mm-352 Subject: Re: Insight on the 666 mark on the people! >Please forgive this top posting. I am not here to debate... Just do yourself >a favor with these 2 notes. You have posted a lot of controversial claims about the embeded codes in people's names, place names, phrases people use and all kinds of other claims about coding systems. But you say you are not here to debate. That means you are pushing these claims as unchallengable assertions. Tha is astonishing. But, no thanks. If it's important it deserves to be debated properly and with real substantial evidence. Something you have failed to do. You have manipulated statistics by ignoring the thousands of words or phrases that show the even spread of words that come up with 666. >1. Don't take the ID CHIP, either voluntary or by law >2. You will have proof of what I say is correct by two events happening in >the next two years. If it does not happen as I say, then discard what I have >said, and look else where for the Mark of the Beast. Most people aren't looking for it at all. It's you who made the claim. But you've already admitted that you 'tweak' codes of over two words (about the only apparently significant codes). Why should we believe anything you say? >Event 1, a massive war with over 66.6 million being killed. >Event 2, a peace treaty with Israel and Arabs and America (Jews, Islam and >Christians) on the 28th of January 2006, American date zones. With the present climate in the world and the threat of WMD and a population of 6000,000,000 the above, tragically, doesn't need a lot of phrophecying. And the wacky end-time cults are dangerous players who will help it come about >Thats all I am going to say, for everything is a debate which is not going >anywhere. Too true it's not. >If you look at the things you disagree with my finding and throw >them away as tweaking, and look at that which is not tweaked. Those with 2 >words or less. >Even if you dont believe me. It would be wise to heed the above advice... >and wait and see. If we had to heed the advice of every end-time cult we would all be living in lead boxes 500 feet under the ground. We must get a couple dozen every year. Why is it that they all think we should see them as right and all the others as false? William Subject: Re: Insight on the 666 mark on the people! X-Comment: NOTICE: Uncensored-News.Com does not condone, nor support, spam, illegal or copyrighted postings. X-T.O.S.: http://www.uncensored-news.com/terms.html x-no-archive:yes >That one easy to describe. When you are an uneducated close minded fool and >see the world as looking down on you you seek to gain respect by being >valued for unvailing evil so that others may protect themselves from it thus >see you as protector and value you. Only problem is when you are a dumb ass >you wouldn't know evil if it was looking through your own eyes and speaking >through your mouth! Thus is the ways of wolves in sheeps clothes! I answer to God, Satan! Not to you! And this is not the first time I've encountered you in here! One of your other human forms is DW Suiter. So you see, Satan, you fool no one.! And we Christians are COMMANDED to warn people when YOU are around. So as loud as you can shriek, as awful as your breath stinks when you belch up human flesh, I am on to you, and I tell the world who you are! You are Satan! And I rebuke you in JEsus' name! In here, you're nothing but anther belching, farting, whoring, booze guzzling loser-fart! John Weatherly one of His end-time prophets > The UPC is one. The Digital Angel is one. The new one, I forget the > name, is the size of a piece of glitter, like teenage girls glue to > their faces with their makeup these days. Credit cards and debit > cards all have an embedded 666 in the magnetic stripe on the back. The > 666 was at one time embossed on teh front of the credit card, but such > an outcry was made by the Christian community that the # 666 was > removed from the face of the credit card and put on the back > invisibly. > The workings of the mind of the conspiracy theorist on display. What it > must be like to see the world through eyes like these... > -- > Midwinter ______________________________________________________________ ______________ ___ Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com <><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><> Subject: Re: Insight on the 666 mark on the people! X-No-Archive: yes > I answer to God, Satan! Not to you! And this is not the first time > I've encountered you in here! One of your other human forms is DW > Suiter. So you see, Satan, you fool no one.! And we Christians are COMMANDED to warn people when YOU are around. > So as loud as you can shriek, as awful as your breath stinks when you > belch up human flesh, I am on to you, and I tell the world who you > are! You are Satan! Is this the same Satan who was working with God at the time of Job, and who became the 'Great Adversary' only when it was decided that God should not be capable of evil, and so another was needed to explain the suffering of humanity? -- Midwinter Subject: Re: Insight on the 666 mark on the people! X-Comment: NOTICE: Uncensored-News.Com does not condone, nor support, spam, illegal or copyrighted postings. X-T.O.S.: http://www.uncensored-news.com/terms.html x-no-archive:yes > The UPC is one. The Digital Angel is one. The new one, I forget the > name, is the size of a piece of glitter, like teenage girls glue to > their faces with their makeup these days. Credit cards and debit > cards all have an embedded 666 in the magnetic stripe on the back. The > 666 was at one time embossed on teh front of the credit card, but such > an outcry was made by the Christian community that the # 666 was > removed from the face of the credit card and put on the back > invisibly. >The workings of the mind of the conspiracy theorist on display. Conspiracy? What conspiracy? I am merely trying to make sense of the literal passages in Daniel and Revelation. What conspiracy? You see conservative, evangelical Christianity as a conspiracy? LOL!! What it >must be like to see the world through eyes like these... Yes, it is truly amazing! I've heard the voice of God, Midwinter. Have YOU ever heard God's voice? And how did I know it was God's voice? Because I asked Him for help, and He told me what to do. And I'd have NEVER thought of what He told me to do. Yet I did what He said to do, after arguing for 20 minutes, and I lived through it! John W ______________________________________________________________ ______________ ___ Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com <><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><> Subject: Re: Insight on the 666 mark on the people! X-No-Archive: yes > Conspiracy? What conspiracy? I am merely trying to make sense of > the literal passages in Daniel and Revelation. And what literal passages would these be? Bear in mind please that I am a pagan and therefore do not view Revelation through the spectacles of faith... However, 'literal' passages would of course be as true for me, pagan or not, as they are for you. Which are they? -- Midwinter Subject: Re: Insight on the 666 mark on the people! X-Comment: NOTICE: Uncensored-News.Com does not condone, nor support, spam, illegal or copyrighted postings. X-T.O.S.: http://www.uncensored-news.com/terms.html x-no-archive:yes > Conspiracy? What conspiracy? I am merely trying to make sense of > the literal passages in Daniel and Revelation. >And what literal passages would these be? Bear in mind please that I am a >pagan and therefore do not view Revelation through the spectacles of >faith... However, 'literal' passages would of course be as true for me, >pagan or not, as they are for you. Which are they? Since the Bible is written for believeI do not know if an atheist can understand or not, but try reading Daniel and focusing on the 4 kingdoms he describes. John W ______________________________________________________________ ______________ ___ Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com <><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><> Subject: Re: Insight on the 666 mark on the people! X-No-Archive: yes > Since the Bible is written for believeI do not know if an atheist > can understand or not I did not say I was an atheist. I said I was a pagan. -- Midwinter Subject: Re: Insight on the 666 mark on the people! X-Comment: NOTICE: Uncensored-News.Com does not condone, nor support, spam, illegal or copyrighted postings. X-T.O.S.: http://www.uncensored-news.com/terms.html x-no-archive:yes > Since the Bible is written for believeI do not know if an atheist > can understand or not >I did not say I was an atheist. I said I was a pagan. Congratulations! You corrected me. However I made several points that you chopped. If you are not even going to respond truthfully and positively, thanks for letting me know. I won't bother with you further. John W ______________________________________________________________ ______________ ___ Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com <><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><> Subject: Re: Insight on the 666 mark on the people! X-Comment: NOTICE: Uncensored-News.Com does not condone, nor support, spam, illegal or copyrighted postings. X-T.O.S.: http://www.uncensored-news.com/terms.html x-no-archive:yes BTW, O P, I know what your last name means; yuo fool no one. So go away, Satan! John W >Tell me oh holy one, just what kind of a Christian ignores all the good of Jesus and wastes time >with devil hunting number crap? Are you trying to tell me that you are some kind of an authority >of good and evil? Who the hell appointed you to such a judgmental position? How about I do just >like you? I could easily demonstrate how idiots like you are the true demonic ones by helping to >divert the meaning of the bible as an instrument to teach good into a fools game of finding evil >where it does not exist! People like you are dime a dozen, it is so easy to be stupid, anyone >can do it. Your sleuthing here with 666 crap does zero to contribute to the body of Christ, you >are an asshole like so many authority wanna be's found on these groups. Why don't you get with >Pastor Frank's racist ass and pervert the bible into a xenophobic instrument of hate. He calls >himself a Christian, why can't dumb asses like you do it too? >You are joke and anyone that gives you any kind of respectable discourse on your devil hunting >crap is too! >John > x-no-archive:yes >Jezus H Christ are you ever full . Have you had family members ask you to get on >medication? > Good luck having people respond to you in a Christian group when your > first words curse God. And since I have no choice but to believe it > was premeditated, you have no class, demoniac! > John W >Are you on some kind of medication? I note this line from below: The Holy Bible : New Revised Standard Version. 1996, I wonder... 1996, is this a number that reflects a devil sign? You are one of the more classic examplse of the stupidity of religion. What a bunch >looser quacks. >How many human beings will this effect in a religous way? Do you think it will >reduce starvation >or lost souls? It is all mental babble crap! Dam you need to get out! 16 Also it causes all, both small and great, both rich > and poor, both free and slave, to be marked on the right hand or the > forehead, 17 so that no one can buy or sell who does > not have the mark, that is, the name of the beast or the number of its > name. 18 This calls for wisdom: let anyone with > understanding calculate the number of the beast, for it is the number > of a person. Its number is six hundred sixty-six. > The Holy Bible : New Revised Standard Version. 1996, c1989 (Re > 13:16). Nashville: Thomas Nelson. We know the beast people will have the 666 mark on their head but what > will it look like? If we suppose that when John saw that mark it was the numeric hebrew > number 666 on the forehead then that information was translated into > the Greek for the common person to understand but what then would that > mark look like in hebrew numeric numbering? The hebrew numbering for 666(six hundred and sixty six) looks very > like a representation of socket holes and this is what I believe is > the actual meaning of the mark. This would explain why these people have been rejected by God because > by medical intervention they have a direct connection to their brain > which they download and upload emotions, information etc from the > computer via electrical impulses. They have become cyborg and unable > to tune to God because these false inputs have become their gods. So much of the description of the false prophet and what he does found > in Revelation seems to directly infer to this computer technology of > our modern day. The False Prophet will bring so many to hell through this technology > of pleasure control and information. Technology is not our saviour, > God is! 28 And a cutting for the soul ye do not put in your flesh; > and a writing, a cross-mark, ye do not put on you; I am Jehovah. > Young, R. (1997). Young's literal translation (Le 19:28). Oak Harbor: > Logos Research Systems. > -------------------------------------------------------------- --------------- ---- > Details of false prophet explaned here: End times: > http://www.geocities.com/mart1963 > ______________________________________________________________ _______________ __ > Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com > <><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><> ______________________________________________________________ ______________ ___ Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com <><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><> Subject: Re: Insight on the 666 mark on the people! X-Comment: NOTICE: Uncensored-News.Com does not condone, nor support, spam, illegal or copyrighted postings. X-T.O.S.: http://www.uncensored-news.com/terms.html x-no-archive:yes >Tell me oh holy one, When you are serious, come back with a respectful, humble attitude, and we'll talk about it. I could give you many answers; however, I will not talk with you until I see some respect and humility. just what kind of a Christian ignores all the good of Jesus and wastes time >with devil hunting number crap? Are you trying to tell me that you are some kind of an authority >of good and evil? I am what is called a prophet. There are many of us, although I may well be the first one you have encountered. Come back with a mind and a mouth that indicate yuo are ready to receive. Who the hell appointed you to such a judgmental position? You came to me with questions. If you want to receive answeshow me and my God some respect. John W How about I do just >like you? I could easily demonstrate how idiots like you are the true demonic ones by helping to >divert the meaning of the bible as an instrument to teach good into a fools game of finding evil >where it does not exist! People like you are dime a dozen, it is so easy to be stupid, anyone >can do it. Your sleuthing here with 666 crap does zero to contribute to the body of Christ, you >are an asshole like so many authority wanna be's found on these groups. Why don't you get with >Pastor Frank's racist ass and pervert the bible into a xenophobic instrument of hate. He calls >himself a Christian, why can't dumb asses like you do it too? >You are joke and anyone that gives you any kind of respectable discourse on your devil hunting >crap is too! >John > x-no-archive:yes >Jezus H Christ are you ever full . Have you had family members ask you to get on >medication? > Good luck having people respond to you in a Christian group when your > first words curse God. And since I have no choice but to believe it > was premeditated, you have no class, demoniac! > John W >Are you on some kind of medication? I note this line from below: The Holy Bible : New Revised Standard Version. 1996, I wonder... 1996, is this a number that reflects a devil sign? You are one of the more classic examplse of the stupidity of religion. What a bunch >looser quacks. >How many human beings will this effect in a religous way? Do you think it will >reduce starvation >or lost souls? It is all mental babble crap! Dam you need to get out! 16 Also it causes all, both small and great, both rich > and poor, both free and slave, to be marked on the right hand or the > forehead, 17 so that no one can buy or sell who does > not have the mark, that is, the name of the beast or the number of its > name. 18 This calls for wisdom: let anyone with > understanding calculate the number of the beast, for it is the number > of a person. Its number is six hundred sixty-six. > The Holy Bible : New Revised Standard Version. 