yoke of
> bondage."
>
> ICQ#: 20731140
> AIM: MrJasonGastrich
> YIM: Jesus_Saved_Jason
Richard Forrest
www.plesiosaur.com
Come to my site and find out far more than you ever wanted to know
about plesiosaurs!
What's more, unlike some people on this forum, I'm not trying to sell
you my book!
catshark
You're an atheist troll trying to discredit Christians, aren't you?
Otherwise, you have just said that you worship a god that doesn't find
lying and cheating morally wrong and that the 10 Commandments are only
human law and morals.
---------------
J. Pieret
---------------
If Christ were here now there is
one thing he would not be --
a Christian.
- Mark Twain -
Ken Shaw
>
> Richard Forrest
> www.plesiosaur.com
> Come to my site and find out far more than you ever wanted to know
> about plesiosaurs!
Well not more than I want to know but I am a fossil geek. Excellent site
BTW.
> What's more, unlike some people on this forum, I'm not trying to sell
> you my book!
>
Which is too bad since I might actually buy your book.
Ken
Lab Rat
And what about the people who are turned away from the Lord by his
deception and lying? Don't you care about them?
AC
Martin Kings <martin...@fake.address> wrote:
>
>
>
Jason is a two bit con artist, and this latest stunt only confirms what the
fake "Doctor" is up to.
> And it all started when Therino
> ware and
> Annmarie started to critize Jason in aboutjasongastrich.org. They started
> it. God through
> Jason will finish it.
Why would your god need a liar like Jason Gastrich?
>
> If one person comes to the Lord Jesus because they type talkorigin.org
> instead
> of talkorigins.org then whatever hes done in the eyes of human law and
> morals is
> justified before God and thats what counts.
So you think being a deceiver is fine if the lord gains another convert?
Frank Pericope
> Frank Pericope wrote:
> > david.si...@attbi.com (David Sienkiewicz) wrote in message
> > news:<35fa3772.04030...@posting.google.com>...
> >> Do other christians approve of this obviously dishonest method to
> >> direct traffic to an allegedly christian web site?
<snip description of behavior in question, etc.>
<snip>
Jason,
I do not doubt that you believe you've found ample scriptural evidence
of the OSAS principle. My puzzlement revolves around how you square
that principle with other, equally ample scriptural evidence that
indicates that those who knowingly act in deceitful, unrighteous ways
do not know God and are in jeopardy.
You are welcome to start a thread to discuss OSAS if you wish, and I
will chime in if and when moved to do so. But for us to quibble over
doctrine is vanity, and will serve neither of us, nor bring anyone
anywhere to Christ.
Quibbling is also unnecessary. The literal meaning of "...all liars
shall have their part in the lake which burns with fire..." is
evident. And for those who assert biblical literalism and OSAS, this
poses a great problem; for no exception is indicated here for _saved_
liars. One may either deny that the bible is literal, or admit that it
contains this contradiction, or deny OSAS.
I gather from your response that you do not consider yourself to be a
liar. But to my simple mind, John, as quoted above in Book 1 Chapter 2
verse 4, calls you a liar. I am not the man to contradict him.
Even if you can misinterpret your way out of that conviction, you
cannot deny that almost everyone in T.O. *perceives* your behavior to
be deceitful. How do you square that with the command in Titus 2:7-8
quoted above? What you say and how you say it is regularly condemned
by those who oppose you. To continue to willfully behave in a manner
which invites questions about one's integrity and soundness is to
disobey God. Though you are certain you are in the right, and that
others are wrong to condemn your actions, the Word commands you to
change your behavior to remove this stumbling block.
Failing to remove it once it has been brought to your attention makes
others think you fit the description in Jerimiah 14:14, in which it is
written "And the LORD said to me, "The prophets prophesy lies in My
name. I have not sent them, commanded them, nor spoken to them; they
prophesy to you a false vision, divination, a worthless thing, and the
deceit of their heart." If that does not describe you, you can
demonstrate it by avoiding behaviors which raise questions,
unwarranted or not, about your righteousness.
To one of your points: As an observer of the exchanges on these groups
for several months, I can tell you with some certainty that most folks
here don't call you and Uncle Davey, etc. liars for proclaiming your
faith in a literal intepretation of Genesis. They call you liars for
posting in other peoples' names, misdirecting the unwary from their
goal, and supporting the false minitries of others who *are*
demonstrated liars and/or deceivers. It is in your power to change
this perception.
I do not write this to humor anyone. My feeble ministry, such as it
is, is to Christians who divide the house of the Lord and place
themselves in jeopardy. So I do not aim to aid unbelievers, here on
earth, but to aid you, in heaven.
Think on my poor thoughts for a time before you reply. I trust that
you have the honest desire to please God. I therefore ask you to
consider reading and reflecting on the Word with respect to lying,
deceit, vanity, and speaking for God. Not for my sake, nor for
others', but for your own.
"Blessed is the man to whom the LORD does not impute iniquity, And in
whose spirit there is no deceit." (Psalm 32:2)
- F.
Frank Pericope
I am a 43 year-old Christian man. I am motivated
Sporkmastar Fred
> instead
> of talkorigins.org then whatever hes done in the eyes of human law and
> morals is
> justified before God and thats what counts.
So what you're saying that the ends justify the means?
John Bode
Hey, you wanna grab an unclaimed domain name that's 1 letter off from
talkorigins.org and redirect to your site? Fine with me. Good to see
someone besides spammers and pornographers take advantage of it. But
what puzzles me is why talk.origins and talkorigins.org appear as
keywords in the document:
----
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Language" content="en-us">
<meta name="keywords" content="Talk Origin, origins, origin, TO,
talkorigin.org, evolution, talkorigins.org, talk.origins,
talk.origin">
<meta name="description" content="Talk Origin, origins, origin, TO,
talkorigin.org, evolution, talkorigins.org, talk.origins,
talk.origin">
<meta name="GENERATOR" content="Microsoft FrontPage 6.0">
<meta name="ProgId" content="FrontPage.Editor.Document">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=windows-1252">
<title>Talk Origin, origins, TO, talkorigin.org, evolution,
talkorigins.org, talk.origin</title>
</head>
<body>
<p align="center"><font color="#FFFFFF">talk, Talk Origin, TO,
origins, origin, talkorigin.org, evolution, talkorigins.org,
talk.origins, talk.origin</font></p>
<p align="center"><font color="#FFFFFF">talk, Talk Origin, TO,
origins, origin, talkorigin.org, evolution, talkorigins.org,
talk.origins, talk.origin</font></p>
<p align="center"><font color="#FFFFFF">talk, Talk Origin, TO,
origins, origin, talkorigin.org, evolution, talkorigins.org,
talk.origins, talk.origin</font></p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p align="center"> </p>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Refresh" CONTENT="0; URL=http://jcsm.org">
</body>
</html>
----
Origins and evolution and talkorigin.org and talk.origin I understand,
but I don't understand why talk.origins and talkorigins.org appear so
prominently.
For others who want to see the source for themselves, if you're too
slow to stop the redirect and view source within the browser, you can
use telnet to grab source as follows:
% telnet www.talkorigin.org 80
GET / HTTP/1.1
Host: www.talkorigin.org
Note that you need to hit CR twice after the Host: line.
Noctiluca
Hey Grover, what's Scut Farkus up to?
Frank Reichenbacher
"John Bode" <john...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:43618c0e.04030...@posting.google.com...
Wow! Good observation John. This guy is *dangerous*. There is apparently no
limit to the lies and deceit that he would employ.
Frank
Richard Forrest
So God is going to punish us for asking Jason to justify his deceit?
> And it all started when Therino
> ware and
> Annmarie started to critize Jason in aboutjasongastrich.org. They started
> it.
The criticims were perfectly justified. Anybody with a scrap of
honesty would have responded.
>God through
> Jason will finish it.
>
If I was a believer, I think I'd count this as blasphemy.
> If one person comes to the Lord Jesus because they type talkorigin.org
> instead
> of talkorigins.org
Why should anyone be converted by lies? And even if they are converted
by lies, what is the value of that conversion?
>then whatever hes done in the eyes of human law and
> morals is
> justified before God and thats what counts.
Lying and deceipt is justified before God?
That's not what they taught me in Sunday school.
I don't suppose it's possible that this posting under a pseudonym
comes from someone close to JG - possibly JG himself?
RF
Martin Kings
news:142e3b90.04030...@posting.google.com...
Yes.
This world is transitory. The next world is forever.
Martin Kings
news:slrnc4rolk.3v4....@alder.alberni.net...
Does it matter how one comes to the Lord Jesus excep that one does come to
Him?
AC
Martin Kings <martin...@fake.address> wrote:
> "Sporkmastar Fred" <loopss...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:142e3b90.04030...@posting.google.com...
>> "Martin Kings" <martin...@fake.address> wrote in message
> news:<9Z-dnSHIgfb...@giganews.com>...
>> > If one person comes to the Lord Jesus because they type talkorigin.org
>> > instead
>> > of talkorigins.org then whatever hes done in the eyes of human law and
>> > morals is
>> > justified before God and thats what counts.
>>
>>
>> So what you're saying that the ends justify the means?
>
> Yes.
>
> This world is transitory. The next world is forever.
Very good. That line of thinking has justified a good deal of mass murder,
including 9-11. How do you feel about being in the same moral boat as the
men who piloted jetliners into the Trade Towers and the Pentagon?
AC
Either you are some sort of troll trying to discredit Christianity or you
are one sick bastard. Tell me, do you think the Christianization of the
Native Americans was worth the millions of deaths, the destruction of
society, culture and faith that it involved?
Seppo Pietikainen
> "Sporkmastar Fred" <loopss...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:142e3b90.04030...@posting.google.com...
>
>>"Martin Kings" <martin...@fake.address> wrote in message
>
> news:<9Z-dnSHIgfb...@giganews.com>...
>
>>>If one person comes to the Lord Jesus because they type talkorigin.org
>>>instead
>>>of talkorigins.org then whatever hes done in the eyes of human law and
>>>morals is
>>>justified before God and thats what counts.
>>
>>
>>So what you're saying that the ends justify the means?
>
>
> Yes.
>
> This world is transitory. The next world is forever.
>
... or you get your money back.
Seppo P.
Frank Reichenbacher
"Martin Kings" <martin...@fake.address> wrote in message
You realize, of course, that it is but a single small step to go from the
statement you made to forcible conversion by torture, extortion, and
bribery.
We are not necessarily questioning the benefit of the chance conversion of a
few unbelievers. We are questioning the Godliness of a minister of God who
would undertake such deceit.
Frank
>
>
>
Richard S. Crawford
> "Sporkmastar Fred" <loopss...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:142e3b90.04030...@posting.google.com...
>
>>"Martin Kings" <martin...@fake.address> wrote in message
>
> news:<9Z-dnSHIgfb...@giganews.com>...
>
>>>If one person comes to the Lord Jesus because they type talkorigin.org
>>>instead
>>>of talkorigins.org then whatever hes done in the eyes of human law and
>>>morals is
>>>justified before God and thats what counts.
>>
>>
>>So what you're saying that the ends justify the means?
>
>
> Yes.
>
> This world is transitory. The next world is forever.
>
I can't find the addendum to the Ten Commandments that says, "Thou shalt
not do any of these things, unless they are in the name of Jesus, in
which case go right ahead."
I'm also trying to find that in the Gospels.
Please edify us all. Where in the Bible does Jesus say it's all right
to lie and misrepresent and misdirect as long as it's "for the lord"?
And while you're at it, find for us where it says that while you're
supposed to act with kindness and charity and service, you can skip all
that if you find someone you disagree with.
lizzard woman
message news:c2l2nd$d47
(snip)
| Please edify us all. Where in the Bible does Jesus say it's all right
| to lie and misrepresent and misdirect as long as it's "for the lord"?
|
| And while you're at it, find for us where it says that while you're
| supposed to act with kindness and charity and service, you can skip all
| that if you find someone you disagree with.
Its really interesting to me how evangelicals like Gastrich are so willing
to lose themselves and sacrifice their personal integrity for a particular
end. The answer, of course, is that they are so convinced that they have
found the one true answer that they feel compelled to do practically
anything to push their religion on others.
But honest consideration of the "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank's immortal question
about the (lack of) authoritativeness of anyone's religious opinion should
disarm all people excepting the most refractory towards honesty.
--
sharon, aa #2153
"(of creationism) ... Only apocryphal tales told by goat herders around the
campfire after it became too dark to continue to molest their charges." --
TvG (Rec.Equestrian, 2003)
"Easy -- he's the Right Reverend Admiral Jason Gastrich, BSc, MSc, DVM, ThD,
PhD, MD, JD, Esq, US Navy (Ret). If the bible happened to put things in the
wrong order, well, our boy the Doctor will just fix it right up there!" --
Rightshu (IIDB, 2004)
AC
lizzard woman <kimosa...@shaw.ca> wrote:
> "Richard S. Crawford" <rscrawf...@mossREMOVEWATERFOWLroot.com> wrote in
> message news:c2l2nd$d47
>
> (snip)
>
>| Please edify us all. Where in the Bible does Jesus say it's all right
>| to lie and misrepresent and misdirect as long as it's "for the lord"?
>|
>| And while you're at it, find for us where it says that while you're
>| supposed to act with kindness and charity and service, you can skip all
>| that if you find someone you disagree with.
>
> Its really interesting to me how evangelicals like Gastrich are so willing
> to lose themselves and sacrifice their personal integrity for a particular
> end. The answer, of course, is that they are so convinced that they have
> found the one true answer that they feel compelled to do practically
> anything to push their religion on others.
I think it's pretty obvious that Jason's trying to set up shop as some sort
of Internet evangelist. I'm sure if someone were to offer him a TV slot,
he'd be well on his way to televangelism. I know Jason is out for the
adulation, and seems to get it from many folks on free.christians. Just
look at the way that Uncle Davey behaves towards him, a disciple through and
through.
>
> But honest consideration of the "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank's immortal question
> about the (lack of) authoritativeness of anyone's religious opinion should
> disarm all people excepting the most refractory towards honesty.
You won't get any honest consideration from the likes of Gastrich.
Jason Gastrich
I'll respond to you about this issue privately; which is the way the
scriptures have commanded one to approach a brother in Christ.
Jason
> Frank Pericope
> I am a 43 year-old Christian man. I am motivated
> to minister to Christians in jeopardy.
>
> ***NOTE: The e-mail address above is spam bucket***
>
> To contact the author, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye,
> then send e-mail to:
>
> frank.p...@believeandrepentTHEBEAMOUTOFTHINEOWNEYE.com
--
Tom McDonald
Martin,
Then if someone loses faith in God because they type
talkorigin.org instead of talkorigins.org then what Jason has
done in the eyes of God is not justified, and is accounted sin
to Jason? If not, why not? If so, what advice would you give
Jason?
Tom McDonald
Derek Potter
lines to talk.origins
>Then if someone loses faith in God because they type
>talkorigin.org instead of talkorigins.org then what Jason has
>done in the eyes of God is not justified, and is accounted sin
>to Jason? If not, why not? If so, what advice would you give
>Jason?
Probably that it won't count against him as he meant well.
AC
You mean like the Crusaders, Inquisitors and Conquistadors meant well?
Mark VandeWettering
Another True Christian (tm) ideal presented for our consideration.
Mark
Derek Potter
lines to talk.origins
>> > If one person comes to the Lord Jesus because they type talkorigin.org
>> > instead
>> > of talkorigins.org then whatever hes done in the eyes of human law and
>> > morals is
>> > justified before God and thats what counts.
>>
>> So you think being a deceiver is fine if the lord gains another convert?
Big "if"
>Does it matter how one comes to the Lord Jesus excep that one does come to
>Him?