1996, c1989 (Re > 13:16). Nashville: Thomas Nelson. We know the beast people will have the 666 mark on their head but what > will it look like? If we suppose that when John saw that mark it was the numeric hebrew > number 666 on the forehead then that information was translated into > the Greek for the common person to understand but what then would that > mark look like in hebrew numeric numbering? The hebrew numbering for 666(six hundred and sixty six) looks very > like a representation of socket holes and this is what I believe is > the actual meaning of the mark. This would explain why these people have been rejected by God because > by medical intervention they have a direct connection to their brain > which they download and upload emotions, information etc from the > computer via electrical impulses. They have become cyborg and unable > to tune to God because these false inputs have become their gods. So much of the description of the false prophet and what he does found > in Revelation seems to directly infer to this computer technology of > our modern day. The False Prophet will bring so many to hell through this technology > of pleasure control and information. Technology is not our saviour, > God is! 28 And a cutting for the soul ye do not put in your flesh; > and a writing, a cross-mark, ye do not put on you; I am Jehovah. > Young, R. (1997). Young's literal translation (Le 19:28). Oak Harbor: > Logos Research Systems. > -------------------------------------------------------------- --------------- ---- > Details of false prophet explaned here: End times: > http://www.geocities.com/mart1963 > ______________________________________________________________ _______________ __ > Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com > <><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><> ______________________________________________________________ ______________ ___ Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com <><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><> Subject: Re: Insight on the 666 mark on the people! Followups set to trolls home group, check google if you think john w isn't an unwelcome addition to any discussion. Tell me oh holy one, > When you are serious, come back with a respectful, humble attitude, how bizarre, you demand respect, & give none until it serves your purpose. You demand others be humble around you, & the stature you have is synominous with, say a fly turd in a 1000 ton lot of freshly ground black peppper, for yopu have demonstrtaed no knowl;wedge of your mythology. Now, it is a given that ypou make assertions, but assertions are justso much sewer gas until you provide evidence for them. A thing you are noted for not doing. What you are noted for doing is engaging is self agrandizement & attempting to denigrarte others with your lame attempts to be insulting.That & running away decalring victory as ypou fail in demonstarteing your vaunted education. > and we'll talk about it. I could give you many answers; however, I > will not talk with you until I see some respect and humility. Now if you just would hold to that, a golden silence would temporarily settle upon arcb, the group, you have perturnbed since Aug of 2002. > just what kind of a Christian ignores all the good of Jesus and wastes > time >with devil hunting number crap? Are you trying to tell me that you are some kind of an authority >of good and evil? > I am what is called a prophet. There are many of us, although I may A self proclaimed prophet, just like the others. & just like the othea foolish person that attaches importance to their whines & claims them to be in accordance with their version of a god, or in your case, their pantheon. But then, if you were as educated as you have implied & claimed, you would know that. > well be the first one you have encountered. Actually, in your case, no one has encountyered a prophet. Like your claimed messiah prophesis, your claims miust not be taken in any context except as claimed by you. BTW, who was the messiah supposed to be, & which line would he be from. Mind you, it can't be from ther house of David, for there is a person in their that non descendent of could ever sit the throne agasin accordingg to your grimporie. & yes, there was a messiah, & still is a messiah, expected by the Jerws of +1 G. > Come back with a mind and a mouth that indicate yuo are ready to > receive. No one really wants the green manure that you dump on the groups. So really, why should anyone receive your false claims anyway. You certaninly don't even know the history of your mythology, so you certainly are not one to teach it in a rational manner. You can't even tell the audience when Jerusalem was first settled, & it is not in accordance with your mythology. You can not even tell the audience when the followers of yahweh split from the followers of el, Nor can you tell the audience when the goiddesses were finally eliminated from the worship of the Judaic [Jewish] tribes. > Who the hell appointed you to such a judgmental position? > You came to me with questions. If you want to receive answeshow > me and my God some respect. Just who the hell are you top denmand others respect you when you show no respect to otheyourself, or the gods of others. You are contemmptable, & any god that permited the likes of you to espouse its cause would wear tthe same shirt of rejection by decent people. As to your pantheon, they are unworthy of respect according to your greimorie, add to that the simple observation that they appear to be terminally missing since science broke free from the church's control. > John W Which john w persona are you trying to foist off on the unsuspecting public this time jezebeth? SNIP, the groups have gagged enough allready. walksalone who notes john w is still unable to be civil, courteous, or act as an educated person. & that is his most commopn persona. Subject: Re: Insight on the 666 mark on the people! > x-no-archive:yes >Tell me oh holy one, > When you are serious, come back with a respectful, humble attitude, > and we'll talk about it. I could give you many answers; however, I > will not talk with you until I see some respect and humility. > just what kind of a Christian ignores all the good of Jesus and wastes > time >with devil hunting number crap? Are you trying to tell me that you are some kind of an authority >of good and evil? > I am what is called a prophet. There are many of us, although I may > well be the first one you have encountered. A prophet, you say! Very well, I will not ask you to prove it or anything, because our Lord would not use His supernatural abilities when tempted by Satan. There are, however, valid New Testament criteria for determining the validity of a prophet's claims, but I don't imagine you know them. Therefore, I can confidently ask you the following question: Where are you when you give a prophecy and who is with you? Chris Subject: Re: Insight on the 666 mark on the people! X-Comment: NOTICE: Uncensored-News.Com does not condone, nor support, spam, illegal or copyrighted postings. X-T.O.S.: http://www.uncensored-news.com/terms.html x-no-archive:yes > x-no-archive:yes >Tell me oh holy one, > When you are serious, come back with a respectful, humble attitude, > and we'll talk about it. I could give you many answers; however, I > will not talk with you until I see some respect and humility. > just what kind of a Christian ignores all the good of Jesus and wastes > time >with devil hunting number crap? Are you trying to tell me that you are >some kind of an authority >of good and evil? > I am what is called a prophet. There are many of us, although I may > well be the first one you have encountered. >A prophet, you say! Yes. One of probably thousands, all over the world, keeping the message pure. Very well, I will not ask you to prove it or anything, Look beyond me to the message. >because our Lord would not use His supernatural abilities when tempted by >Satan. There are, however, valid New Testament criteria for determining the >validity of a prophet's claims, I believe you are mistaken with what you are saying. But let me put it books. In the New Testament (apostolic days), the apostles and have appeared since the close of the apostolic age (somewhere between 30 AD to 100 AD. However, since the close of the Bible, we preachers and heralds are called prophets. I do not write scripture. I preach; I herald the 2nd Coming. So take that into consideration. The Old Testament prophets who were tested were those who claimed to write scripture, and we remember them for that. I do not write scripture, nor do I claim to. I preach/I proclaim. but I don't imagine you know them. I do know the Old Testament tests. >Therefore, I can confidently ask you the following question: >Where are you when you give a prophecy and who is with you? I have prophesied / preached / declared in here. And I have prophesied/ preached in churches in which I preached. Any preacher who gets up and preaches the true Gospel today is a :prophet. John W >Chris ______________________________________________________________ ______________ ___ Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com <><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><> Subject: Re: Insight on the 666 mark on the people! > x-no-archive:yes x-no-archive:yes Tell me oh holy one, When you are serious, come back with a respectful, humble attitude, > and we'll talk about it. I could give you many answers; however, I > will not talk with you until I see some respect and humility. > just what kind of a Christian ignores all the good of Jesus and wastes > time >with devil hunting number crap? Are you trying to tell me that you are >some kind of an authority >of good and evil? I am what is called a prophet. There are many of us, although I may > well be the first one you have encountered. >A prophet, you say! > Yes. One of probably thousands, all over the world, keeping the > message pure. > Very well, I will not ask you to prove it or anything, > Look beyond me to the message. >because our Lord would not use His supernatural abilities when tempted by >Satan. There are, however, valid New Testament criteria for determining the >validity of a prophet's claims, > I believe you are mistaken with what you are saying. Far from it, as I will explain in a moment. I see, however, that you have changed your story. You used the title prophet to describe your ability to understand, to essentially FORETELL what the mark of the beast is all about. Once someone reposted one of your old messages in which you made some predictions which did not come true, you admitted to not being able to see into the future, and redefined prophet to mean someone who is preaching, heralding the Second Coming. Would you care to supply a Scripture to support this use of the term prophet? Before you do, consider that the Bible teaches otherwise: (1 Cor 12:28 NIV) And in the church God has appointed first of all apostles, second prophets, third teachethen workers of miracles, also those having gifts of healing, those able to help othethose with gifts of administration, and those speaking in different kinds of tongues. I would think someone proclaiming anything about God would be either an apostle or a teacher, but, please, supply a Scripture to support your position. Let me say kudos for admitting that you were unable to see into the future. Many people would try to rationalize such a matter, but you chose not to. That was a very responsible thing to do. The thing is, when a Biblical prophet saw the future, they did not do it of their own ability. God either told them what would happen, or showed them what would happen in a vision or dream. You essentially made a prediction up and believed it was from God. You therefore have a proven inability to distinguish between stuff you make up and revelation from God. This is a very dangerous thing in someone who now claims to be preaching and heralding the Second Coming. It's dangerous because you cannot tell the difference between things you invent and things that God has revealed. You have the potential to do great damage to the work of spreading the Gospel because you think things you invent are real. With all humility, I urge you to ask yourself what has fundamentally changed in you from a year ago when you gave a false prophecy to now. If you cannot specifically name what has changed, perhaps you should consider another vocation, such as working lots of overtime, and giving your extra income to missionaries or to the poor. You would still be serving God, and spreading the Gospel, but you'd be doing it in a way that cannot harm the Gospel. Think very hard about this - what has changed? Now, on to the New Testament criteria for determining a prophet's claims. By the way, if you consider yourself a preacher, you really should learn the Bible better. (1 Cor 14:29-32 KJV) Let the prophets speak two or three, and let the other judge. {30} If any thing be revealed to another that sitteth by, let the first hold his peace. {31} For ye may all prophesy one by one, that all may learn, and all may be comforted. {32} And the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets. Paul defines the norm for the way prophecy is to be given. It is to be given in the context of a church setting. Furthermore, other prophets are to judge the prophet speaking. So, let me ask you: Did you give your false prophecy in a church setting and allow other prophets to judge it before you posted it? No, you did not. Did you place yourself in a position of being subject to other prophets? No, you did not. Had you known Scripture better, you could have easily recognized what you were doing for the error that it was simply by virtue that you did not prophecy in the specified way. And now, despite your inability to differentiate between your thoughts and an actual revelation from God, and despite that fact that you did not know Scripture well enough to be able to determine the criteria of a prophet, you remain a self-proclaimed prophet. Isn't it possible that you might possibly be mistaken about anything? And if it is possible that you are mistaken, and if you preach something based on a mistake, isn't it possible that you could be doing damage to the Kingdom of God? Chris >But let me put it > books. In the New Testament (apostolic days), the apostles and > have appeared since the close of the apostolic age (somewhere between > 30 AD to 100 AD. > However, since the close of the Bible, we preachers and heralds are > called prophets. I do not write scripture. I preach; I herald the > 2nd Coming. I don't suppose you'd case to supply a Scripture reference for this, would you? > So take that into consideration. The Old Testament prophets who were > tested were those who claimed to write scripture, and we remember > them for that. I do not write scripture, nor do I claim to. I > preach/I proclaim. > but I don't imagine you know them. > I do know the Old Testament tests. >Therefore, I can confidently ask you the following question: Where are you when you give a prophecy and who is with you? > I have prophesied / preached / declared in here. And I have > prophesied/ preached in churches in which I preached. > Any preacher who gets up and preaches the true Gospel today is a > :prophet. > John W Chris > ______________________________________________________________ ______________ ___ > Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com > <><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><> Subject: Re: Insight on the 666 mark on the people! > I am what is called a prophet. There are many of us, although I may > well be the first one you have encountered. >A prophet, you say! Very well, I will not ask you to prove it or anything, >because our Lord would not use His supernatural abilities when tempted by >Satan. There are, however, valid New Testament criteria for determining the >validity of a prophet's claims, but I don't imagine you know them. >Therefore, I can confidently ask you the following question: >Where are you when you give a prophecy and who is with you? Here is one of his better ones.... ========== The Prophet John ========= Appeared 07:07:39 CST) I see a nuclear launch by N Korea in the next week or so. I see a response from our west coast, but my area, Seattle, will likely be a first hit. That will be my answer to prayer; I'll be taken out first. I pray my son will follow VERY shortly. Expect a hit on the Eastern seaboard, and a third, wherever the Al Quaida have planted the one of 2 or 3 missing briefcase bombs. Nuclear. Whether Russia will join the nuclear fray is doubtful, but All sides will probably stand down momentarily, and then enter State Left, the Anti-Christ with a 7-year Peace Treaty in his hand. Those who are attuned will be able to connect the dots. So far, the scenario I've foreseen is happening. The News just announced that the Muslim holy day has ended, and as of this moment, 0504 PST, we can expect a nuclear attack on America at any time. Pray for our nation as the war comes to our shores. Perhaps this is America's payback for ther national sins, such as America ignoring the children stolen by our corrupt governments. ================= End of quote ======================== Ciao, Falcon Subject: Re: Insight on the 666 mark on the people! > I am what is called a prophet. There are many of us, although I may > well be the first one you have encountered. >A prophet, you say! Very well, I will not ask you to prove it or anything, >because our Lord would not use His supernatural abilities when tempted by >Satan. There are, however, valid New Testament criteria for determining the >validity of a prophet's claims, but I don't imagine you know them. >Therefore, I can confidently ask you the following question: >Where are you when you give a prophecy and who is with you? >Here is one of his better ones.... >========== The Prophet John ========= >Appeared >07:07:39 CST) >I see a nuclear launch by N Korea in the next week or so. I see a >response from our west coast, but my area, Seattle, will likely be a >first hit. That will be my answer to prayer; I'll be taken out first. >I pray my son will follow VERY shortly. >Expect a hit on the Eastern seaboard, and a third, wherever the Al >Quaida have planted the one of 2 or 3 missing briefcase bombs. >Nuclear. >Whether Russia will join the nuclear fray is doubtful, but All sides >will probably stand down momentarily, and then enter State Left, the >Anti-Christ with a 7-year Peace Treaty in his hand. >Those who are attuned will be able to connect the dots. So far, the >scenario I've foreseen is happening. >The News just announced that the Muslim holy day has ended, and as of >this moment, 0504 PST, we can expect a nuclear attack on America at >any time. >Pray for our nation as the war comes to our shores. Perhaps this is >America's payback for ther national sins, such as America ignoring the >children stolen by our corrupt governments. >================= End of quote ======================== >Ciao, >Falcon Yeah, John. What up with that? Is there any particular reason anybody should take you seriously as a prophet now? You're right about one thing: there are many like you. Praying for nuclear holocaust, too. End Time Theologies are evil. Subject: Re: Insight on the 666 mark on the people! X-Comment: NOTICE: Uncensored-News.Com does not condone, nor support, spam, illegal or copyrighted postings. X-T.O.S.: http://www.uncensored-news.com/terms.html x-no-archive:yes > I am what is called a prophet. There are many of us, although I may > well be the first one you have encountered. >A prophet, you say! Very well, I will not ask you to prove it or anything, >because our Lord would not use His supernatural abilities when tempted by >Satan. There are, however, valid New Testament criteria for determining the >validity of a prophet's claims, but I don't imagine you know them. >Therefore, I can confidently ask you the following question: >Where are you when you give a prophecy and who is with you? >Here is one of his better ones.... >========== The Prophet John ========= >Appeared >07:07:39 CST) >I see a nuclear launch by N Korea in the next week or so. I see a >response from our west coast, but my area, Seattle, will likely be a >first hit. That will be my answer to prayer; I'll be taken out first. >I pray my son will follow VERY shortly. >Expect a hit on the Eastern seaboard, and a third, wherever the Al >Quaida have planted the one of 2 or 3 missing briefcase bombs. >Nuclear. >Whether Russia will join the nuclear fray is doubtful, but All sides >will probably stand down momentarily, and then enter State Left, the >Anti-Christ with a 7-year Peace Treaty in his hand. >Those who are attuned will be able to connect the dots. So far, the >scenario I've foreseen is happening. >The News just announced that the Muslim holy day has ended, and as of >this moment, 0504 PST, we can expect a nuclear attack on America at >any time. >Pray for our nation as the war comes to our shores. Perhaps this is >America's payback for ther national sins, such as America ignoring the >children stolen by our corrupt governments. >================= End of quote ======================== >Ciao, >Falcon >Yeah, John. What up with that? It proves one thing: I should not try to see into the future; I should stick with prophesying (preaching the Gospel). Even the apostles made mistakes. They just didn't end up in the Bible. >Is there any particular reason anybody should >take you seriously as a prophet now? I could give you several, but I somehow think you're not actually receptive. Let me know if you are. Your following note says you are not, and that you are one who merely wants to ridicule. >You're right about one thing: >there are many like you. I know. There are many like you, too. >Praying for nuclear holocaust, too. I don't see anywhere I prayed for a nuclear war. >End Time Theologies are evil. to some. They confirm the faith to many of us. John W ______________________________________________________________ ______________ ___ Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com <><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><> Subject: Re: Insight on the 666 mark on the people! >========== The Prophet John ========= >Appeared >07:07:39 CST) >I see a nuclear launch by N Korea in the next week or so. I see a >response from our west coast, but my area, Seattle, will likely be a >first hit. That will be my answer to prayer; I'll be taken out first. >I pray my son will follow VERY shortly. >Expect a hit on the Eastern seaboard, and a third, wherever the Al >Quaida have planted the one of 2 or 3 missing briefcase bombs. >Nuclear. >Whether Russia will join the nuclear fray is doubtful, but All sides >will probably stand down momentarily, and then enter State Left, the >Anti-Christ with a 7-year Peace Treaty in his hand. >Those who are attuned will be able to connect the dots. So far, the >scenario I've foreseen is happening. >The News just announced that the Muslim holy day has ended, and as of >this moment, 0504 PST, we can expect a nuclear attack on America at >any time. >Pray for our nation as the war comes to our shores. Perhaps this is >America's payback for ther national sins, such as America ignoring the >children stolen by our corrupt governments. >================= End of quote ======================== >Yeah, John. What up with that? >It proves one thing: I should not try to see into the future; I should >stick with prophesying (preaching the Gospel). Even the apostles made >mistakes. They just didn't end up in the Bible. >Is there any particular reason anybody should >take you seriously as a prophet now? >I could give you several, but I somehow think you're not actually >receptive. Let me know if you are. Your following note says you are >not, and that you are one who merely wants to ridicule. >You're right about one thing: >there are many like you. >I know. There are many like you, too. >Praying for nuclear holocaust, too. >I don't see anywhere I prayed for a nuclear war. >End Time Theologies are evil. >To some. They confirm the faith to many of us. >John W Perhaps you should not try to see into the future, but you cannot help but do so, because your theology is based upon the assumption that you know what the future will bring. It is impossible for you to preach your theology on any other basis. To you, the story always ends the same way. It is so real to you, you have such faith in it, it so permeates your thoughts and dreams that you actually believed that The End was about to occur and sought to warn others. So central a figure were you in your delusional fantasy of how the story ends, that you yourself are standing at ground zero, just as you prayed you would be. No, you didn't pray for a nuclear war. I did misread your post and apologize for that. Your prayer was to be taken out quickly. Nevertheless, I think it is safe for me to assume that you do pray for the fulfillment of your theology. Isn't it really the same thing? You say that End Time Theologies confirm the faith to many of us. I'm sure it is a real comfort to all of you. However, there are many like me who do not find any comfort in living alongside folks who have amply proven over and over that they are prone to delusional thinking. Worse, delusion thinking that by definition cannot be dispelled by ANYTHING. If the end of your story led to anything other than the destruction of billions of human beings, I could let it slide. Unfortunately, it is something that makes this world a significantly more dangerous place in which to live. Your faith led you to only dream about End Time war. Do you believe that none of your fellow faithful are willing to really do it? And, there are your counterparts of other faiths who are of similar thinking, also willing to get it on. All in the names of benevolent peaceful gods. You suggested that I am not receptive to what you have to say and only wish to ridicule. What I have written here is not ridicule. It is a reasonable response to a situation that should be reasonably viewed as being ridiculous. And dangerous. End Time Theologies are evil. Subject: Re: Insight on the 666 mark on the people! Believe what you want to believe William... The fact that these keywords and numbers come up, is relevant to the warning in the prophecy. The fact that other things come up as these values is also inevitable. Just be warned, for you will see the prophecies come true soon, then you will know it is more than a coincidence... Just do youself a favor, and don't take teh ID CHIP... which is identified by a number, as it is a word identifier such as RF-ID-CHIP. That word/ initials adds up to 666... Just because someone has the name Adolf, does not mean he will be another Hitler. One must have an open mind to see these things. While the Mark can only work with a unique ID NUMBER for each individual, and the name of the Mark, adding up to 666. As does also the Beast's name. But why believe me? Well at least take it under advicement. And wait and see. I get really frustrated that people seem to have their minds already made up with these things. But then again they have not spent hundreds of hours looking into these things with research, trial and error, and what would also seem to be the guidence of the Holy Spirit (in hindsight). Enough said.... You see the names of Jesus at my website which add up to 888, and you will see that for all of those key words to do so, is beyond coincidence. For those exact same words to have those values... consider that... so what if you can make blasphemies equal 888 and visa versa. Likewise the language can be used to tell lies, to curse and insult, or to encourage. All are still words. I hope you see my point and dont argue for the sake of arguing. For I wont waste my time on arguments beyond reason. I have put forward my findings, and will refine them more so in future weeks. See... www.id-chip.4t.com/numbersum.htm www.id-chip.4t.com/mayan.htm What are the odds that one man would have all these links to himself as a destiny to do these things with year of birth and other things all being present. Just because one does not understand these things at first, one has to take a leap of faith, to look back in hindsight, as with any new discovery. For all things seem to be ridiculed reaons made to prove them wrong, then later they are accepted and finally they are seen as common sense. Such is the history of knowledge and science. The benefit of the doubt is required. But note also, the perspective of the glass being half full or half empty. People focusing on their negative attributes instead of their positive ones. These people miss out on the good things they could have be seeing failure and gloom. The mind will do what you tell it to... So use it in a way to find truth, and not bias the findings. One needs to say What If, and Just maybe this is right. Or there is something to this. Such is the essence of intuition which goes beyond logic to look back and see the logic. -- Peace and Love Jesus is Lord The signs of the beast are here now! Pointing to Jesus return! www.id-chip.4t.com Keep your eyes open and use your mind to see. Online NewsPaper about Signs of the End Times http://beast666.faithweb.com/paper/page1.html End times Homepage at... http://beast666.faithweb.com/ Ray Michael O'Keeffe raymokeeffe@888hotmail.com (Remove the 888 to email) (please do not send attachments for all mail with attachments is filtered as junk mail and deleted) ==================================== The 666 groupies don't understand either technology or the book of > revelation. The alleged mark of the beast is the 'number of the > beast' and everyone has to have it stamped on their forehead in order > to buy and sell. So that rules out all the bar codes and chips. These > have different and unique numbers for everyone. Hi William >As one who understands technology, having been using computers since I was >13, now being 40 (yesterday ;-) I have also been studying the prophecies. As you said all require a unique number to identify them. Such a number >allows a computer system to link them up with their bank account number to >be able to do cashless transactions. EFTPOS (Electronic Funds Transfer at >Point of Sale) is currently used with Plastic Cards and Personal Pin >Numbers. No cash is needed to buy or sell with EFTPOS. You will find now the technology being put out by Applied Digital Solutions, >an American Company based in Florida is promoting their ID CHIP, similar to >the ones used in pets, read by a special Scanner which uses Radio >Frequencies and Electro Magnetic Waves to power it up with a coil contained >in the Chip. >Their current promotions are two fold for their product VERICHIP. For >Security Identification and for Financial Identification. Such an >identification is also an Electronic Personal Identification Number, or >could be shorted to Personal ID, abbreviated as PID. As can be seen on their web page. >http://www.adsx.com/prodservpart/verichip.html To be able to buy and sell, is part of the criteria of the Mark of the >Beast. (Revelation 13:16) To make it so no one would be able to buy or sell unless they have the Mark >would point to the next logical step of CASHLESS transactions. > But the Mark is one number. Credit cards, ID numbechips etc all > have individual numbers for each person. We have had this for > generations. We have a unique number for our cars and for our medical > records. That's life. It was similar in biblical days - Christ's > family had to go to Bethlehem to get registered. It was probably > similar with the Romans which would be why the writers at the time > would have seen dangers of misuse. > Nothing new about it let's get used to it and see that it doesn't get > abused. All this stuff about the Mark of the Beast comes up with every > new technology and it just makes the proponants look silly. >The calculator shows this with the Radio Frequency Technology Electronic >Identification Chip, can be abbreviated as the following... >RF-ID-CHIP = 666 >E Identity = 666 (Electronic Identity) >RF PID Brands = 666 >A EFTPOS PID = 666 >ID-Chip Mark = 666 Mark of Beast = 666 >Death Marking = 666 >6-6-6 MARK = 666 >Wicked ID Mark = 666 >A Satanic Mark = 666 >Wicked Rule = 666 >Satans Seal = 666 The coincidence of these things adding up to 666 is beyond chance. > No it's not. You are using all kinds of bases. And they all produce > thousands of matches for a whole range of words and phrases. If you > fed the contents of the average newspaper through these bases you > would get thousands of matches with no particular significance for ID > marks. I know because I have done it. If you feed the bible through it > you get all kinds of different matches including Thyfather sister > baldhead honourable AndGodappeared AndGodblessed GodofIsrael > LordhisGod LordthyGod and thousands more. > It's nonsense to try and pull out selected words and phrases to make > your own point. Anyone can do it for any point. > William Subject: Re: Insight on the 666 mark on the people! >Believe what you want to believe William... What are you referring to? Top posting is bad manners. And when it is to a post like this where I had replied to a long post from you with a numbers of replies it is worse than bad manners. My reply was to the facts. 'Belief' didn't come in to it. >The fact that these keywords and numbers come up, is relevant to the warning >in the prophecy. Not if they are statistically not significant. If the words you want to come up are of no statistical significance when seen in the context of how many other words and phrases also come up then it is not a relevant warning of anything. >The fact that other things come up as these values is also >inevitable. Exactly. >Just be warned, for you will see the prophecies come true soon, >then you will know it is more than a coincidence... Which ones? The ones you want to see in the codes or the ones you don't want to see? They all come up with the same statistical regularity. And, having had a look at your site, you tweak the outcome to fit what you want. Example: You cite Sanskrit as coming up with 666. So do thousands of other words including anglicizing bathrooms birdwatcher bricklaying budgerigars housewife humanity. These are just a tiny sample of the THOUSANDS of words that you have to selective reject in order to get the few that fit your theory. But then you cite Jesus Christ as coming up with 888 because you want it to. But it DOESN'T come up with 888, it comes up with 906. So you have to tweak it by adding = to the end of it and then subtracting this from the result. So why didn't you do that with Sanskrit? Even worse for Holy Bible. It comes out as 540. So you add inverted commas around it. Still doesn't work so you add a question mark at the end (pointless). Still doesn't work so you do some more jiggling to get 888. The result, of course, is that if you did all this jiggling to the other words that come up then the statistics would go up to HUNDREDS of thousands of insignificant/contradictory matches. Your stuff would be even less statistically significant. >Just do youself a favor, and don't take teh ID CHIP... which is identified >by a number, as it is a word identifier such as RF-ID-CHIP. That word/ >initials adds up to 666... Just because someone has the name Adolf, does not >mean he will be another Hitler. One must have an open mind to see these >things. I trust you will now open your mind. >While the Mark can only work with a unique ID NUMBER for each individual, >and the name of the Mark, adding up to 666. As does also the Beast's name. And, with all the thousands of other stuff which adds up to 666, it is completely irrelevant. >But why believe me? I don't. >Well at least take it under advicement. I don't take that either. I want some evidence that your claims are statistically significant, and you have completely failed to present it. What you have done is show that applying the formula of the alphabet sequence + 6 to selected words or phrases you can tweak the results until you get the sum to come out as 666 or 888 depending on what you want. You fail to have noticed that you can do this with tens of thousands of other words or phrases thus making your results completely statistically insignificant. >And wait and >see. I get really frustrated that people seem to have their minds already >made up with these things. No. You get frustrated when people keep an open mind until you show that your theory has proper statistically significant evidence to support it. William Subject: Re: Insight on the 666 mark on the people! > The fact is, we have no > idea what the number of his name or a man's number mean or how > they should be applied. Anyone who says other wise is just making > stuff up and passing it off as doctrine. > Refreshingly honest. For every Revelationist there is a theory as to what > the 'truth' behind 666 actually is. Every one has someone in mind that > they 'know' is the Antichrist, or some gadget or system that they 'know' is > the 'Mark of the Beast'. > It is unusual to hear someone state that no-one, in fact, has the first > idea what it means - and I would add that in this it is consistent with the > rest of Revelation. The book is entirely symbolic and there is nothing > contained within it that suggests it has any relevance to our time at all. > -- > Midwinter Exactly. In my opinion a fair amount of the book appears to be prophetic, but for it to have any bearing on the present day, we'd have to be pretty near the time of the return of Christ. I'm not at all convinced of that. The very things that prophecy-mongers initially turn to to show we are near Christ's return are the very things He said weren't indications of such - false Christ's, wafamines, earthquakes and persecutions. Chris Subject: (~) LETTING IT GO. (~) LETTING IT GO... By an Unknown Author An anonymous author has written the following thoughts about letting go. I've come across at least two versions of this in different books, so you may have read it before. But whether you have or not, we all need a fresh reminder from time to time; so it is definitely worth reading and thinking about now. To let go doesn't mean to stop caring, it means I can't do it for someone else. To let go is not to cut myself off, it's the realization that I don't control another. To let go is not to enable, but to allow learning from natural consequences. To let go is to admit powerlessness, which means the outcome is not in my hands. To let go is not to try to change or blame another, I can only change myself. To let go is not to care for, but to care about. To let go is not to fix, but to be supportive. To let go is not to judge, but to allow another to be a human being. To let go is not to be in the middle arranging all the outcomes, but to allow others their own outcomes. To let go is not to be protective, it is to permit another to face reality. To let go is not to deny but to accept. To let go is not to nag, scold, or argue, but to search out my own shortcomings and to correct them. To let go is not to adjust everything to my desires but to take each day as it comes and to cherish the moment. To let go is not to criticize and regulate anyone but to try to become what I dream I can be. To let go is not to regret the past but to grow and live for the future. To let go is to fear less and love more. Ninure Saunders aka Rainbow Christian http://Rainbow-Christian.tk The Lord is my Shepherd and He knows I'm Gay http://Ninure-Saunders.tk My Yahoo Group http://Ninure.tk My Online Diary http://www.ninure.deardiary.net - Universal Fellowship of Metropolitan Community Churches http://www.MCCchurch.org To send e-mail, remove nohate from address Subject: (~) LETTING IT GO.. (~) LETTING IT GO... By an Unknown Author An anonymous author has written the