God's Spirit is necessary for conversion. Can you manipulate Him so he
turns up and honours your preaching when you use deceit?
Derek Potter
lines to talk.origins
>If I was a believer, I think I'd count this as blasphemy.
...
>Why should anyone be converted by lies? And even if they are converted
>by lies, what is the value of that conversion?
Applause!
Derek Potter
talk.origins
Yes, that's exactly what I meant.
Dana Tweedy
snipping
>
> I'll respond to you about this issue privately; which is the way the
> scriptures have commanded one to approach a brother in Christ.
>
> Jason
>
Well, Jason, that wasn't how you approached me, when I pointed out the same
things. Of course this also makes it appear that you have something to
hide. I doubt Frank minds you speaking in public, as it were. So, Jason,
do you have the courage to answer in public?
DJT
Derek Potter
15 lines to talk.origins
No True Christian would say such a thing!
KelvynT
>Does it matter how one comes to the Lord Jesus excep that one does come to
>Him?
>
And there, in a nutshell, rests the history of the western world.
Kelvyn
Mark VandeWettering
But a True Christian (tm) would.
Mark
Tom McDonald
Well, there is the thing about the paving material on the
highway to hell.
Tom McDonald
Ernest Major
<martin...@fake.address> writes
>
>Jason is doing nothing wrong in the eyes of the Lord Jesus and don't think
>the persecution you're all
>subjecting him to hasn't gone unnotised. And it all started when Therino
>ware and
>Annmarie started to critize Jason in aboutjasongastrich.org. They started
>it. God through
>Jason will finish it.
Aren't you breaking the 3rd commandment?
>
>If one person comes to the Lord Jesus because they type talkorigin.org
>instead
>of talkorigins.org then whatever hes done in the eyes of human law and
>morals is
>justified before God and thats what counts.
>
Passing over whether the end justifies the means (which I understand is
a position widely deprecated by ethicists) as the reverse position can
be used to justify doing nothing, I fail to understand why the one
person "coming to the Lord Jesus" outweighs the many driven away.
--
alias Ernest Major
David
> Martin Kings <martin...@fake.address> wrote:
> > "AC" <mightym...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >> > If one person comes to the Lord Jesus because they type talkorigin.org
> >> > instead
> >> > of talkorigins.org then whatever hes done in the eyes of human law and
> >> > morals is
> >> > justified before God and thats what counts.
> >>
> >> So you think being a deceiver is fine if the lord gains another convert?
> >
> > Does it matter how one comes to the Lord Jesus excep that one does come to
> > Him?
>
> Either you are some sort of troll trying to discredit Christianity or you
> are one sick bastard. Tell me, do you think the Christianization of the
> Native Americans was worth the millions of deaths, the destruction of
> society, culture and faith that it involved?
So for the sake of one soul they willing to lose many? Seems like a
pretty bad rate of return. It's a good thing these Christians aren't
running the country, imagine what they would do to the economy....
Wait a second, that does explain the Bush economy.
"God bless America!"
David
Derek Potter
23 lines to talk.origins
>>>> So what you're saying that the ends justify the means?
>>>
>>>Another True Christian (tm) ideal presented for our consideration.
>>
>> No True Christian would say such a thing!
>
>But a True Christian (tm) would.
[sigh] Alright! No True Christian (t-*******-m) would say such a
thing! Happy now?
AC
Look Jack! We got another one of them there religious dissenters. Quick
grab him in and put him in the Holy Re-education Cylinder. That's right,
turn it on to spin dry and drop in a few Saint Mel of the Gibson
Anti-Satanic Soap Transubstantiation Flakes. That's it. Ease him on in,
and every time you bash him on the head, say a thank you to Jesus Christ our
Lord for providing sinners for re-education.
No Jack! Don't turn on the Anti-Satan Cling, that's reserved for Catholics,
Unitarians and Democrats. Yeah Jack, funny joke about ring around the
collar. Ha ha.
He in the Holy Re-education Cylinder? Check. Saint Mel of the Gibson
Anti-Satanic Soap Transubstantiation Flakes in the receptacle. Check.
Alright, now let us pray.
Oh Lord, we know you are such a veangeful god. So mean and spiteful, and we
love you for it. We give to thee this unbeliever for your holy spirit, to
come down and teach him a thing or two about Christian love and forgiveness.
Please give the Holy Re-education Cylinder a good push, oh Lord, and put
your wrathful blessing upon the Saint Mel of the Gibson Anti-Satanic Soap
Transubstantiation Flakes, so that this unbeliever may, even if he suffers
permanent brain damage from being tossled about at 250 rpm, enter into your
divine fellowship. Amen.
Alright Jack! Press the Goeth With God button. Oh don't worry, the screams
usually fade away after a few minutes. Just remember Jesus loves you, and
doesn't mind a little blood, guts and devestation in his name.
Andy Groves
<snip>
> I'll respond to you about this issue privately; which is the way the
> scriptures have commanded one to approach a brother in Christ.
"Blessed are those who have high-speed Internet access, for they can
make fools of themselves without Usenet seeing"
Andy
Dancing Blasphemer
You have to die first then come back to life to get your money back?
I knew there was a catch in there somewhere! ;-)
Dancing Blasphemer
David Sienkiewicz
> Frank Pericope wrote:
< snip >
> > "Blessed is the man to whom the LORD does not impute iniquity, And in
> > whose spirit there is no deceit." (Psalm 32:2)
> >
> >
> > - F.
>
> I'll respond to you about this issue privately; which is the way the
> scriptures have commanded one to approach a brother in Christ.
Which all but negates a major reason for the very existence of
christian newsgroups, including free.christians.
In the context of all of you behaviors and actions, Jason, I find this
retreat no less cowardly than any of your other evasions.
I believe that, when you feel you have some sort of upper hand or
presumably superior "intellectual" or "spiritual" (I have to put those
in scare marks, Jason, since you never have either of these things)
positioning, we can't get you to shut up.
But as soon as someone gets the better of you (and that's often
lately), you clam up.
That's part of your cowardice, of course, but I think we are starting
to realize that we can expect no better of you.
There you were, all ready to misdirect the thread between you and
Frank, and IN PUBLIC, too. But as soon as he forces you to focus more
specifically on what this thread is about in the first place, you want
to take it private.
You won't fare any better there, Jason. Of that I am confident.
< snip >
David Sienkiewicz
> david.si...@attbi.com (David Sienkiewicz) wrote in message news:<35fa3772.04030...@posting.google.com>...
< snip >
By the way, Frank, I was remiss in responding and pointing out that
yours was an excellent and well-written post. It's the sort of thing
that restores my otherwise cynical and jaded faith in the faith of
others.
In other words, well said.
Frank Pericope
> Frank Pericope wrote:
> > "Jason Gastrich" <newsg...@jcsm.org> wrote in message
> > news:<Ue53c.16145$4o3...@twister.socal.rr.com>...
> >> Frank Pericope wrote:
> >>> david.si...@attbi.com (David Sienkiewicz) wrote in message
> >>> news:<35fa3772.04030...@posting.google.com>...
> >>>> Do other christians approve of this obviously dishonest method to
> >>>> direct traffic to an allegedly christian web site?
> >
> > <snip description of behavior in question, etc.>
> >
> >>>
> >>>> I wonder about the opinions of other christians in this regard. Do
> >>>> you approve? Do you actually feel comfortable with the likes of
> >>>> Jason Gastrich representing you?
> >>>>
> >>>> These questions have been asked before, of course, and no one ever
> >>>> says much.
> >>>>
> >>>> But I think it's worth asking again.
> >>>
> >>> </de-lurks>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Revelation 21:8 (NKJV)
> >>> "But the cowardly, unbelieving, abominable, murderers,
> >>> sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars
> >>> shall have their part in the lake which burns with fire
> >>> and brimstone, which is the second death."
<snip>
> >>>
> >>> Exodus 23:1
> >>> "You shall not circulate a false report. Do not put your hand with
> >>> the wicked to be an unrighteous witness."