following thoughts about letting go. I've come across at least two versions of this in different books, so you may have read it before. But whether you have or not, we all need a fresh reminder from time to time; so it is definitely worth reading and thinking about now. To let go doesn't mean to stop caring, it means I can't do it for someone else. To let go is not to cut myself off, it's the realization that I don't control another. To let go is not to enable, but to allow learning from natural consequences. To let go is to admit powerlessness, which means the outcome is not in my hands. To let go is not to try to change or blame another, I can only change myself. To let go is not to care for, but to care about. To let go is not to fix, but to be supportive. To let go is not to judge, but to allow another to be a human being. To let go is not to be in the middle arranging all the outcomes, but to allow others their own outcomes. To let go is not to be protective, it is to permit another to face reality. To let go is not to deny but to accept. To let go is not to nag, scold, or argue, but to search out my own shortcomings and to correct them. To let go is not to adjust everything to my desires but to take each day as it comes and to cherish the moment. To let go is not to criticize and regulate anyone but to try to become what I dream I can be. To let go is not to regret the past but to grow and live for the future. To let go is to fear less and love more. Ninure Saunders aka Rainbow Christian http://Rainbow-Christian.tk The Lord is my Shepherd and He knows I'm Gay http://Ninure-Saunders.tk My Yahoo Group http://Ninure.tk My Online Diary http://www.ninure.deardiary.net - Universal Fellowship of Metropolitan Community Churches http://www.MCCchurch.org To send e-mail, remove nohate from address Subject: Re: There is no such thing as a Christian homosexual called by some Omphalos came forth and told this tale in alt.atheism > God Figment of the imagination. >Let me ask you a question. Have you ever been to the Library of Congress? Yes, I have. Here's the URL http://www.loc.gov/ Here's their phone number: (202) 707-5000 The address: The Library of Congress 101 Independence Ave, SE Washington, DC 20540 (if you need directions, call (202) 707-4700) And some maps, images and floorplans: http://www.loc.gov/loc/maps/ That was found in about 2 minutes with Google. I called the number, and got a recording. (Hey, it's Saturday) Can you provide similar reliable contact information for God that will give a concrete reply? Images? -- Douglas Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5 Ezekiel 13:20 Wherefore thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I am against your pillows Subject: Re: There is no such thing as a Christian homosexual > There is no such thing as a homosexual Christian. You can not go to heaven. If you were a real Christian, God would steer > you from the filthy and perverted homosexual lifestyle. > Woman can't go to heaven either. So does that mean there are no > Christian Woman? > Revelations 14: 3 and 4 > Only 144,000 virgin men will be saved. Wait a minute, you said you had a > wife. ... I guess you're going to hell with all the homosexuals too. Well if you were an old virgin you would be following lambs around too. New Zealand, where men are men and sheep are wary. John 10: 27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: Whose your daddy ! > Ha ha ha. > C.S.Strowbridge Subject: Re: There is no such thing as a Christian homosexual > There is no such thing as a homosexual Christian. You can not go to heaven. If you were a real Christian, God would steer > you from the filthy and perverted homosexual lifestyle. Unless you're also a paedophile. Then God steers you into the church. Subject: Re: There is no such thing as a Christian homosexual @news.teranews.com: > There is no such thing as a homosexual Christian. You can not go to heaven. Yeah but then again noone can, so that's no surprise. > If you were a real Christian, God would steer > you from the filthy and perverted homosexual lifestyle. By changing your genes, perhaps? Subject: Re: There is no such thing as a Christian homosexual alt.spacebastards and alt.startrek.vs.starwars removed from header. [plonk] > [unplonk] Did you even understand what that means? -- One is often told that it is a very wrong thing to attack religion, because religion makes men virtuous. So I am told; I have not noticed it. -Bertrand Russell Goliath & Wildwing's Storage Room http://anatidae.homestead.com/ Subject: Re: There is no such thing as a Christian homosexual >- > One is often told that it is a very wrong thing to attack religion, because > religion makes men virtuous. So I am told; I have not noticed it. > -Bertrand Russell You can't notice what you are not looking for, can you? Bertie Russell was a known libertine and not looking for virtue but rather much the opposite. -- Pastor Frank THE ROYAL LAW OF CHRIST **Jesus in Mk 12:30: And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment. **31: And the second is alike, namely this: Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these. **Jesus in Mat 22:40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments. THE GOLDEN RULE OF CHRIST Jesus in Matt. 7:12: Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them.... --- Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Subject: Re: There is no such thing as a Christian homosexual >- > One is often told that it is a very wrong thing to attack religion, > because > religion makes men virtuous. So I am told; I have not noticed it. > -Bertrand Russell You can't notice what you are not looking for, can you? Bertie Russell > was a known libertine and not looking for virtue but rather much the > opposite. The same applies to the concept of an 'exclusively homosexually orientated person.' This was a discovery of only 150 years ago. Go to the Bible and it simply is not there. Often, people speak of the clear Biblical teaching about how to deal pastorally with homosexual people, but that is a real howler. The Bible knows nothing of the existence of homosexual people. No doubt there were such people in the ancient world and others would have had the experience of engaging with them, but they were blind to their existence as 'homosexually orientated people' because they did not yet have the concept of 'exclusive homosexual orientation' with which to order their raw experiences. By Dr Carnley is a Cambridge PhD, and Archbishop of Perth Update your brain Pasta Leviticus 18 and 20 have nothing to do with a sin of homosexuality, only idolatry, using your body which is the temple of God against God to worship the fertility gods as Baal-Molech and Venus. The context is: Lev 20: 2 Again, thou shalt say to the children of Israel, Whosoever he be of the children of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn in Israel, that giveth any of his seed unto Molech; he shall surely be put to death: the people of the land shall stone him with stones. ... 5 Then I will set my face against that man, and against his family, and will cut him off, and all that go a whoring after him, to commit whoredom with Molech, from among their people. Leviticus 18: 21 And thou shalt not let any of thy seed pass through the fire to Molech, neither shalt thou profane the name of thy God: I am the LORD. (give no seed to Molech) 22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.(give no seed to male Chemarim priests to Molech) 23 Neither shalt thou lie with any beast to defile thyself therewith: neither shall any woman stand before a beast to lie down thereto: it is confusion.(give no seed to beasts to Molech) 24 Defile not ye yourselves in any of these things: for in all these the nations are defiled which I cast out before you: (Give no seed to Molech it does not build the nation it defiles the nation, it is idolatry an abomination.) Lev 20: 3 And I will set my face against that man, and will cut him off from among his people; because he hath given of his seed unto Molech, to defile my sanctuary, and to profane my holy name. ... 13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. (give no seed to male Chemarim priests to Molech, it is idolatry, which is treason, which carried the death penalty) ... 15 And if a man lie with a beast, he shall surely be put to death: and ye shall slay the beast. (give no seed to beasts to Molech) 16 And if a woman approach unto any beast, and lie down thereto, thou shalt kill the woman, and the beast: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. (give no seed to beasts to Molech in temple idolatrous worship) Adam Clarke's Commentary Ezek 16: Verse 24. Thou hast also built unto thee an eminent place a stew or brothel, a bordel house. Matthew Henry Commentary 2 Kings 23:4-7 Those that dishonoured their God were justly left thus to dishonour themselves in prostitution, Rom. 1:24. There were women that wove hangings for the grove (v. 7), tents which encompassed the image of Venus, where the worshippers committed all manner of lewdness, and this in the house of the Lord. Septuagint Greek translation of about 250BC reads: And thou shalt not give of thy seed to serve a ruler; and thou shalt not profane my holy name; I [am] the Lord. 'Do not dedicate any of your seed or offspring to Molech.' Mark 7: 18 And he saith unto them, Are ye so without understanding also? Do ye not perceive, that whatsoever thing from without entereth into the man, it cannot defile him; ... 23 All these evil things come from within, and defile the man. It was not what they were doing it was why. 1 Kings 14: 24 There were also cult prostitutes in the land. Judah imitated all the abominable practices of the nations whom the Lord had cleared out of the Israelites' way. (NAB) The rituals performed in Ugaritic worship involved a great deal of alcohol and sexual promiscuity. Worship at Ugarit was essentially a drunken orgy in which priests and worshippers indulged in excessive drinking and excessive sexuality. This because the worshippers were attempting to convince Baal to send rain on their crops. Since rain and semen were seen in the ancient world as the same thing (as both produced fruit), it simply makes sense that participants in fertility religion behaved this way. http://www.theology.edu/ugarbib.htm Baal; Melek (D. V. Moloch, A.V. Molech) In several shrines long trains of priests, distributed into several classes and clad in special attire performed the sacred function; ... the immoral practices indulged in at several shrines in honour of the Baal as male of reproduction, and of his mate Asherah (D.V. Astarthe, A. V. Ashtaroth). http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02175a.htm Subject: Re: There is no such thing as a Christian homosexual >- > One is often told that it is a very wrong thing to attack religion, > because > religion makes men virtuous. So I am told; I have not noticed it. > -Bertrand Russell You can't notice what you are not looking for, can you? Bertie Russell > was a known libertine and not looking for virtue but rather much the > opposite. > The same applies to the concept of an 'exclusively homosexually > orientated person.' This was a discovery of only 150 years ago. > Go to the Bible and it simply is not there. Often, people speak > of the clear Biblical teaching about how to deal pastorally > with homosexual people, but that is a real howler. Wrong!!!! No heterosexual is inflamed with passion burning in their lust for each other, when looking at another of the same sex. See below -- Pastor Frank Rom 1:27: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, --- Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Subject: Re: There is no such thing as a Christian homosexual Look what slithered out from under the killfile. [plonk] Subject: Re: There is no such thing as a Christian homosexual >- > One is often told that it is a very wrong thing to attack religion, > because > religion makes men virtuous. So I am told; I have not noticed it. > -Bertrand Russell You can't notice what you are not looking for, can you? Bertie > Russell > was a known libertine and not looking for virtue but rather much the > opposite. The same applies to the concept of an 'exclusively homosexually > orientated person.' This was a discovery of only 150 years ago. > Go to the Bible and it simply is not there. Often, people speak > of the clear Biblical teaching about how to deal pastorally > with homosexual people, but that is a real howler. Wrong!!!! No heterosexual is inflamed with passion burning in their > lust for each other, when looking at another of the same sex. See below > -- > Pastor Frank > Rom 1:27: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, > burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is > unseemly, Leave it to a Pasta to have never studied the bible nor its history, and to take verses out of context to make pretext of the original proscription of giving seed to the fertility gods. I afraid a Dr Carnley wit a Cambridge PhD, and Archbishop of Perth know just a little more than a $10 dollar Pasta does. Adam Clarke's Commentary: Romans, 1 Verse 23. They changed the glory,] The finest representation of their deities was in the human figure; and on such representative figures the sculptors spent all their skill; hence the HERCULES of Farnese, the VENUS of Medicis, and the APOLLO of Belvidere. And when they had formed their gods according to the human shape, they endowed them with human passions; and as they clothed them with attributes of extraordinary strength, beauty, wisdom, &c., not having the true principles of morality, they represented them as slaves to the most disorderly and disgraceful passions; excelling in irregularities the most profligate of men, as possessing unlimited powers of sensual gratification. Verse 26. For this cause God gave them up]. Their system of idolatry necessarily produced all kinds of impurity. How could it be otherwise, when the highest objects of their worship were adulterefornicatoand prostitutes of the most infamous kind, such as Jupiter, Apollo, MaVenus. Verse 27. Receiving in themselves that recompense,] Both the women and men, by their unnatural prostitutions, enervated their bodies, so that barrenness prevailed, and those disorders which are necessarily attendant on prostitution and sodomitical practices. The rituals performed in Ugaritic worship involved a great deal of alcohol and sexual promiscuity. Worship at Ugarit was essentially a drunken orgy in which priests and worshippers indulged in excessive drinking and excessive sexuality. This because the worshippers were attempting to convince Baal to send rain on their crops. Since rain and semen were seen in the ancient world as the same thing (as both produced fruit), it simply makes sense that participants in fertility religion behaved this way. http://www.theology.edu/ugarbib.htm ------ Baal; Melek (D. V. Moloch, A.V. Molech) In several shrines long trains of priests, distributed into several classes and clad in special attire performed the sacred function; ... the immoral practices indulged in at several shrines in honour of the Baal as male of reproduction, and of his mate Asherah (D.V. Astarthe, A. V. Ashtaroth). http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02175a.htm Subject: Re: There is no such thing as a Christian homosexual >- > One is often told that it is a very wrong thing to attack religion, > because > religion makes men virtuous. So I am told; I have not noticed it. > -Bertrand Russell You can't notice what you are not looking for, can you? Bertie >Russell > was a known libertine and not looking for virtue but rather much the > opposite. > The same applies to the concept of an 'exclusively homosexually > orientated person.' This was a discovery of only 150 years ago. > Go to the Bible and it simply is not there. Often, people speak > of the clear Biblical teaching about how to deal pastorally > with homosexual people, but that is a real howler. > Wrong!!!! No heterosexual is inflamed with passion burning in their >lust for each other, when looking at another of the same sex. See below Anonymous homo David Whitesen has been humiliated on this topic before, it will continue to lie, that is what all homos do on usenet, in fact they have no choice in the matter. -- Now I want you to remember that no bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. You won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country. -- General George S. Patton, Jr. Subject: Re: There is no such thing as a Christian homosexual - > One is often told that it is a very wrong thing to attack religion, > because > religion makes men virtuous. So I am told; I have not noticed it. > -Bertrand Russell You can't notice what you are not looking for, can you? Bertie > Russell > was a known libertine and not looking for virtue but rather much the > opposite. The same applies to the concept of an 'exclusively homosexually > orientated person.' This was a discovery of only 150 years ago. > Go to the Bible and it simply is not there. Often, people speak > of the clear Biblical teaching about how to deal pastorally > with homosexual people, but that is a real howler. Wrong!!!! No heterosexual is inflamed with passion burning in their >lust for each other, when looking at another of the same sex. See below > Anonymous homo David Whitesen has been humiliated on this topic > before, it will continue to lie, that is what all homos do on usenet, > in fact they have no choice in the matter. So, Mr. Riske, you are admitting to being a homosexual? What you are saying is an obvious lie, and by your own definition, that makes you a homosexual, since you seem to have no choice in the matter. Mark Sebree Subject: Re: There is no such thing as a Christian homosexual >- > One is often told that it is a very wrong thing to attack religion, > because > religion makes men virtuous. So I am told; I have not noticed it. > -Bertrand Russell You can't notice what you are not looking for, can you? Bertie >Russell > was a known libertine and not looking for virtue but rather much the > opposite. The same applies to the concept of an 'exclusively homosexually > orientated person.' This was a discovery of only 150 years ago. > Go to the Bible and it simply is not there. Often, people speak > of the clear Biblical teaching about how to deal pastorally > with homosexual people, but that is a real howler. Wrong!!!! No heterosexual is inflamed with passion burning in their >lust for each other, when looking at another of the same sex. See below > Anonymous homo David Whitesen has been humiliated on this topic > before, it will continue to lie, that is what all homos do on usenet, > in fact they have no choice in the matter. No choice? How far are you willing to push this idea? Loving another is no sin. The sin is trying to copulate