> >>>
<snip>
> >>>
> >>> Matthew 5:19-20
> >>> (19) "Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these
> >>> commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least
> >>> in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them,
> >>> he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
> >>> (20)For I say to you, that unless your righteousness exceeds
> >>> the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, you will
> >>> by no means enter the kingdom of heaven."
> >>>
<snip>
> >>>
> >>> Titus 2:7-8
> >>> (7) "In everything set them an example by doing what is good.
> >>> In your teaching show integrity, seriousness
> >>> (8) and soundness of speech that cannot be condemned, so that
> >>> those who oppose you may be ashamed because they have nothing
> >>> bad to say about us."
> >>>
<snip>
To my mind your actions do not lend weight to the assertion that you
are a brother in Christ.
And I'm curious to know why the command to approach a brother in
Christ privately is so important to you while others--like those cited
in my initial post ands retained above--seem to have little or no hold
over you.
And if you believe you are in the right, I think the opportunity to
discuss it in public could go a long way toward establishing your
integrity / soundness / veracity in front of those who need to see it
most.
But I acknowledge I am not your judge, and will respond to your
private approach until I am persuaded either way.
John 7:4-5
(4)"'For no one does anything in secret while he himself seeks to be
known openly. If You do these things, show Yourself to the world.'
(5)For even His brothers did not believe in Him."
- F.
Frank Pericope
Derek Potter
lines to talk.origins
>I'll respond to you about this issue privately; which is the way the
>scriptures have commanded one to approach a brother in Christ.
That's a pity, because the matter is public and many of us would be
interested in your answer. I have come across other cases of
Christians being downright discourteous on the 'net - invading Islamic
newsgroups with hit-and-run Christian sermons for example, or
deceitfully getting onto mailing lists so they can mail everyone with
their Gospel. It has always struck me as underhand. Admittedly,
militant atheists will over-react to pecadillos, but the stick you are
getting here is from Christians too.
If you are capable of creating a redirecting page, why don't you
change it so that it says something polite and good-natured like:
"Oops, I think you meant to type talkorigins.org[link]! Talk.origins
is mostly about creationism[link] vs evolution[link] and has an
excellent FAQ[link]. The debate has spiritual aspects too[link] and I
would invite you to read a full discussion of these here[link]. I have
produced a page[link] myself which you may find interesting. If your
principle interest is Christianity, please try this superb site[link]!
If you need typing lessons try here[link].
"Well, you can't stay here all day! Make up your mind and click one of
the links above or you will be redirected to [URL][link] in
[javascript clock with stop button] seconds.
"Glad you dropped in! :)"
Frank Pericope
Thank you, David, for your kind words.
Whatever may be good about my post is due God; where it fails to sway
the hearts of its intended audience, that failure is mine.
Frank Pericope
You give me far too much credit.
Jason did e-mail me, and I did respond. But his remarks to me only
reinforce his public denials, so it appears to me that he is
determined to remain lost.
He will not see or hear what he does not want to see or hear.
-F.
John Thompson
> Ken Shaw wrote:
<snip massive evasion by Jason>
>> > Then please explain to me your rationale for buying the name
> > talkorigin.org and using it to redirect people to your site? Why do
> > you delete posts critical of your site and/or your behavior from your
> > message board?
> >
> > Ken
>
> No, I will not discuss the talkorigin.org domain name.
In other words you were caught in a lie and refuse to discuss it. I
take this as acknowledgement on your part of your dishonesty (though
of course you are doing it in a backhanded, dishonest way).
<snip more lies by Jason>
John
catshark
I don't think so. At least Jason can't hide behind his "I don't have to
listen to you atheistic evolutionists" bull anymore. Now he is shown to be
oblivious to his own lies and misrepresentations even when they are brought
to his attention by fellow Christians.
>
>Jason did e-mail me, and I did respond. But his remarks to me only
>reinforce his public denials, so it appears to me that he is
>determined to remain lost.
Ah, but 'once saved . . .'.
Funny how some Christians say that *evolution* removes all impetus to
morality.
>
>He will not see or hear what he does not want to see or hear.
He will do what he will and <cough> damn the consequences.
>
>
>-F.
---------------
J. Pieret
---------------
Man was made at the end of the week's work
when God was tired.
-- Mark Twain --
Derek Potter
to talk.origins
>Ah, but 'once saved . . .'.
>
>Funny how some Christians say that *evolution* removes all impetus to
>morality.
OSAS doesn't remove impetus to morality, it may remove impetus to
obedience out of fear. Being saved puts love for the Person who is
morality itself there instead. Or it should, it's always possible to
fight it. The problem is not the OSAS doctrine, it's the hell-fire one
that scares people into sacrificing their integrity as long as they
don't feel responsible for other people frying in hell for ever. Quite
a strong motivation if you believe it. But I sometimes wonder why
otherwise normal people do believe it. Perhaps the meme is *so*
horrifying that the forebrain shuts down.
You're all damned.
catshark
wrote:
>On Wed, 10 Mar 2004 22:35:03 +0000 (UTC), "catshark" posted 80 lines
>to talk.origins
>
>
>>Ah, but 'once saved . . .'.
>>
>>Funny how some Christians say that *evolution* removes all impetus to
>>morality.
>
>OSAS doesn't remove impetus to morality,
Not that I was really saying it did.
>it may remove impetus to
>obedience out of fear. Being saved puts love for the Person who is
>morality itself there instead. Or it should, it's always possible to
>fight it.
Your time might be better spent explaining that to Jason.
>The problem is not the OSAS doctrine, it's the hell-fire one
>that scares people into sacrificing their integrity as long as they
>don't feel responsible for other people frying in hell for ever. Quite
>a strong motivation if you believe it. But I sometimes wonder why
>otherwise normal people do believe it. Perhaps the meme is *so*
>horrifying that the forebrain shuts down.
>
>You're all damned.
By "the Person who is morality itself"?
---------------
J. Pieret
---------------
It is not best to use our morals weekdays,
it gets them out of repair for Sunday.
-- Mark Twain --
Derek Potter
to talk.origins
>On Wed, 10 Mar 2004 23:11:42 +0000 (UTC), Derek Potter <m...@privacy.net>
>wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 10 Mar 2004 22:35:03 +0000 (UTC), "catshark" posted 80 lines
>>to talk.origins
>>
>>
>>>Ah, but 'once saved . . .'.
>>>
>>>Funny how some Christians say that *evolution* removes all impetus to
>>>morality.
>>
>>OSAS doesn't remove impetus to morality,
>
>Not that I was really saying it did.
Indeed. You weren't really saying anything, it was just a cheap jibe.
>>it may remove impetus to
>>obedience out of fear. Being saved puts love for the Person who is
>>morality itself there instead. Or it should, it's always possible to
>>fight it.
>
>Your time might be better spent explaining that to Jason.
Apparently so as it's obviously wasted on you.
>>The problem is not the OSAS doctrine, it's the hell-fire one
>>that scares people into sacrificing their integrity as long as they
>>don't feel responsible for other people frying in hell for ever. Quite
>>a strong motivation if you believe it. But I sometimes wonder why
>>otherwise normal people do believe it. Perhaps the meme is *so*
>>horrifying that the forebrain shuts down.
>>
>>You're all damned.
>
>By "the Person who is morality itself"?
Oh pul-ease!
Just forget it, dear.
Sigh.
catshark
wrote:
>On Thu, 11 Mar 2004 00:35:57 +0000 (UTC), "catshark" posted 43 lines
>to talk.origins
>
>>On Wed, 10 Mar 2004 23:11:42 +0000 (UTC), Derek Potter <m...@privacy.net>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 10 Mar 2004 22:35:03 +0000 (UTC), "catshark" posted 80 lines
>>>to talk.origins
>>>
>>>
>>>>Ah, but 'once saved . . .'.
>>>>
>>>>Funny how some Christians say that *evolution* removes all impetus to
>>>>morality.
>>>
>>>OSAS doesn't remove impetus to morality,
>>
>>Not that I was really saying it did.
>
>Indeed. You weren't really saying anything, it was just a cheap jibe.
Not so cheap that it didn't go over your head, apparently.
>
>>>it may remove impetus to
>>>obedience out of fear. Being saved puts love for the Person who is
>>>morality itself there instead. Or it should, it's always possible to
>>>fight it.
>>
>>Your time might be better spent explaining that to Jason.
>
>Apparently so as it's obviously wasted on you.
Jason's version of "morality"? Yes it is.
>
>>>The problem is not the OSAS doctrine, it's the hell-fire one
>>>that scares people into sacrificing their integrity as long as they
>>>don't feel responsible for other people frying in hell for ever. Quite
>>>a strong motivation if you believe it. But I sometimes wonder why
>>>otherwise normal people do believe it. Perhaps the meme is *so*
>>>horrifying that the forebrain shuts down.
>>>
>>>You're all damned.
>>
>>By "the Person who is morality itself"?
>
>Oh pul-ease!
>
>Just forget it, dear.
Done and done.
>
>Sigh.
---------------
J. Pieret
---------------
If Christ were here now there is
one thing he would not be --
a Christian.
- Mark Twain -
Sven Silow
raitim dispela tingting:
You forgot:
"If you're looking for honesty, you have come to the wrong place."
Sven
Adam Marczyk
> > On Tue, 9 Mar 2004 11:43:18 +0000 (UTC),
> > Martin Kings <martin...@fake.address> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > "Lab Rat" <lab_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > news:1459fe6b.04030...@posting.google.com...> > > news:<PB53c.16368$4o3....@twister.socal.rr.com>...
> > >> <snip well-aimed bullets>
> > >>
> > >> > Ken Shaw wrote:
> > >> > > Then please explain to me your rationale for buying the name
> > >> > > talkorigin.org and using it to redirect people to your site? Why
do
> > >> > > you delete posts critical of your site and/or your behavior from
> your
> > >> > > message board?
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Ken
> > >> >
> > >> > No, I will not discuss the talkorigin.org domain name.
Interesting. Why would Jason refuse to discuss this unless he believed he
had done something dishonest and wasn't going to desist from it, but knew he
couldn't justify it? Surely, if he believed it was perfectly ethical to
register a domain name that impersonated the t.o. site, he'd have no
reluctance to explain his reasons, right? People should have no trouble
explaining their rationale for good decisions.
[...]
> > So you think being a deceiver is fine if the lord gains another convert?
>
> Does it matter how one comes to the Lord Jesus excep that one does come to
> Him?
And people wonder why I say I'm proud to be an atheist.
--
"We have loved the stars too fondly | a.a. #2001
to be fearful of the night." | http://www.ebonmusings.org
--Tombstone epitaph of | e-mail: ebonmuse!hotmail.com
two amateur astronomers, | ICQ: 8777843
quoted in Carl Sagan's _Cosmos_ | PGP Key ID: 0x5C66F737
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Jason Gastrich
> Interesting. Why would Jason refuse to discuss this unless he
> believed he had done something dishonest and wasn't going to desist
> from it, but knew he couldn't justify it? Surely, if he believed it
> was perfectly ethical to register a domain name that impersonated the
> t.o. site, he'd have no reluctance to explain his reasons, right?
> People should have no trouble explaining their rationale for good
> decisions.
> And people wonder why I say I'm proud to be an atheist.
Ah yes, a lack of understanding, false assumptions, and pride. We see why
you are an atheist.
Frank Reichenbacher
> Adam Marczyk wrote:
>
> > Interesting. Why would Jason refuse to discuss this unless he
> > believed he had done something dishonest and wasn't going to desist
> > from it, but knew he couldn't justify it? Surely, if he believed it
> > was perfectly ethical to register a domain name that impersonated the
> > t.o. site, he'd have no reluctance to explain his reasons, right?
> > People should have no trouble explaining their rationale for good
> > decisions.
>
> > And people wonder why I say I'm proud to be an atheist.
>
> Ah yes, a lack of understanding, false assumptions, and pride. We see why
> you are an atheist.
Yes, that is exactly correct.
Frank
Adam Marczyk
> Adam Marczyk wrote:
>
> > Interesting. Why would Jason refuse to discuss this unless he
> > believed he had done something dishonest and wasn't going to desist
> > from it, but knew he couldn't justify it? Surely, if he believed it
> > was perfectly ethical to register a domain name that impersonated the
> > t.o. site, he'd have no reluctance to explain his reasons, right?
> > People should have no trouble explaining their rationale for good
> > decisions.
>
> > And people wonder why I say I'm proud to be an atheist.
>
> Ah yes, a lack of understanding, false assumptions, and pride. We see why
> you are an atheist.
So, in response to a legitimate accusation of unethical behavior which you
either cannot or will not defend yourself against, the only thing you can do
is launch a barrage of irrelevant personal insults directed at me? Do you
think such tactics will distract or fool anyone for even a moment? I think
it's quite clear that you are fully aware you are doing something less than
honest with the talkorigin.org domain name, and I think it's equally clear
that your own vanity prevents you from admitting it. Again, why else would
you refuse to discuss the issue or the reasoning behind your decision? Do
you suppose that this evasive behavior makes you a more or less effective
witness for your faith?
Incidentally, the comment about being proud to be an atheist was made in
response to another self-proclaimed Christian who essentially stated that it
was perfectly okay to lie to and deceive people if it resulted in them
converting to Christianity. Your insults directed at my response imply to me
that you sympathize with that viewpoint. Is that the case?
Also, if you think "a lack of understanding" is the reason I'm an atheist,
I'll be happy to debate you at any time on any relevant subject. Consider
the gauntlet thrown down.
Sven Silow
bin raitim dispela tingting:
>Adam Marczyk wrote:
>
>> Interesting. Why would Jason refuse to discuss this unless he
>> believed he had done something dishonest and wasn't going to desist
>> from it, but knew he couldn't justify it? Surely, if he believed it
>> was perfectly ethical to register a domain name that impersonated the
>> t.o. site, he'd have no reluctance to explain his reasons, right?
>> People should have no trouble explaining their rationale for good
>> decisions.
>
>> And people wonder why I say I'm proud to be an atheist.
>
>Ah yes, a lack of understanding, false assumptions, and pride. We see why
>you are an atheist.
I think you are correct on the last two, but not the first. Many
atheists lack both false assumtions and pride - especially false
assumptions - and I'm sure Adam is one of those.
I also note '"Doktor" Gastrichs gesammeltes schweigen' on the main
issue of Adam's post (most everybody does, of course.) You know,
"Doktor", everytime you replies with silence, I cut and paste that
silence to a special file. It's a releif for my eyes to read this huge
file of spaces, here, try reading a few lines for yourself:
"
"
I think you recognize it - it is the first paragraph of your reply to
Adam.
Sven
Mark VandeWettering
> Adam Marczyk wrote:
>
>> Interesting. Why would Jason refuse to discuss this unless he
>> believed he had done something dishonest and wasn't going to desist
>> from it, but knew he couldn't justify it? Surely, if he believed it
>> was perfectly ethical to register a domain name that impersonated the
>> t.o. site, he'd have no reluctance to explain his reasons, right?
>> People should have no trouble explaining their rationale for good
>> decisions.
>
>> And people wonder why I say I'm proud to be an atheist.
>
> Ah yes, a lack of understanding, false assumptions, and pride. We see why
> you are an atheist.
It's refreshing to see you admit your own shortcomings. Perhaps some work
on them might yield positive changes in your life.
Mark
Daniel Harper
> Adam Marczyk wrote:
>
>> Interesting. Why would Jason refuse to discuss this unless he believed
>> he had done something dishonest and wasn't going to desist from it, but
>> knew he couldn't justify it? Surely, if he believed it was perfectly
>> ethical to register a domain name that impersonated the t.o. site, he'd
>> have no reluctance to explain his reasons, right? People should have no
>> trouble explaining their rationale for good decisions.
>
>> And people wonder why I say I'm proud to be an atheist.