with someone of the same sex, or of the opposite sex without the benefit of marriage. With whom you copulate is indeed a free choice. -- Pastor Frank Rom 24: Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: --- Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Subject: Re: There is no such thing as a Christian homosexual > The same applies to the concept of an 'exclusively homosexually > orientated person.' This was a discovery of only 150 years ago. > Go to the Bible and it simply is not there. Often, people speak > of the clear Biblical teaching about how to deal pastorally > with homosexual people, but that is a real howler. Wrong!!!! No heterosexual is inflamed with passion burning in their >lust for each other, when looking at another of the same sex. See below > Anonymous homo David Whitesen has been humiliated on this topic > before, it will continue to lie, that is what all homos do on usenet, > in fact they have no choice in the matter. > No choice? Yes of course, homos don't have any other choice but to lie in order to justify their filthy, perverted lifestyle. > How far are you willing to push this idea? It's not an idea, it is a stark fact, each and every homo I have debated on here has turned to lying to support their claims, in reality they have no other choice but to lie for being truthful about their chosen perversions would admit that they are filthy, disgusting, immoral etc etc and that is something that they simply cannot deal with. > Loving another >is no sin. You are 100% correct, it is normal and natural for a normal person to love another person. A father will love his family in a normal fatherly way, a male homo will think it is in love with another homo (or multiple homos) when in reality it is simply the homos overwhelming perverted lust to be a deviate. > The sin is trying to copulate with someone of the same sex, or of >the opposite sex without the benefit of marriage. > With whom you copulate is indeed a free choice. Yes exactly, homos choose to be the way they are. -- Now I want you to remember that no bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. You won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country. -- General George S. Patton, Jr. Subject: Re: There is no such thing as a Christian homosexual >- > One is often told that it is a very wrong thing to attack > religion, > because > religion makes men virtuous. So I am told; I have not noticed it. > -Bertrand Russell You can't notice what you are not looking for, can you? Bertie > Russell > was a known libertine and not looking for virtue but rather much > the > opposite. The same applies to the concept of an 'exclusively homosexually > orientated person.' This was a discovery of only 150 years ago. > Go to the Bible and it simply is not there. Often, people speak > of the clear Biblical teaching about how to deal pastorally > with homosexual people, but that is a real howler. Wrong!!!! No heterosexual is inflamed with passion burning in their >lust for each other, when looking at another of the same sex. See below Anonymous homo David Whitesen has been humiliated on this topic > before, it will continue to lie, that is what all homos do on usenet, > in fact they have no choice in the matter. No choice? How far are you willing to push this idea? Loving another > is no sin. The sin is trying to copulate with someone of the same sex, or of > the opposite sex without the benefit of marriage. > With whom you copulate is indeed a free choice. > -- > Pastor Frank I thought a pastor is supposed to know the Commandments. Thou shalt not commit adultery means don't sleep around after you are married. That's it. The law you just made up had no basis. Shan Subject: Re: There is no such thing as a Christian homosexual > orientated person.' This was a discovery of only 150 years ago. >Go to the Bible and it simply is not there. Often, people speak >of the clear Biblical teaching about how to deal pastorally >with homosexual people, but that is a real howler. > Wrong!!!! No heterosexual is inflamed with passion burning in their >lust for each other, when looking at another of the same sex. See below >Anonymous homo David Whitesen has been humiliated on this topic >before, it will continue to lie, that is what all homos do on usenet, >in fact they have no choice in the matter. > No choice? How far are you willing to push this idea? Loving another >is no sin. The sin is trying to copulate with someone of the same sex, or of >the opposite sex without the benefit of marriage. > With whom you copulate is indeed a free choice. >-- >Pastor Frank I thought a pastor is supposed to know the Commandments. Thou shalt > not commit adultery means don't sleep around after you are married. > That's it. No problem. Gay couples can get legally married in Canada and some European countries so they will not be living in sin or committing adultery! -- +==================== L. Michael Roberts ======================+ This represents my personal opinion and NOT Company policy Goderich, Ont, Canada. To reply, post a request for my valid E-mail Life is a sexually transmitted, terminal, condition +============================================================= ===+ Subject: Re: There is no such thing as a Christian homosexual Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit >- > One is often told that it is a very wrong thing to attack > religion, > because > religion makes men virtuous. So I am told; I have not noticed it. > -Bertrand Russell You can't notice what you are not looking for, can you? Bertie > Russell > was a known libertine and not looking for virtue but rather much > the > opposite. The same applies to the concept of an 'exclusively homosexually > orientated person.' This was a discovery of only 150 years ago. > Go to the Bible and it simply is not there. Often, people speak > of the clear Biblical teaching about how to deal pastorally > with homosexual people, but that is a real howler. Wrong!!!! No heterosexual is inflamed with passion burning in their >lust for each other, when looking at another of the same sex. See below Anonymous homo David Whitesen has been humiliated on this topic > before, it will continue to lie, that is what all homos do on usenet, > in fact they have no choice in the matter. No choice? How far are you willing to push this idea? Loving another > is no sin. The sin is trying to copulate with someone of the same sex, or of > the opposite sex without the benefit of marriage. > With whom you copulate is indeed a free choice. > -- > Pastor Frank I thought a pastor is supposed to know the Commandments. Thou shalt > not commit adultery means don't sleep around after you are married. > That's it. The law you just made up had no basis. Shan Adultery was defined differently when the Bible was written. It was only adultery if the WOMAN cheated. (Which tells us the Bible was written by a bunch of men - without any influence from God.) Subject: Re: There is no such thing as a Christian homosexual >- > One is often told that it is a very wrong thing to attack > religion, > because > religion makes men virtuous. So I am told; I have not noticed it. > -Bertrand Russell You can't notice what you are not looking for, can you? Bertie >Russell > was a known libertine and not looking for virtue but rather much > the > opposite. The same applies to the concept of an 'exclusively homosexually > orientated person.' This was a discovery of only 150 years ago. > Go to the Bible and it simply is not there. Often, people speak > of the clear Biblical teaching about how to deal pastorally > with homosexual people, but that is a real howler. Wrong!!!! No heterosexual is inflamed with passion burning in their >lust for each other, when looking at another of the same sex. See below Anonymous homo David Whitesen has been humiliated on this topic > before, it will continue to lie, that is what all homos do on usenet, > in fact they have no choice in the matter. No choice? How far are you willing to push this idea? Loving another > is no sin. The sin is trying to copulate with someone of the same sex, More 10 dollar Pasta wisdom or lack there of I see. Have you ever even read the bible Pasta? It seems not. It was not what they were doing, it was why. Mark 7: 18 And he saith unto them, Are ye so without understanding also? Do ye not perceive, that whatsoever thing from without entereth into the man, it cannot defile him; ... 23 All these evil things come from within, and defile the man. The why was to give seed to a fertility god, Pasta. Lev 18:21-24, Lev 20:2-5, 13 (idolatry was treason it carried the death penalty) Ezek 16:21-25, Ezek 20:25-31 1 Cor 6:9-20 Rom 1:23-28 this is the context, pretext Pasta. Adam Clarke's Commentary Ezek 16: Verse 24. Thou hast also built unto thee an eminent place a stew or brothel, a bordel house. John Calvin (1509-1564) Ezekiel 16:22 Here God accommodates to his own ends what he has hitherto related, namely, the extreme wickedness and baseness of the people's ingratitude in thus prostituting themselves to idols. St. Thomas Aquinas Matthew 5:32 A question also here arises as to what is that fornication which the Lord allows as a cause of divorce; whether carnal sin, or, according to the Scripture use of the word, any unlawful passion, as idolatry, avarice, in short all transgression of the Law by forbidden desires. For if the Apostle permits the divorce of a wife if she be unbelieving, (though indeed it is better not to put her away,) and the Lord forbids any divorce but for the cause of fornication, unbelief even must be fornication. And if unbelief be fornication, and idolatry unbelief, and covetousness idolatry, it is not to be doubted that covetousness is fornication. > or of > the opposite sex without the benefit of marriage. Why is it Pasta a wife can be put away for Fornication? Mat 5:32, Mat 19:9 your myth of sin sex out of wedlock thingy holds as must water as your myth of a sin of homosexuality. None. Fornication means temple prostitution. Adam Clarke's Commentary 1 Cor 5: Verse 1. There is fornication among you] The word porneia, which we translate fornication in this place, must be understood in its utmost latitude of meaning, as implying all kinds of impurity; for, that the Corinthians were notoriously guilty of every species of irregularity and debauch, we have already seen; and it is not likely that in speaking on this subject, in reference to a people so very notorious, he would refer to only one species of impurity, and that not the most flagitious. > With whom you copulate is indeed a free choice. And with who teaches lies and puts word into the mouth of God there is indeed the fires of hell waiting for him Pasta ! Feel the fire tickling at your feet Pasta? You are betting your soul you are rights about this Pasta. You real sure? > -- > Pastor Frank > Rom 24: Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of > their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: Adam Clarke's Commentary: Romans, 1 Verse 23. They changed the glory,] The finest representation of their deities was in the human figure; and on such representative figures the sculptors spent all their skill; hence the HERCULES of Farnese, the VENUS of Medicis, and the APOLLO of Belvidere. And when they had formed their gods according to the human shape, they endowed them with human passions; and as they clothed them with attributes of extraordinary strength, beauty, wisdom, &c., not having the true principles of morality, they represented them as slaves to the most disorderly and disgraceful passions; excelling in irregularities the most profligate of men, as possessing unlimited powers of sensual gratification. Verse 26. For this cause God gave them up]. Their system of idolatry necessarily produced all kinds of impurity. How could it be otherwise, when the highest objects of their worship were adulterefornicatoand prostitutes of the most infamous kind, such as Jupiter, Apollo, MaVenus. Verse 27. Receiving in themselves that recompense,] Both the women and men, by their unnatural prostitutions, enervated their bodies, so that barrenness prevailed, and those disorders which are necessarily attendant on prostitution and sodomitical practices. Subject: Re: There is no such thing as a Christian homosexual - > One is often told that it is a very wrong thing to attack religion, > because > religion makes men virtuous. So I am told; I have not noticed it. > -Bertrand Russell You can't notice what you are not looking for, can you? Bertie > Russell > was a known libertine and not looking for virtue but rather much the > opposite. The same applies to the concept of an 'exclusively homosexually > orientated person.' This was a discovery of only 150 years ago. > Go to the Bible and it simply is not there. Often, people speak > of the clear Biblical teaching about how to deal pastorally > with homosexual people, but that is a real howler. Wrong!!!! No heterosexual is inflamed with passion burning in their >lust for each other, when looking at another of the same sex. See below Anonymous homo David Whitesen has been humiliated on this topic > before, it will continue to lie, that is what all homos do on usenet, > in fact they have no choice in the matter. You are wrong, sir. I am heterosexual but do understand that there are heterosexuals with different sexual orientation. I speak for myself when I say that there is no way in the world that I could have passion or lust for anybody of my own sex. I could not, even if I wanted to, have sex with a man. Therefore, I cannot understand how can a man have sex with another man unless HE IS It seems to me that those who think that any heterosexual can lust for another heterosexual are mistaken. All those who call themselves heterosexuals yet are sexually attracted to their own sex are actually BISEXUALs and deny it. I believe that if a person applies the rule to himself, herself it makes things clearer. I don't mean to offend you but, if you have are tempted or have lust towards your own sex, you are probably not a pure hetero but a bi. Shan Subject: Re: There is no such thing as a Christian homosexual (Shan) spake thusly: > The same applies to the concept of an 'exclusively homosexually > orientated person.' This was a discovery of only 150 years ago. > Go to the Bible and it simply is not there. Often, people speak > of the clear Biblical teaching about how to deal pastorally > with homosexual people, but that is a real howler. Wrong!!!! No heterosexual is inflamed with passion burning in their >lust for each other, when looking at another of the same sex. See below Anonymous homo David Whitesen has been humiliated on this topic > before, it will continue to lie, that is what all homos do on usenet, > in fact they have no choice in the matter. >You are wrong, sir. I am heterosexual but do understand that there >are heterosexuals with different sexual orientation. >I speak for myself when I say that there is no way in the world that I >could have passion or lust for anybody of my own sex. I could not, >even if I wanted to, have sex with a man. Therefore, I cannot >understand how can a man have sex with another man unless HE IS >It seems to me that those who think that any heterosexual can lust for >another heterosexual are mistaken. All those who call themselves >heterosexuals yet are sexually attracted to their own sex are actually >BISEXUALs and deny it. >I believe that if a person applies the rule to himself, herself it >makes things clearer. >I don't mean to offend you but, if you have are tempted or have lust >towards your own sex, you are probably not a pure hetero but a bi. This argument seems to be based on what Romans 1 says, hence your response. Allow me to give my input, if I may... The biggest argument that homosexuals use, is to try to make the statement that Romans 1 is discussing acts that were unnatural for the people doing them, since it is discussing idol worship and they'll tell us that it is discussing straight people engaged in homosexual acts. This doesn't make any sense, considering that Romans 1 says that they LUSTED after each other. A person who has NO homosexual desires, would not LUST after the same sex. Yet they'll tell us how Romans 1 says that it wasn't natural FOR THEM and therefore, it was sin. Romans 1 does not say anything about what was natural FOR THEM. Those words (for them) are NOT found there. It says that they did what was AGAINST NATURE. They did what was against nature itself. Let's look at Romans 1: Romans 1:24-27 24) Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonor their own bodies between themselves: It says that they dishonored their own bodies. How? We'll see in verses 26 and 27. 25) Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshiped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. They worshipped the creature. This is where it all started. This is where the homosexual acts came from... idolatry. 