>
> Ah yes, a lack of understanding, false assumptions, and pride.
Jason, why did you register the talkorigin.org domain name? The OP made an
excellent point with regard to your willingness to discuss it. Personally,
I can think of no action that I have ever undertaken in public
(particularly in the online world, in which things are generally
well-archived) that I would not be either willing to defend or willing to
apologize for to the injured parties.
You have a reputation for, shall we say, questionable honesty here on
talk.origins. Your defenses of your behaviors have been sporadic and
unconvincing. Please, explain in some level of detail why you chose to
register the talkorigin.org domain name, and what you thought you'd
accomplish by doing so. Your honesty will certainly raise a few points if
you have a reasonable answer to this.
> We see why
> you are an atheist.
>
The OP's beliefs or nonbeliefs in God are beside the point. You did not
respond substantially to his statements. I, as a Christian myself, hate
having to defend behavior from other Christians that I do not understand;
please inform me (if only in email) what the point to your registering
that domain name was.
Thank you.
<snip Jason's .sig>
--
"You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor'and 'hate your enemy.'
But I say to you, love your enemy and pray for those who persecute you, that
you may be like your Father in heaven, since he causes the sun to rise on
the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous."
(Matthew 5:43-45, New English Translation)
--Daniel Harper
(Change terra to earth for email)
David Sienkiewicz
> Adam Marczyk wrote:
>
> > Interesting. Why would Jason refuse to discuss this unless he
> > believed he had done something dishonest and wasn't going to desist
> > from it, but knew he couldn't justify it? Surely, if he believed it
> > was perfectly ethical to register a domain name that impersonated the
> > t.o. site, he'd have no reluctance to explain his reasons, right?
> > People should have no trouble explaining their rationale for good
> > decisions.
>
> > And people wonder why I say I'm proud to be an atheist.
>
> Ah yes, a lack of understanding, false assumptions, and pride. We see why
> you are an atheist.
Jason, are you under the assumption that these are characteristics
unique to atheists?
Would you even presume to tell us that this particular combination is
unique to atheists?
Should we talk about things like the obvious lack of understanding
that YOU possess when it comes to failing to comprehend why some of us
would find some of your tactics to be underhanded and dishonest?
Shall we talk about the false assumptions you made when you ran from
my questioning?
Do you REALLY want to get into the obvious issue of pride that comes
up when we talk about that diploma-mill "doctorate" of yours and how
you used "Dr" as part of your newsgroup identity.
I saw your resume, such as it is, Jason. What kind of pride caused
you to compose and post such a ponderous and useless litany of
"accomplishments?"
What kind of pride causes you to refer to your "Skeptic's Annotated
Bible: Corrected and Explained" as a "masterpiece," and a "must-have
for serious apologists?" After all, Jason, do you think that you and
only you, in your infinite wisdom, are capable of dealing the
criticisms of biblical inerrancy?
All of this appears under the banner of your diploma-mill advanced
degrees, byt he way.
Jason, you are a poor person to be lecturing others on the subjects of
"lack of understanding, false assumptions and pride."
< snip >
386sx
> Exodus commands us so:
>
> Exodus 23:1 "You shall not circulate a false report. Do not put your hand
> with the wicked to be an unrighteous witness."
Exodus commands a lot of things. Many of them mean, vicious, cruel, and
downright ignorant. What you do is pick the ones you like and trash the
ones you don't. The big difference between your theology and Gastrich's is
that Gastrich likes more of them than you do, period.
--
"There are instances of disturbed soil, but I can disturb soil with a
shovel." -- Carl Sagan
Frank Pericope
> Frank Pericope writes:
>
> > Exodus commands us so:
> >
> > Exodus 23:1 "You shall not circulate a false report. Do not put your hand
> > with the wicked to be an unrighteous witness."
>
> Exodus commands a lot of things. Many of them mean, vicious, cruel, and
> downright ignorant. What you do is pick the ones you like and trash the
> ones you don't. The big difference between your theology and Gastrich's is
> that Gastrich likes more of them than you do, period.
You're quite right about Exodus's commands. I cited that one, on its
own, only to point out Jason Gastrich's hypocrisy. The verse stands as
written; it is not my word. It is what Jason would call The Word. As
to why I cite it, read on:
You are wrong to assert that the big difference between what you call
my "theology" and Jason's is how much of Exodus we quote. The
difference between my position and Gastrich's is vast.
Here is the central diff, and coincidentally the reason for citing a
single verse of Exodus: Jason Gastrich styles himself a literalist,
then obfuscates why he doesn't follow the letter of the word. I am not
a literalist, and so do not face the trap he's put himself in. He
cannot deny the truth of the verse without collapsing his literalist
house of exegetical cards.
Jason Gastrich calls himself a 'teacher' of the Word, despite the
biblical injunction not to do so, while I readily admit I know no more
about It than any man.
Jason Gastrich is in deep and utter denial about his pride, vanity,
and arrogance. I admit doubt about my own position, and do not presume
to have any authority over you. Gastrich, however, does.
Jason Gastrich believes that 'once saved, always saved'. And the
manner in which he has explicated it to me means Uncle Davey can fly
to California, go to Jason's house, tie Jason up, assault him
sexually, carve pentagrams on his back, take Jason's favorite bible
and crap on it, douse him and it in lighter fluid and set them ablaze,
and then shoot himself; and the two of them will, according to Jason,
still meet in heaven.
(Not that Uncle Davey would do any of that, of course; that's just to
illustrate the point Jason makes. On the other hand, I have no
certainty that, once saved, Christians have a ticket to ride no matter
what we do.)
Jason Gastrich offers free e-mail accounts to people, asking them only
to refrain from spamming and spreading anti-Christian propaganda. He
tells me he is terminating mine, though I have done neither. I do not
offer what I do not deliver, and do not have the arrogance to consider
those who do not share my views "anti-Christian."
Those are just a few of the differences.
In any event, that one verse is enough to illustrate the fallacy of
his position.
- F.
Frank Pericope
I am a 43 year-old Christian man. I am motivated
to minister to Christians in jeopardy.
***NOTE: The e-mail address above is spam bucket***
To contact the author, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye,
then send e-mail to...
frank.p...@believeandrepentTHEBEAMOUTOFTHINEOWNEYE.com
...but only until later today when Jason cancels my account.
Frank Pericope
> > direct traffic to an allegedly christian web site?
> >
<snip>
> > I wonder about the opinions of other christians in this regard. Do
> > you approve? Do you actually feel comfortable with the likes of Jason
> > Gastrich representing you?
> >
> > These questions have been asked before, of course, and no one ever
> > says much.
> >
> > But I think it's worth asking again.
>
> </de-lurks>
>
> I do not approve. Jason does not represent me, nor Christians
> as a group, nor Christianity as a whole. He represents only
> himself.
>
> At the risk of losing my free e-mail address,
Just a follow-up to note: Jason notified me yesterday that I would
have 12 hours to clear out my mail before he terminated my account.
>I would direct any
> fundamentalist/literalist Christian who believes 'OSAS' and asserts
> that lying will not separate them from God, to this reading:
>
> Revelation 21:8 (NKJV)
> "But the cowardly, unbelieving, abominable, murderers,
> sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars
> shall have their part in the lake which burns with fire
> and brimstone, which is the second death."
>
> To continue to lie knowingly and intentionally after salvation
> is no different than to continue to murder or worship idols.
> That's plain in the literal meaning of the word of God, and
> will result in the second death.
>
> I'm sure that Jason Gastrich, Uncle Davey, CPT, and others who craft
> in their minds a rationale which permits them to deceive without
> spriitual consequence can cite any number of other verses to support
> the notion that lying for God is acceptable. But to do so, they must
> either deny the literal meaning of the verse above, or admit of a
> contradiction and abandon the literal interpretation of the Bible.
> I see no other path for them.
>
<smip>
>
> With all that said, let me be clear: I do not speak for God; instead,
> I strive to follow him. My reading of the bible is my own, and is no
> more authoritative than Lenny Flank's pizza delivery boy's. And no,
> there is no scientific theory of creation.
>
> - F.
>
> Frank Pericope
> I am a 43 year-old Christian man, and I am motivated
> to minister to Christians in jeopardy.
>
> ***NOTE: The e-mail address above is spam bucket***
>
> To contact the author, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye,
> then send e-mail to:
>
> frank.p...@believeandrepentTHEBEAMOUTOFTHINEOWNEYE.com
The termination of my free e-mail account happened even though I did
not violate his service/usage agreement (I did not use my free
'believeandrepent' e-mail address to send spam--as Jason does to those
who avail themselves of the service--or to spread anti-Christian
propaganda).
He claims it is because an e-mail I sent to him inquiring about why he
hadn't responded to my last e-mail was 'threatening'. I'll post my
e-mail to him below. Draw your own conclusions.
His act is not censorship, as I will soon enough set up another;
though I'm sure he would claim it was if it happened to him. But feel
free to send your remarks, supportive or otherwise, to Jason.
I doubt that Jason will ever give up the talkorigin.org deception
without legal action, despite his professed Christianity and the clear
meaning of the scripture he allegedly holds so dear.
FYI, he tells me that he believes the misdirect is a "spirit-lead"
enterprise because his "biggest supporters" tell him it's a good idea.
He goes on to say that the misdirect "...is perfectly legal." and
that he's "...not breaking any laws." I guess that remains to be seen.
He has not in any way, of course, addressed why it's okay to
inentionally disobey the literal meaning of scripture while professing
same.
I suspect that the only way he might come to understand what it means
to have people intending to visit your site deceptively diverted
elsewhere is if some of the less ethical folk here took the time, in
each and every reply to one of Jason's post, to change his omnipresent
http tag to read jcsm.com instead of .org, thereby sending lots of
folks seeking Jason's site to "Jay Computer Services". But cleary that
would be wrong. At least it's clear to me.
Text of the inquiry that Jason felt threatened him:
_________________________________
Jason,
You have not replied to my last private response on this subject, from
three days ago.
I have largely refrained from public comment while awaiting your
reply.
I would like to be able to witness for your integrity, as mentioned at
the end of my last response.
I can only do so if you drop the talkorigin re-direct and give still
more than asked of you by your opponents, as in Matthew 5.
I repeat: if you do, I will not discuss with anyone that you may have
done so in response to our conversations.
Please advise in reply by midnight tonight. I will return to the
public forums tomorrow.
Thank you for your consideration,
- F.
_________________________________________
Anyone wishing to understand the context further can see the plain
meaning of Matthew 5:39-42+44, and probably figure out why I pointed
it out to Jason with respect to his refusal to give up the deception,
as TO regulars have asked:
"(39)But I tell you not to resist an evil person. But whoever slaps
you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also. (40)If anyone
wants to sue you and take away your tunic, let him have your cloak
also. (41)And whoever compels you to go one mile, go with him two.
(42)Give to him who asks you, and from him who wants to borrow from
you do not turn away. (44)But I say to you, love your enemies, bless
those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those
who spitefully use you and persecute you,"
Again, draw your own conclusions.
- F.
Richard S. Crawford
Simple. Jason is a nominal Christian. He doesn't represent Christian
love or charity in the world, nor does he live out the teachings of
Jesus Christ. He has instead allowed himself to believe that his own
prejudices and fears are justified by Christianity. It's a natural
human tendency, and part of our sinful nature, to feel prejudiced and
fearful and superior, and to believe that our religion supports those
beliefs. Unfortunately, it is a warping of Christianity, and runs
counter to the teachings of Christ. Being "saved" does not justify
lying and deceit and hatred. Indeed, a person who has found salvation
in Christ should know better.
386sx
[...]
> You are wrong to assert that the big difference between what you call my
> "theology" and Jason's is how much of Exodus we quote.
That would be, how much of Exodus you "like." That would be assuming both
of you actually have a theology, of course.
> The difference between my position and Gastrich's is vast.
Right. He likes a whole bunch more of Exodus than you do. 8^) But okay,
I'll grant you that I might be projecting a bit and I didn't read your post
carefully.
> Here is the central diff, and coincidentally the reason for citing a
> single verse of Exodus: Jason Gastrich styles himself a literalist, then
> obfuscates why he doesn't follow the letter of the word. I am not a
> literalist, and so do not face the trap he's put himself in. He cannot
> deny the truth of the verse without collapsing his literalist house of
> exegetical cards.
Not true. When faced with an alleged contradiction about, for example,
whether it is right to be a liar or not, he could always say that the
context wasn't taken properly into account, or he could say that one
contradiction has superseded the other, or he could say God was talking
about somebody else, and so on... There are plenty of ways to weasel out of
these sorts of things, I'm sure. But in the end he's just making it say
what he wants it to say, or what somebody else wants it to say, just like
everybody else. True Biblical literalists are rare, or nonexistent.
[...]
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank
Richard S. Crawford wrote:
> Simple. Jason is a nominal Christian. He doesn't represent Christian
> love or charity in the world, nor does he live out the teachings of
> Jesus Christ. He has instead allowed himself to believe that his own
> prejudices and fears are justified by Christianity. It's a natural
> human tendency, and part of our sinful nature, to feel prejudiced and
> fearful and superior, and to believe that our religion supports those
> beliefs. Unfortunately, it is a warping of Christianity, and runs
> counter to the teachings of Christ. Being "saved" does not justify
> lying and deceit and hatred. Indeed, a person who has found salvation
> in Christ should know better.
>
Jason is a Balaamite.
I'm wondering if he's read enough of his Bible to know what that is.
===============================================
Lenny Flank
"There are no loose threads in the web of life"
Creation "Science" Debunked:
http://www.geocities.com/lflank
DebunkCreation Email list:
http://www.groups.yahoo.com/group/DebunkCreation
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
Frank Pericope
For any who haven't, this excerpt from
http://www.christinyou.net/pages/revper.html sums it up nicely:
"Balaam tried to have it both ways at once, to play both sides against
the middle. His was the way of pragmatic expedience and appeasement to
do whatever worked to save his own skin."
It is written that there was some talking out of his ass.
- F.
Frank Pericope
I am a 43 year-old Christian man. I am motivated
to minister to Christians in jeopardy; though I
acknowledge I am no one's authority.
***NOTE: The e-mail address above is spam bucket***
...but feel free to use it anyway until I get a new account set up, as
my 'believeandrepent' e-mail is now toast.
Frank Pericope
> Frank Pericope writes:
>
> [...]
>
> > You are wrong to assert that the big difference between what you call my
> > "theology" and Jason's is how much of Exodus we quote.
>
> That would be, how much of Exodus you "like." That would be assuming both
> of you actually have a theology, of course.
>
> > The difference between my position and Gastrich's is vast.
>
> Right. He likes a whole bunch more of Exodus than you do. 8^) But okay,
> I'll grant you that I might be projecting a bit and I didn't read your post
> carefully.
>
> > Here is the central diff, and coincidentally the reason for citing a
> > single verse of Exodus: Jason Gastrich styles himself a literalist, then
> > obfuscates why he doesn't follow the letter of the word. I am not a
> > literalist, and so do not face the trap he's put himself in. He cannot
> > deny the truth of the verse without collapsing his literalist house of
> > exegetical cards.
>
> Not true. When faced with an alleged contradiction about, for example,
> whether it is right to be a liar or not, he could always say that the
> context wasn't taken properly into account, or he could say that one
> contradiction has superseded the other, or he could say God was talking
> about somebody else, and so on... There are plenty of ways to weasel out of
> these sorts of things, I'm sure.
Absolutely. That's what I mean by "obfuscates".
But in the end he's just making it say
> what he wants it to say, or what somebody else wants it to say, just like
> everybody else. True Biblical literalists are rare, or nonexistent.
>
> [...]