26) For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: It says, FOR THIS CAUSE. Because of their idolatry, God gave them up. Knowing that these passages are relating to idolatry and homosexuality, it tells us clearly, that women CHANGED (a conscious decision) what was natural, into that which was unnatural. And what was, unnatural? That which caused God to give them up unto vile affections. And what was that which caused God to give them to these vile affections and what were these vile affections? We can read on and see that homosexual activity is described. And remember, it says that they did that which is AGAINST NATURE and not, as the homosexual would argue, that which was not natural FOR THEM. 27) And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet. Notice, it starts out by saying, likewise also the men. It is describing both the men and the women here. Now while the homosexual will also put forth the argument that Romans 1 is ONLY speaking about temple worship (they use whatever argument is convenient), they usually tie that to men with men, stating that this word, or that word only means, male temple prostitute. Yet here, it describes women also (in v26). And not men with women temple prostitutes, but women with women. You'll notice that you don't see them mention that part, in their argument. :) Now back to the it wasn't natural FOR THEM argument. It tells us here, in v27, that the natural use for the man, is to be with the woman. Yet they left that and burned in their lust for one another. This smashes any argument that homosexuals use, that if they have these feelings, that it must be ok with God. These men were not heterosexuals performing homosexual acts, that weren't natural FOR THEM. No, but rather, contrary to the argument put forth by homosexuals and liberals alike, these men had lust for one another, yet Scripture says that it isn't natural. It is against nature, period. These men weren't doing that which repulsed them, but that which they lusted for, yet the Bible still says that it wasn't natural. Sorry, the standard homosexual argument with Romans 1 doesn't work. It also clearly says that it is UNSEEMLY and that it is ERROR. I'm sorry all, but there is no argument that can be made from Romans 1, that is pro-homosexual. It tells us that homosexuality started with idolatry and that even though they lusted for each other, it was against nature. As I said, the words, FOR THEM aren't found anywhere there and the passages show that they deal with those who are definitely wanting homosexual activity, which came as a result of their worshipping false gods. Just because the Bible shows that this is where homosexual activity started, that does not mean that homosexual activity becomes ok, simply by removing the idol. The homosexual will argue that homosexuality is natural and therefore, must be of God, because God made them that way. That they were born that way and therefore God is ok with it. The reality is, that there is no proof of any gay gene, but assuming for a moment that there were proof, that doesn't mean that it is a behavior that God automatically approves of and that it is good. Ever since man messed up the earth and we have a lot of things that people are born with, that aren't good. We have people born with diseases, crack additions, etc.. Are you going to tell me that the baby can grow up and rightly claim that it is ok with God to do crack, because he/she was born with that desire, since they were addicted from the womb? We have people that are born with the desire to have sex with animals. Is that ok too? After all, according to the homosexual argument, that would be their god given desire. What about pedophiles? They are born with the desire for children. Homosexuals, by someone argues to the contrary, how can they justify it? Who are they to decide what is right and what is wrong in this area, when their argument rests on, homosexuals are born that way? No, the homosexual argument of desire and being born that way falls apart, when examined. God does NOT approve of homosexual activity. It is contrary to the model He set in the Garden of Eden. And their argument about Romans 1 speaking only of homosexual activity that wasn't natural for the people doing it falls apart too, when you read right there, that they lusted for one another and their argument is based on desire for the same sex making it natural. The fact is, that God clearly laid down the model for marriage, in Genesis 2:24. Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh. - Genesis 2:24 A man shall leave his father and mother, for one purpose... to cleave to his WIFE. Nowhere does it say anything about two men. The man goes to his WIFE. This means that the woman must be available for her future HUSBAND. Nowhere does it say anything about her and another woman. The Scripture also clearly uses the word WIFE, meaning that a marriage is to take place. There is no living together in a monogamous relationship listed there. It also shows that the sex act (one flesh, which is a literal term) happens AFTER the marriage. It says that a man cleaves to his wife and THEN the two become one flesh. They can play all of the word games they want with the Bible. But Jesus also confirmed the above. While they keep claiming that Jesus never spoke out against homosexuality and that all that is needed is a monogamous relationship, the fact is, that Jesus didn't need to tell people what they already knew. Jesus told people what the model for marriage was and is (Matthew 19:1-5), confirming Genesis 2:24 and He DID condemn fornication (which includes sex outside of marriage). There is no one who can argue that He did NOT condemn fornication (sex outside of marriage). Since homosexuals could not marry, they would be having sex outside of marriage (fornicating). So tell me, when preaching that homosexuality is ok with God and that all that is needed is a monogamous relationship, how do they get around the commandment against fornication? -- Pastor Dave Raymond As for me, I have not hastened from being a pastor to follow thee: neither have I desired the woeful day; thou knowest: that which came out of my lips was right before thee. - Jeremiah 17:16 www.drdino.com Subject: Re: There is no such thing as a Christian homosexual >- > One is often told that it is a very wrong thing to attack religion, > because > religion makes men virtuous. So I am told; I have not noticed it. > -Bertrand Russell You can't notice what you are not looking for, can you? Bertie >Russell > was a known libertine and not looking for virtue but rather much the > opposite. > The same applies to the concept of an 'exclusively homosexually > orientated person.' This was a discovery of only 150 years ago. > Go to the Bible and it simply is not there. Often, people speak > of the clear Biblical teaching about how to deal pastorally > with homosexual people, but that is a real howler. > Wrong!!!! No heterosexual is inflamed with passion burning in their >lust for each other, when looking at another of the same sex. See below Still a virgin, eh, Frank? Subject: Re: There is no such thing as a Christian homosexual >- > One is often told that it is a very wrong thing to attack religion, > because > religion makes men virtuous. So I am told; I have not noticed it. > -Bertrand Russell You can't notice what you are not looking for, can you? Bertie >Russell > was a known libertine and not looking for virtue but rather much the > opposite. The same applies to the concept of an 'exclusively homosexually > orientated person.' This was a discovery of only 150 years ago. > Go to the Bible and it simply is not there. Often, people speak > of the clear Biblical teaching about how to deal pastorally > with homosexual people, but that is a real howler. Wrong!!!! No heterosexual is inflamed with passion burning in their >lust for each other, when looking at another of the same sex. See below > Still a virgin, eh, Frank? Are you admitting to being a man, and having been deflowered by another man? Yuk!!!!! -- Pastor Frank Rom 24: Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: --- Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Subject: Re: There is no such thing as a Christian homosexual >- > One is often told that it is a very wrong thing to attack >religion, > because > religion makes men virtuous. So I am told; I have not noticed it. > -Bertrand Russell You can't notice what you are not looking for, can you? Bertie >Russell > was a known libertine and not looking for virtue but rather much >the > opposite. The same applies to the concept of an 'exclusively homosexually > orientated person.' This was a discovery of only 150 years ago. > Go to the Bible and it simply is not there. Often, people speak > of the clear Biblical teaching about how to deal pastorally > with homosexual people, but that is a real howler. Wrong!!!! No heterosexual is inflamed with passion burning in their >lust for each other, when looking at another of the same sex. See below > Still a virgin, eh, Frank? > Are you admitting to being a man, and having been deflowered by another >man? Yuk!!!!! Not at all. I'm asking whether or not you're a virgin. Answer the question. Subject: Re: There is no such thing as a Christian homosexual >- > One is often told that it is a very wrong thing to attack > religion, > because > religion makes men virtuous. So I am told; I have not noticed it. > -Bertrand Russell You can't notice what you are not looking for, can you? Bertie >Russell > was a known libertine and not looking for virtue but rather much > the > opposite. The same applies to the concept of an 'exclusively homosexually > orientated person.' This was a discovery of only 150 years ago. > Go to the Bible and it simply is not there. Often, people speak > of the clear Biblical teaching about how to deal pastorally > with homosexual people, but that is a real howler. Wrong!!!! No heterosexual is inflamed with passion burning in their >lust for each other, when looking at another of the same sex. See below Still a virgin, eh, Frank? Are you admitting to being a man, and having been deflowered by another > man? Yuk!!!!! > -- > Pastor Frank > Rom 24: Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of > their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: More than likely a 10 dollar Pasta does not even know where Romans was written, nor why. It was written, Pasta, in Corinth, a notorious city of temple prostitution and Paul knew it was the same in Rome as it was in Corinth, where he lived for a year and a half and why? Corinth Paul's epistle to the Corinthians shows that divisions had sprung up in the Christian church. The congregation had preferred showy, ecstatic gifts of the spirit such as speaking in tongues, the celibate life, eating meat offered to idols. Christian freedom was the theme against self-righteous legalism. I Corinthians was written by Paul from Ephesus in the spring of 55 and the second epistle about two years later. First Corinthians was a failure for it did not accomplish the main purpose for which it was written. The factions in the church of Corinth, so far from putting aside their differences and blending harmoniously into a unified church life, shifted just enough to unite all who for any reason objected to Paul and then faced him and each other more rancorously than ever. The chief characteristic of Paul's second letter is its boldness. So far from apologizing for himself, he boasts and glories in his authority, his endowments, and his achievements. A wide open city, Corinth was famous for wealth and vice. In earlier centuries Corinth was known for the temple of Aphrodite, the goddess of love, which was served by cult prostitutes. The Temple of Aphrodite with its thousands of priestess prostitutes gave license to sensual revelry and sexual immorality, the Corinthian Girls were harlots. The word Corinthian is still used for one wholly given to dissipation and debauchery. Long after the temple had been destroyed by the Romans (146 BC) the citys reputation for immorality lingered. Yet in this predominately pagan city, Paul founded his most successful church. The temple was at the summit of Acrocorinth and at the center of the city stood the marketplace, with its bronze statue of Athena and the temple of Apollo. Its riches produced pride, ostentation, effeminacy, and all the vices generally consequent on plenty. Lasciviousness was not only tolerated but consecrated here by the worship of Venus and the notorious prostitution of numerous attendants devoted to her. http://latter-rain.com/background/corinth.htm You have a lot of nerve thinking you can teach to your flock, when you yourself know nothing about the bible. Get out of this business or go to school ! Adam Clarke's Commentary: Romans, 1 Verse 23. They changed the glory,] The finest representation of their deities was in the human figure; and on such representative figures the sculptors spent all their skill; hence the HERCULES of Farnese, the VENUS of Medicis, and the APOLLO of Belvidere. And when they had formed their gods according to the human shape, they endowed them with human passions; and as they clothed them with attributes of extraordinary strength, beauty, wisdom, &c., not having the true principles of morality, they represented them as slaves to the most disorderly and disgraceful passions; excelling in irregularities the most profligate of men, as possessing unlimited powers of sensual gratification. Verse 26. For this cause God gave them up]. Their system of idolatry necessarily produced all kinds of impurity. How could it be otherwise, when the highest objects of their worship were adulterefornicatoand prostitutes of the most infamous kind, such as Jupiter, Apollo, MaVenus. Verse 27. Receiving in themselves that recompense,] Both the women and men, by their unnatural prostitutions, enervated their bodies, so that barrenness prevailed, and those disorders which are necessarily attendant on prostitution and sodomitical practices. Subject: Re: There is no such thing as a Christian homosexual Craig Chilton was recently arrested for having sex in a public bathroom with an animal. Sick pedophile. So Noted. >- > One is often told that it is a very wrong thing to attack > religion, > because > religion makes men virtuous. So I am told; I have not noticed it. > -Bertrand Russell You can't notice what you are not looking for, can you? Bertie >Russell > was a known libertine and not looking for virtue but rather much > the > opposite. The same applies to the concept of an 'exclusively homosexually > orientated person.' This was a discovery of only 150 years ago. > Go to the Bible and it simply is not there. Often, people speak > of the clear Biblical teaching about how to deal pastorally > with homosexual people, but that is a real howler. Wrong!!!! No heterosexual is inflamed with passion burning in their >lust for each other, when looking at another of the same sex. See below Still a virgin, eh, Frank? Are you admitting to being a man, and having been deflowered by another > man? Yuk!!!!! > -- > Pastor Frank Rom 24: Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of > their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: More than likely a 10 dollar Pasta does not even know where Romans > was written, nor why. It was written, Pasta, in Corinth, a notorious > city of temple prostitution and Paul knew it was the same in > Rome as it was in Corinth, where he lived for a year and a half > and why? Corinth Paul's epistle to the Corinthians shows that divisions had > sprung up in the Christian church. The congregation had > preferred showy, ecstatic gifts of the spirit such as > speaking in tongues, the celibate life, eating meat offered > to idols. Christian freedom was the theme against > self-righteous legalism. I Corinthians was written by Paul > from Ephesus in the spring of 55 and the second epistle about > two years later. First Corinthians was a failure for it did > not accomplish the main purpose for which it was written. > The factions in the church of Corinth, so far from putting > aside their differences and blending harmoniously into a > unified church life, shifted just enough to unite all who > for any reason objected to Paul and then faced him and each > other more rancorously than ever. The chief characteristic > of Paul's second letter is its boldness. So far from > apologizing for himself, he boasts and glories in his > authority, his endowments, and his achievements. A wide open city, Corinth was famous for wealth and vice. > In earlier centuries Corinth was known for the temple of > Aphrodite, the goddess of love, which was served by cult > prostitutes. The Temple of Aphrodite with its thousands of > priestess prostitutes gave license to sensual revelry and > sexual immorality, the Corinthian Girls were harlots. > The word Corinthian is still used for one wholly given > to dissipation and debauchery. Long after the temple had > been destroyed by the Romans (146 BC) the citys reputation > for immorality lingered. Yet in this predominately pagan > city, Paul founded his most successful church. > The temple was at the summit of Acrocorinth and at the > center of the city stood the marketplace, with its bronze > statue of Athena and the temple of Apollo. Its riches > produced pride, ostentation, effeminacy, and all the vices > generally consequent on plenty. Lasciviousness was not > only tolerated but consecrated here by the worship of > Venus and the notorious prostitution of numerous attendants > devoted to her. http://latter-rain.com/background/corinth.htm You have a lot of nerve thinking you can teach to your flock, > when you yourself know nothing about the bible. Get out of > this business or go to school ! Adam Clarke's Commentary: > Romans, 1 > Verse 23. They changed the glory,] The finest representation of > their deities was in the human figure; and on such representative > figures the sculptors spent all their skill; hence the HERCULES of > Farnese, the VENUS of Medicis, and the APOLLO of Belvidere. > And when they had formed their gods according to the human shape, > they endowed them with human passions; and as they clothed them > with attributes of extraordinary strength, beauty, wisdom, &c., not > having the true principles of morality, they represented them as > slaves to the most disorderly and disgraceful passions; excelling in > irregularities the most profligate of men, as possessing unlimited > powers of sensual gratification. Verse 26. For this cause God gave them up]. Their system > of idolatry necessarily produced all kinds of impurity. > How could it be otherwise, when the highest objects of > their worship were adulterefornicatoand prostitutes > of the most infamous kind, such as Jupiter, Apollo, MaVenus. Verse 27. Receiving in themselves that recompense,] Both > the women and men, by their unnatural prostitutions, enervated > their bodies, so that barrenness prevailed, and those disorders > which are necessarily attendant on prostitution and sodomitical > practices. Subject: Re: There is no such thing as a Christian homosexual >- > One is often told that it is a very wrong thing to attack religion, > because > religion makes men virtuous. So I am told; I have not noticed it. > -Bertrand Russell You can't notice what you are not looking for, can you? Bertie Russell > was a known libertine and not looking for virtue but rather much the > opposite. > -- > Pastor Frank I managed to find a web page that claimed a certain Bertand Russell had cheated on his wife, due to dropping the second 'r' in Bertrand when I typed it into google. I'd hardly assume a web site whose domain name is www.simpletoremember.com is definitive: for what it another about Bill Clinton and Monica. When you type Bertrand Russell's name into Google correctly, the 'simpletoremember' site goes into well-deserved obscurity. Regardless, Russell's personal life has nothing to do with the efficacy of his observations, and his opinions are far more interesting than yours. Subject: Re: There is no such thing as a Christian homosexual > alt.spacebastards and alt.startrek.vs.starwars removed from header. [plonk] [unplonk] Did you even understand what that means? He's a nym morpher. He's such a desperate rat er that he changes his name to avoid killfiles so he can continue to annoy people. One of the saddest types of human beings you find on the Usenet. Makes Golem look like a well adjusted social sophisticate. > -- > One is often told that it is a very wrong thing to attack religion, because > religion makes men virtuous. So I am told; I have not noticed it. > -Bertrand Russell > Goliath & Wildwing's Storage Room > http://anatidae.homestead.com/ Subject: Re: There is no such thing as a Christian homosexual Clayton speak thusly: alt.spacebastards and alt.startrek.vs.starwars removed from header. [plonk] [unplonk] Did you even understand what that means? He's a nym morpher. He's such a desperate rat er that he changes his > name to avoid killfiles so he can continue to annoy people. One of the > saddest types of human beings you find on the Usenet. Makes Golem look like > a well adjusted social sophisticate. You know, those are the strangest people. Do they think if they evade killfiles enough, droves of people will suddenly--magically--change their minds and say wow, you were right all along! It's like spammers. If I'm trying to stop getting their emails, it means I *don't *want their product. Why do they think evading my filters will--somehow--endear them to me? Strange people... -- Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423 EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion There is no system but GNU, and Linux is one of its kernels. Subject: Re: There is no such thing as a Christian homosexual > alt.spacebastards and alt.startrek.vs.starwars removed from header. [plonk] [unplonk] Did you even understand what that means? He's a nym morpher. He's such a desperate rat er that he changes his name to avoid killfiles so he can continue to annoy people. One of the saddest types of human beings you find on the Usenet. Makes Golem look like a well adjusted social sophisticate. > -- > One is often told that it is a very wrong thing to attack religion, because > religion makes men virtuous. So I am told; I have not noticed it. > -Bertrand Russell > Goliath & Wildwing's Storage Room > http://anatidae.homestead.com/ Subject: Destruction of the True EVE http://www.astradome.com/adam&eve_myth.htm Actually, churches depend for their existence on the orthodox myth of Eve. Take away the snake, the fruit-tree, and the woman from the tableau, and we have no fall, no frowning Judge, no Inferno, no everlasting punishment - hence no need of a Savior. Thus the bottom falls out of the whole Christian theology. Equally destructive to Christian theology would be the restoration of books arbitrarily excluded from the canon, such as the Apocalypse of Adam, in which Adam stated that he and Eve were created together, but she was his superior! She brought with her a glory which she had seen in the aeon from which we had come forth. Some of these once-sacred books made Eve superior to both Adam and the creator. It was she, not God, who gave Adam his soul and brought him to life. It was she, not God, who cast down the evil deities from heaven and made them demons. And she, as the eternal female Power, would eventually judge the God she created, find him guilty of injustice, and destroy him. What we seem to be left with, in most of the current Bibles, as far as the Genesis story, goes, are explanations for why snakes don't have legs, and why people are afraid of snakes, and also why women have pain in childbirth. It's all because of a talking serpent who once had legs and could talk to people. Yeah, boy, that's certainly believable... That pain in childbirth couldn't be because babies have big heads.... No way... It's because of a talking serpent who beguiled a woman who was not surprised to find a talking serpent in her garden... -- Elroy Willis EAP Chief Editor and Newshound http://web2.airmail.net/~elo/news Subject: Re: Destruction of the True EVE > http://www.astradome.com/adam&eve_myth.htm Actually, churches depend for their existence on the orthodox > myth of Eve. Take away the snake, the fruit-tree, and the > woman from the tableau, and we have no fall, no frowning > Judge, no Inferno, no everlasting punishment - hence no need > of a Savior. Thus the bottom falls out of the whole Christian > theology. Plus, think of all the mental health benefits. You would not have so many people walking around that had the whole original-sin You are deserving of eternal punishment from the day you were born crap taught to them while they were growing up. How anyone could think that people would turn out OK after being told how evil they were is beyond me. Oh... right... that really wasn't the ultimate goal... Lee Dimas aa#11101111001 Surely you can figure out my address. Subject: Re: Destruction of the True EVE http://www.astradome.com/adam&eve_myth.htm Actually, churches depend for their existence on the orthodox > myth of Eve. Take away the snake, the fruit-tree, and the > woman from the tableau, and we have no fall, no frowning > Judge, no Inferno, no everlasting punishment - hence no need > of a Savior. Thus the bottom falls out of the whole Christian > theology. Equally destructive to Christian theology would be the > restoration of books arbitrarily excluded from the canon, such > as the Apocalypse of Adam, in which Adam stated that he and > Eve were created together, but she was his superior! She > brought with her a glory which she had seen in the aeon from > which we had come forth. Some of these once-sacred books > made Eve superior to both Adam and the creator. It was she, > not God, who gave Adam his soul and brought him to life. It > was she, not God, who cast down the evil deities from heaven > and made them demons. And she, as the eternal female Power, > would eventually judge the God she created, find him guilty of > injustice, and destroy him. What we seem to be left with, in most of the current Bibles, > as far as the Genesis story, goes, are explanations for why snakes > don't have legs, and why people are afraid of snakes, and also > why women have pain in childbirth. It's all because of a talking > serpent who once had legs and could talk to people. Yeah, boy, > that's certainly believable... That pain in childbirth couldn't be because babies have big > heads.... No way... It's because of a talking serpent who beguiled > a woman who was not surprised to find a talking serpent in her > garden... Why judge an obviously metaphorical story as though it were strictly an historical account? Just because fundies do it and atheists do it, do they also have the right to determine the guidelines of interpretation for the vast majority of today's biblical amateur and professional scholars who view it otherwise? methodios (Denny) -- > Elroy Willis > EAP Chief Editor and Newshound > http://web2.airmail.net/~elo/news Subject: Re: Destruction of the True EVE One day in alt.atheism, Also Sprach dgillesp: >Why judge an obviously metaphorical story as though it were strictly an >historical account? Just because fundies do it and atheists do it, do >they also have the right to determine the guidelines of interpretation >for the vast majority of today's biblical amateur and professional >scholars who view it otherwise? >methodios (Denny) It's not just the fundies. If the story is metaphorical, then Adam and Eve, by your own admission, never existed. All Christians blame the phenomenon of death on the fall from grace. If the fall from grace never really happened, there is no need for saviors like Jesus. What's really perplexing here is that while the Christians blame the advent of death in human beings on the fall from grace of Adam and Eve, they never try to explain why other mammals of other species experience death in exactly the same manner. Religion is contradictory bull, Denny. -- Vic Sagerquist aa#2011 ______________ The fool says in his heart there is no God. The wise man says it to the world. Subject: Re: Destruction of the True EVE > http://www.astradome.com/adam&eve_myth.htm > Actually, churches depend for their existence on the orthodox > myth of Eve. Take away the snake, the fruit-tree, and the > woman from the tableau, and we have no fall, no frowning > Judge, no Inferno, no everlasting punishment - hence no need > of a Savior. Thus the bottom falls out of the whole Christian > theology. > Equally destructive to Christian theology would be the > restoration of books arbitrarily excluded from the canon, such > as the Apocalypse of Adam, in which Adam stated that he and > Eve were created together, but she was his superior! She > brought with her a glory which she had seen in the aeon from > which we had come forth. Some of these once-sacred books > made Eve superior to both Adam and the creator. It was she, > not God, who gave Adam his soul and brought him to life. It > was she, not God, who cast down the evil deities from heaven > and made them demons. And she, as the eternal female Power, > would eventually judge the God she created, find him guilty of > injustice, and destroy him. > What we seem to be left with, in most of the current Bibles, > as far as the Genesis story, goes, are explanations for why snakes > don't have legs, and why people are afraid of snakes, and also > why women have pain in childbirth. It's all because of a talking > serpent who once had legs and could talk to people. Yeah, boy, > that's certainly believable... heads.... No way... It's because of a talking serpent who beguiled > a woman who was not surprised to find a talking serpent in her > garden... > Why judge an obviously metaphorical story as though it were strictly an > historical account? Just because fundies do it and atheists do it, do > they also have the right to determine the guidelines of interpretation > for the vast majority of today's biblical amateur and professional > scholars who view it otherwise? If it's just a metaphorical story, go up and read the first paragraph up above again. It destroys the whole foundation of Christianity. No talking snake, no fall, no need for a saviour like Jesus. Poof! -- Elroy Willis EAP Chief Editor and Newshound http://web2.airmail.net/~elo/news Subject: Re: Destruction of the True EVE spake thusly: > http://www.astradome.com/adam&eve_myth.htm > Actually, churches depend for their existence on the orthodox > myth of Eve. Take away the snake, the fruit-tree, and the > woman from the tableau, and we have no fall, no frowning > Judge, no Inferno, no everlasting punishment - hence no need > of a Savior. Thus the bottom falls out of the whole Christian > theology. > Equally destructive to Christian theology would be the > restoration of books arbitrarily excluded from the canon, such > as the Apocalypse of Adam, in which Adam stated that he and > Eve were created together, but she was his superior! She > brought with her a glory which she had seen in the aeon from > which we had come forth. Some of these once-sacred books > made Eve superior to both Adam and the creator. It was she, > not God, who gave Adam his soul and brought him to life. It > was she, not God, who cast down the evil deities from heaven > and made them demons. And she, as the eternal female Power, > would eventually judge the God she created, find him guilty of > injustice, and destroy him. > What we seem to be left with, in most of the current Bibles, > as far as the Genesis story, goes, are explanations for why snakes > don't have legs, and why people are afraid of snakes, and also > why women have pain in childbirth. It's all because of a talking > serpent who once had legs and could talk to people. Yeah, boy, > that's certainly believable... heads.... No way... It's because of a talking serpent who beguiled > a woman who was not surprised to find a talking serpent in her > garden... > Why judge an obviously metaphorical story as though it were strictly an > historical account? Just because fundies do it and atheists do it, do > they also have the right to determine the guidelines of interpretation > for the vast majority of today's biblical amateur and professional > scholars who view it otherwise? >If it's just a metaphorical story, go up and read the first paragraph >up above again. It destroys the whole foundation of Christianity. >No talking snake, no fall, no need for a saviour like Jesus. Poof! That is true. Although we disagree on whether or not it actually happened, people who try to call it a metaphor, are not being honest with themselves, due to their fear of what it would mean and what they think science has proven. -- Pastor Dave Raymond As for me, I have not hastened from being a pastor to follow thee: neither have I desired the woeful day; thou knowest: that which came out of my lips was right before thee. - Jeremiah 17:16 http://www.delusionresistance.org/creation/christ_scientific_ creation.html Subject: Re: Destruction of the True EVE -- HOW STORIES CHANGED IN THE BIBLE THE ORIGINAL EVE STORY (How it was changed by the author of the Genesis fable) A dispute existed between two deities: Enki and a mother goddess, called Ninhursag. Ninhursag made eight plants sprout in a divine garden. Then trouble came as Enki ate the plants that Ninhursag had grown. Ninhursag pronounced a curse of death on Enki, and Enki's health began to fail. Eight parts of Enki's body -- one for each of the eight plants that he ate -- became diseased, one of which was his rib. At first Ninhursag disappeared so as not let sympathy for Enki change her mind about her sentence of death upon him. But she finally relented and returned to heal Enki. She created eight healing deities -- eight more goddesses -- one for each of Enki's ailing body parts. And the goddess who healed Enki's rib was Nin-ti, a name that in Sumerian meant lady of the rib. Interestingly, the Sumerian word for rib is ti., but the same word also means to make live. So the healing deity who worked on Enki's rib was called Nin-ti and, in a nice play on words, became both the lady of the rib and the lady who makes live. The Sumerian pun didn't work well in Hebrew, in which the words for rib and to make live are quite different. But the rib itself went into the Biblical account of the creation of Eve, and Eve came to symbolize the mother of all living. On another clay tablet, surviving fragments of a poem describe the gods as having decided that humans were evil and the gods as having created a flood to destroy the seed of humanity, a flood that raged for seven days and seven nights. The tablet describes a huge boat commanded by a king named Ziusudra, who was preserving vegetation and the seed of humankind. His boat was tossed about by the windstorms on the great waters. When the storm subsided, the god Utu -- the sun -- came forward and shed light on heaven and earth. The good king Ziusudra opened a window on the boat and let in light from Utu. Then Ziusudra prostrated himself before Utu and sacrificed an ox and a sheep for the god. Power and Politics, Paradise and a Great Flood by Frank E. Smitha. http://www.fsmitha.com/h1/ch01.htm NOTE: In Sumerian the word Eden meant simply fertile plain. The word Adam also existed in cuneiform, meaning something like settlement on the plain. See also the poem about the HULUPPU TREE, planted by the God of Wisdom: it was planted, a tree, a single tree, by the banks of the Great River, Enki, the Father, did plant the Huluppu-tree, The God of Wisdom, he planted it by the banks of the Euphrates, Before he set sail, before the Father departed for the underworld and how a serpent who could not be charmed Made its nest in the roots of the Huluppu-tree.. http://www.jelder.com/mythology/huluppa.html The Genesis creation fables are clearly nothing but a later adaptation and retelling of these ancient Sumerian stories, most likely transmitted through Babylonian priests and acquired by the Hebrews during their captivity there. Libertarius ============ Subject: Re: Destruction of the True EVE posted in alt.atheism: >Why judge an obviously metaphorical story as though it were strictly an >historical account? Just because fundies do it and atheists do it, do >they also have the right to determine the guidelines of interpretation >for the vast majority of today's biblical amateur and professional >scholars who view it otherwise? No more or less than you do. -- Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived. - Isaac Asimov (random sig, produced by SigChanger) rukbat at optonline dot net Subject: Re: Destruction of the True EVE --snip-- =Why judge an obviously metaphorical story as though it were =strictly an historical account? Because it's presented as a historical account, maybe? __________________________________________ 257 Mike Smith | aa #1164 | Founder of SMASH __________________________________________ 257 Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. -Philip K. Dick Subject: Re: Destruction of the True EVE Amen !! http://www.astradome.com/adam&eve_myth.htm Actually, churches depend for their existence on the orthodox > myth of Eve. Take away the snake, the fruit-tree, and the > woman from the tableau, and we have no fall, no frowning > Judge, no Inferno, no everlasting punishment - hence no need > of a Savior. Thus the bottom falls out of the whole Christian > theology. Equally destructive to Christian theology would be the > restoration of books arbitrarily excluded from the canon, such > as the Apocalypse of Adam, in which Adam stated that he and > Eve were created together, but she was his superior! She > brought with her a glory which she had seen in the aeon from > which we had come forth. Some of these once-sacred books > made Eve superior to both Adam and the creator. It was she, > not God, who gave Adam his soul and brought him to life. It > was she, not God, who cast down the evil deities from heaven > and made them demons. And she, as the eternal female Power, > would eventually judge the God she created, find him guilty of > injustice, and destroy him. What we seem to be left with, in most of the current Bibles, > as far as the Genesis story, goes, are explanations for why snakes > don't have legs, and why people are afraid of snakes, and also > why women have pain in childbirth. It's all because of a talking > serpent who once had legs and could talk to people. Yeah, boy, > that's certainly believable... That pain in childbirth couldn't be because babies have big > heads.... No way... It's because of a talking serpent who beguiled > a woman who was not surprised to find a talking serpent in her > garden... > Why judge an obviously metaphorical story as though it were strictly an > historical account? Just because fundies do it and atheists do it, do > they also have the right to determine the guidelines of interpretation > for the vast majority of today's biblical amateur and professional > scholars who view it otherwise? > methodios (Denny) -- > Elroy Willis > EAP Chief Editor and Newshound > http://web2.airmail.net/~elo/news Subject: PARANIOD DELUSIONS My goodness people - look at yourselves! Well have multiple people claiming to have special insight from God - one who claims to have heard His voice, saying different things. What a great witness for Christ my fiends. Why the disagreement? Because the Bible doesn't give enough information to know exactly how the mark of the beast will be used or applied. All you are able to do is speculate, and when different people speculate they come up with different conclusions. Most rational people can tell the difference between speculation and fact, but not here. Some of you good people (and I mean that term sincerely) have just simply lost touch with reality. I'm beginning to see some common psychological traits: 1. Technophobia - the fear of technology. You are trying to contextualize and justify this phobia by finding justification in your Christian faith. This is common to some phobics - they look to justify their irrational fear. People with an irrational fear of flying will justify their fear by pointing to airplane crashes; the fact that more people are killed every year while walking than by flying has no effect. Many of the things you look to as being marks of the beast are technology. Take some comfort in the fact that people freaked out and thought the Tribulation was near when the musket, train, Gatling gun, typewriter, telephone, automobile and airship were invented. 