Positively. That's what I was attempting to illustrate to Jason
Gastrich and his followers. If they can weasel out of Matthew 5 or
Titus 2, it is silly for them to cling to Genesis and YECism. If they
insist on the literal interpretation of the latter, they must alter
their behavior to match that demanded elsewhere in the scripture. Any
other path they take reveals them as liars and/or hypocrites.
And sometimes as petty, vindictive webmasters, too.
- F.
Therion Ware
On Tue, 16 Mar 2004 13:39:22 +0000 (UTC) in free.christians, Frank
Pericope (frank.p...@oneimage.com (Frank Pericope)) said,
directing the reply to free.christians
[snip]
>
>For any who haven't, this excerpt from
>http://www.christinyou.net/pages/revper.html sums it up nicely:
>
>"Balaam tried to have it both ways at once, to play both sides against
>the middle. His was the way of pragmatic expedience and appeasement to
>do whatever worked to save his own skin."
>
>It is written that there was some talking out of his ass.
Bearing in mind this is the English spelling thought the pun is both
amusing and apposite.
--
"Do Unto Others As You Would Have Them Do Unto You."
- Attrib: Pauline Reage.
Inexpensive VHS & other video to CD/DVD conversion?
See: <http://www.Video2CD.com>. 35.00 gets your video on DVD.
all posts to this email address are automatically deleted without being read.
** atheist poster child #1 ** #442.
Derek Potter
lines to talk.origins
>Positively. That's what I was attempting to illustrate to Jason
>Gastrich and his followers. If they can weasel out of Matthew 5 or
>Titus 2, it is silly for them to cling to Genesis and YECism. If they
>insist on the literal interpretation of the latter, they must alter
>their behavior to match that demanded elsewhere in the scripture. Any
>other path they take reveals them as liars and/or hypocrites.
Or just a bit confused. It's one thing to accuse an individual of
lying over one or more particular issues, it's quite another to impugn
a whole class of people ("Jason's followers") as hypocrites for not
being totally consistent in the way they think.
Noctiluca
Isn't hypocrisy predicated on a lack of consistency?
Lying is indeed another matter.
robert
Derek Potter
to talk.origins
If it's deliberate
>Lying is indeed another matter.
I'd say hypocrisy is to inconsistencey as lying is to speaking untruth
- which need not be deliberate or culpable.
Frank Pericope
I acknowledge your point. It's not suprising that those who follow
Jason are confused; perhaps they would find more clarity in following
Jesus and the spirit, not Jason and the letter.
But I digress. Allow me to retract, revise, and republish:
"Positively. That's what I was attempting to illustrate to Jason
Gastrich. If he can so easily weasel out of Matthew 5 or Titus 2, it
is silly for him to cling to Genesis and YECism. If he insists on the
literal interpretation of the latter, he must demonstrably alter his
behavior to match that demanded elsewhere in the scripture--or risk
reinforcing the perception that he is a liar and/or a hypocrite."
Jason styles himself a teacher of others, despite the direct command
of Matthew 23:8; he espouses plainly contradictory doctrines; and when
confronted by brothers in Christ he denies their good intent and
retreats into his pride and vanity. Of course he confuses his
followers. He is like the Pharisees and scribes about whom Christ
spoke in Matther 23:13.
But as I have said before, and unlike Jason, I am no one's authority.
There's no need to listen to my admittedly fallible opinion. A plain
review of the cited verses, in context and the observation of his
behaviour should clear up any confusion his followers might have.
- F
Frank Pericope
Until it has been pointed out to the perpetrator, of course. After that...
- F.
386sx
> Derek Potter wrote:
>> I'd say hypocrisy is to inconsistencey as lying is to speaking untruth -
>> which need not be deliberate or culpable.
>
> Until it has been pointed out to the perpetrator, of course. After that...
But then, if none of "us" are truly qualified to explain it...
Hallmark of religion: it goes around in circles a lot. That's why it bites
itself in the butt too much.
Derek Potter
lines to talk.origins
>Derek Potter <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message news:<82oe50t430qr3f92c...@4ax.com>...
>> On Tue, 16 Mar 2004 19:52:38 +0000 (UTC), "Noctiluca" posted 22 lines
>> to talk.origins
>>
>> >Derek Potter <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message news:<dp7e50198l5nvg7e5...@4ax.com>...
>> >> On Tue, 16 Mar 2004 13:50:46 +0000 (UTC), "Frank Pericope" posted 50
>> >> lines to talk.origins
>> >>
>> >> >Positively. That's what I was attempting to illustrate to Jason
>> >> >Gastrich and his followers. If they can weasel out of Matthew 5 or
>> >> >Titus 2, it is silly for them to cling to Genesis and YECism. If they
>> >> >insist on the literal interpretation of the latter, they must alter
>> >> >their behavior to match that demanded elsewhere in the scripture. Any
>> >> >other path they take reveals them as liars and/or hypocrites.
>> >>
>> >> Or just a bit confused. It's one thing to accuse an individual of
>> >> lying over one or more particular issues, it's quite another to impugn
>> >> a whole class of people ("Jason's followers") as hypocrites for not
>> >> being totally consistent in the way they think.
>> >
>> >Isn't hypocrisy predicated on a lack of consistency?
>>
>> If it's deliberate
>>
>> >Lying is indeed another matter.
>>
>> I'd say hypocrisy is to inconsistencey as lying is to speaking untruth
>> - which need not be deliberate or culpable.
>
>Until it has been pointed out to the perpetrator, of course. After that...
Well, I may be being a little inconsistent here too as I have often
said there should be a law against "Criminal Stupidity". Three strikes
and you're out?
Derek Potter
talk.origins
>Frank Pericope writes:
>
>> Derek Potter wrote:
>
>>> I'd say hypocrisy is to inconsistencey as lying is to speaking untruth -
>>> which need not be deliberate or culpable.
>>
>> Until it has been pointed out to the perpetrator, of course. After that...
>
>But then, if none of "us" are truly qualified to explain it...
>
>Hallmark of religion: it goes around in circles a lot. That's why it bites
>itself in the butt too much.
Whereas anti-religionists just tie themselves in knots.
Ever watched a materialist trying to explain where conciousness comes
from? Makes a fundy explaining away OT atrocities look like Houdini on
speed.
386sx
> 386sx wrote:
>
>> Frank Pericope writes:
>>
>> > Derek Potter wrote:
>> >
>> >> I'd say hypocrisy is to inconsistencey as lying is to speaking untruth
>> >> - which need not be deliberate or culpable.
>> >
>> > Until it has been pointed out to the perpetrator, of course. After
>> > that...
>>
>> But then, if none of "us" are truly qualified to explain it...
>>
>> Hallmark of religion: it goes around in circles a lot. That's why it
>> bites itself in the butt too much.
>
> Whereas anti-religionists just tie themselves in knots.
>
> Ever watched a materialist trying to explain where conciousness comes
> from?
I notice you're not defining what is consciousness; for all I know you might
think it is something that Jesus can put into a herd of swine, but it
doesn't don't like water very much. But why do you limit it to
consciousness? You might as well apply that to anything, be it real or
imagined. "Ever watched a materialist trying to explain where [insert
whatever you want here] comes from?"
Example: Ever watched a materialist trying to explain where souls come from?
What a hoot to watch them squirm!
> Makes a fundy explaining away OT atrocities look like Houdini on speed.
http://www.google.com/search?&q=consciousness
There you will find all sorts of materialist and spiritualist ponderings.
(After looking at some of that, frankly I don't blame some people for going
for the easy god-did-it answer. It's simple, and it's authoritative.)
Mike Painter
Really? I know that if I simulate certain areas of the brain, memories,
thoughts, emotions may be elicited. I know roughly where those areas are.
I know that if I remove those areas those things stop.
I know that in some individuals with abnormal brains that some of those get
mixed up and they may smell a color or feel a sound.
I know that if I stop certain electrochemical processes for a short time
"consciousness" goes away and never comes back.
I know that no one has ever shown any external source for these properties.
Chemicals and electricity are sufficient given adequate perfusion.