2. Paranoia - unknown people are using technology in a conspiracy - in this case to trick you into serving the beast or accepting him mark. Look at this paranoid stuff you have come up with: 6 or 666 is embedded in barcodes. Sheesh - I've worked to program barcode systems. 6 and 666 do come up from time to time, but no more frequently than any other number or sequence of numbers. One product that I remember had 666 in the barcode was a generic hemorrhoid cream. I'm sorry to tell you guys this, but the Beast is not building an empire founded on our itchy butts. Relax. Every credit card has 666 in it. Nonsense. How do you prove it? Because your bank manager won't give you access to the World Bank and therefore has something to hide! Well, he does have something to hide - everyone else's money from some nutbar! ID Transponders have 666 embedded in them. Nonsense! I saw the test read from my dog's transponder - there's no 666 in it. If my kids had locating transponders in them, I'd rest much easier every time they went out because I'd know if they were kidnapped they could be found. That's a good thing my friends. So what can I do? Must people with phobias and paranoia can't be helped except by using prescription drugs to correct chemical imbalances. The most I can do is provide council from the Word of God - you do know what the Bible is, right - it's that thing you are supposed to use to learn about God instead of Mayan calendaNostradamus, calculatoHal Lindsey's and Tim LaHaye's books and personal fantasy. First, I note that all you folks who think 666 is embedded in barcodes, credit cards and ID transponders never assert that the Beast's name is embedded. What does the Word of God say about the Mark? (Rev 13:16-17 NIV) He also forced everyone, small and great, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on his right hand or on his forehead, {17} so that no one could buy or sell unless he had the mark, which is the name of the beast or the number of his name. *OR* the NUMBER, but you guys just think it's the number. This should be a clue as to your imbalanced understanding. Second, in what context is the mark of the beast given? 1. A great beast comes up out of the sea with 10 horns and 7 heads. He is active for 42 months. 2. Another beast comes out of the earth. He makes all the inhabitants of the earth worship the first beast. 3. The second beast makes a living image of the first beast. He causes everyone who does not worship the image to be killed. 4. He also causes everyone of receive the mark. My friends - until someone makes you worship something other then God on pain of death, the mark is not existent. When I get my credit card application sin the mail, it doesn't read To accept this card, you must provide the following information and worship the beast. Failure to do so will result in your death. Strangely, when I buy my groceries, no one holds a gun to my head to make me worship some false deity. The mark comes after you are made to worship some false deity. Since that hasn't happened yet, the mark IS NOT here. Just relax. Stop being afraid of technology. Stop believing urban legends. Stop speculating and thinking your guesses are fact. Chris Subject: Re: PARANIOD DELUSIONS >My goodness people - look at yourselves! >Well have multiple people claiming to have special insight from God - one >who claims to have heard His voice, saying different things. What a great >witness for Christ my fiends. Why the disagreement? I know that many females entering their 40s and especially 50s have hormonal changes that occasionally will result in God visiting them or speaking to them. One of my lady friends, aged 56, said God TOLD her to leave this specific church. She then attended a church for three yeapastored by a profit who proclaimed several false prophesies, to which some he admitted and others he ignored. Another lady friend said that God touched her on the shoulder when she was in the shower. Hmmm?!? One of our male members just mentioned that God doesn't want [him] to leave, just yet. Special insight? Perhaps. I have another friend who, in the midst of an elder board vs. pastor/staff conflict, suddenly felt that God was leading him to take a church position in Salt Lake City, Utah. Of course, after three yeawhen the pastor was not the kind, honest man my friend expected him to be, suddenly God (again) lead him BACK TO TEXAS, his home! Special insight...or just moving for convenience and blaming God for it all?!? > All you are able to do is speculate, and when >different people speculate they come up with different conclusions. Most >rational people can tell the difference between speculation and fact, but >not here. Some of you good people (and I mean that term sincerely) have >just simply lost touch with reality. Supposedly, the HOLY SPIRIT is supposed to lead people, but people are rarely lead in the same direction while all claiming leadership of the Holy Spirit. Maybe the Holy Spirit has a bizarre sense of humor. D* We ain't gone be po no mo. - - Pastor Greg Powe, Atlanta Subject: Re: PARANIOD DELUSIONS X-No-Archive: yes >Maybe the Holy Spirit has a bizarre sense of humor. Well God certainly has a strong since of humor just ask a platypus. And the platypus thinks humans are the funniest things on the planet. I agree with the platypus! . ************************** A preacher is the blind leading the blind... The Last Church http://www.thelastchurch.org michael@thelastchurch.org alt.religion.thelastchurch alt.religion.the-last-church Subject: Re: Jesus-Christ is encoded 7 times in the bible ! > Using Bible-Codes program I found exactly 7 codes for Jesus-Christ, > searching the whole Bible. One of the encoding is crossed with the > name of Jerusalem, giving a latin-cross graphic effect on the screen ! > This effect is perfectyl symmetrical. It says that Jesus-Christ was > crucified at Jerusalem. I was tremendously surprised when this > appeared on the screeen, the effect is awful. If anybody is interested > go to: http://bibledecoder.com/ > God says the Truth. > It`s amazing !! http://bibledecoder.com/ Subject: Re: Yuri at work (was: did Jesus tell a lie? (John 7:8)) > [...] New Testament scholarship move on, just like all other academic > disciplines. And, that, I would submit, is at the center of the great > debate. For if one literally believes that God's word is eternal and > unchanging, how can one concede that these words did indeed change? > Ther's a big problem with this statement and it's Something Anthony Hort saw it. The problem is a person can redact any text you want, but it was impossible to redact ALL the texts of the ancient world. Hort proposed an official recension of by the Greek Churches, saying Lucian of Antioch was the editor. Burgon responded by saying there is no record of it like we have with Jerome's Vulgate and besides Lucian was the teacher of Arius; there is just no way orthodox Greeks would have accepted a text by him. Then Kenyon an opponent of Burgon made the same point. The absence of evidence points the other way, for it would be very strange. if Lucan had really edited both Testaments, that only his work on the Old Testament should be mentioned in after times. The same argument tells against any theory of a deliberate revision at any definete moment. We know the names of several revisers of the Septuagint and the Vulgate, and it would be strange if historians and Church writers had all omitted to record or mention such an event as the deliberate revision of the New Testament in its original Greek Kenyon, Handbook pp 324-25 This is the problem the UBS and other supporters of the CT have not dealt with. God bless! Pax Christi JIm Subject: Re: Yuri at work (was: did Jesus tell a lie? (John 7:8)) > To err is human, to forgive is divine. To err is human, to forgive... > is not company policy. I think many of us take the internet > way to serious. Thanks for the laugh. > God bless! You're welcome, and undoubtedly right. A certain emotional distance from things is healthy. All the best, Roger Pearse Subject: SELF FULFILLING DELUSIONS One of the things about all the attempts to identify the mark of the beast or who the beast is, is that the speculations are self-fulfilling. They require no external, verifiable evidence to substantiate them. Here's what I mean: ASSERTION:My formula/calculations identify names associated with the mark of the beast. PROOF: When I supply these names/phrases they work out to 666 REFUTATION: But you invented the formula. There's no basis for it in the Bible. DEFENSE: But it obviously works - look at the proof! REFUTATION: But some of the people who's names work out to 666 are dead or no longer in power. DEFENSE: But they were evil. They sinned. REFUTATION:But everyone is evil and sins. DEFENSE: But these guys name's work out to 666. REFUTATION: But some names of Godly Christians work out to 666 DEFENSE: That just shows that they were impostepreaching lies. REFUTATION: But their theology is sound, and they have led many to Christ. DEFENSE: Their converts really serve Satan even though they look like good Christians. Do you guys see the circularity here? ******* ASSERTION: As a corollary, my formula/calculations show some Christian people's names work out to be 777 or 888. PROOF: My name works out to 777 REFUTATION: 777 or 888 aren't mentioned in the Bible. They don't mean anything. DEFENSE: My name is 777 therefore it works. REFUTATION: But many Christian's names don't work out to 777 or 888. DEFENSE: That doesn't mean anything. My formula works sometimes, therefore it's true. Besides, since my name is 777 I have been identified by God as a true prophet. REFUTATION: But this is now no different than astrology, numerology, or looking for omens. Like He's a Taurus, so he's assertive. Compare to He's a 777 therefore he's a good Christian speaking the truth, or He's a 666 so he's not a real Christian. DEFENSE: But my formula works. ******* ASSERTION: 6 or 666 appears in all/many barcodes. PROOF: Since you can't buy or sell without 666 it must be there. REFUTATION: If you go to the kind of store that shows the stock numbers on your receipt, which is what the barcodes are, there's no 666 there. DEFENSE: They don't show that part. It's secret. REFUTATION: Pretty much every barcode font can be freely downloaded or cheaply purchased. Download one (3 of 9 is a common barcode type) and type in your stock number. Print it out, and compare it to the UPS code on the package. It'll be an exact match. If it's an exact match, and you didn't type 666, the number isn't there at all. Don't forget to type a leading and following asterisk - those are the start and stop codes. DEFENSE: It's there. I don't need to prove it. Besides 3 of 9 is 6. Can't you see the evil? REFUTATION: But 6 isn't 666. Besides, there are barcodes not called 3 of 9 in use. DEFENSE: 666 is there because 666 is part of the world economy. Besides, I read about it on some free website/heard it from some guy, so I don't need proof. Again, do you see the circularity? ******* ASSERTION: All credit cards have 666 embedded in them. PROOF: No one will allow you into their systems to see 666 is there. They obviously have something to hide. REFUTATION: They don't allow you access because you don't work for them. Do you hand out your e-mail password to anyone who asks? Will you give me your bank account number? DEFENSE: I don't have anything to hide, so you don't need my password or account number. REFUTATION:But people who work for credit card companies can see all your account information, and they don't see 666 anywhere. DEFENSE: They are servants of the beast. They are lying. It's there. All of these things, and there are many more examples, are all self-fulfilling assertions. They can't be objectively proved. All of them can be objectively disproved, however. The thing is, if you try to prove or disprove something to a delusional person, they just take that as evidence that you are in league with the Devil or a spiritually blind. Or, they see the disproof as a backwards proof - as in it's so well disproven that it must be true because the Devil made it that way so only some can see the truth. Dudes, ask yourselves, is anything you assert provable by the Bible alone? If not, then you should really question it. Are your assertions self fulfilling or based on actual fact? Chris Subject: (John 7:8) Additional misrepresentation by the UBS Editorial Committee DID JESUS TELL A LIE? (Jn 7:8) -- Part 2a Greetings, all, Here's some additional misrepresentation by the United Bible Societies Editorial Committee, that needs to be pointed out (especially since some of my critics have repeated a number of times the accusation that I disregarded the Diatessaronic evidence). In this case, the misrepresentation has to do with how the recent 4th Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, lists the textual witnesses for this case. The problem is with how this passage of John 7:8 is found in the Diatessaron manuscripts, and it's actually a very simple case of misrepresentation. It's an open and shut case! And so, as I have now confirmed, the great majority of our existing Diatessaronic manuscripts in fact have not yet (or something similar) in this verse. Thus, Jesus isn't portrayed as being untruthful in this passage. For example, here's how we find this verse in the Arabic Diatessaron (Section XXVIII), [quote] http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-10/anf10-07.htm#TopOfPage (7) As for you, go ye up unto this feast: but I go not up _now_ to this feast; for my time has not yet been completed. [unquote] Thus, Jesus isn't saying anything inappropriate here. And a very similar situation is also found in the Dutch Diatessaron, the Persian Diatessaron, and the Magdalene Gospel (the medieval English Diatessaron). Well, the strangest thing about this particular misrepresentation on the part of the UBS Editorial Committee is that it's only found in the their previous editions of GNT listed Diatessaronic evidence correctly... In fact, in this case, the Diatessaronic evidence should be listed as split, and that's how it was listed before. The original 1966 edition of GNT, for example, lists only one Diatessaronic witness (Ephrem) as featuring the not reading. As for the not yet reading, the Diatessaron was listed in this line-up as well, and quite correctly so... Thus, presumably, the reader could conclude from this that _all the other Diatessaronic witnesses_ feature the not yet reading for this passage (or something similar). So, although, technically, this evidence can be seen as split, in fact, the overwhelming majority of this evidence seems to be for the reading where Jesus is not being untruthful! So then how did we get from the overwhelming majority of this evidence going for the not yet reading -- as was listed in the earlier editions of GNT -- to all the evidence seemingly going the other way, as we find it now in the latest 4th edition of GNT??? This is a clear case of misrepresentation, or so it seems to me... So this is how far you can trust these dishonest textual critics of the UBS Editorial Committee to accurately present the evidence of our oldest manuscripts... Now, in so far as the above mentioned passage in Ephrem goes (I have it right here), it seems to me that even this cannot be really cited legitimately for the not reading. Because, in this passage, the text has a clear editorial tendency to portray Jesus' brothers in a very negative light. What Ephrem (or perhaps some late interpolator?) says here is that Jesus wanted to deceive his brothers _on purpose_, since they wanted to betray him to the authorities! Here's what this text says, They wanted to betray him, and that is why he deceived them. So it may well be that this was a later interpolation (addition) to the text of Ephrem. (After all, Prof. Boismard has demonstrated quite competently that Ephrem's Commentary on the Diatessaron likely had more than one author.) And so, it is clear that the UBS Editorial Committee has chosen this clearly anti-Judaic text as the only representative of the Diatessaronic tradition suitable for listing, while ignoring all the other Diatessaronic witnesses that don't have this political orientation. What a fine performance from these obviously heavily bigoted textual critics... It sure seems like progress is marching backwards with this crew. Yuri. Yuri Kuchinsky -=O=- http://www.trends.ca/~yuku -=O=- Toronto The distressing realization is forced upon us that the progress of the past hundred years has been precisely in the wrong direction -- our modern versions and critical texts are several times farther removed from the original than are the Authorised Version (KJV) and TR! How could such a calamity have come upon us?! -- Wilbur Pickering Subject: Re: (John 7:8) Additional misrepresentation by the UBS Editorial Committee > DID JESUS TELL A LIE? (Jn 7:8) -- Part 2a Greetings, all, Here's some additional misrepresentation by the United Bible Societies > Editorial Committee, that needs to be pointed out (especially since > some of my critics have repeated a number of times the accusation that > I disregarded the Diatessaronic evidence). In this case, the misrepresentation has to do with how the recent 4th > Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, lists the textual witnesses for this case. The problem is with how this passage of John 7:8 is found in the > Diatessaron manuscripts, and it's actually a very simple case of > misrepresentation. It's an open and shut case! > Before we go any further with this, nay we have two things from you? Will you please set out exactly what the apparatus of the UBS 3 and the UBS 4 for Jn 7:8 reads? and will you please tell us exactly what you mean by Diatessaron manuscripts and how many of these you think there are. Do you make any distinction between works like the Arabic version, which seems to be a direct translation from the Syriac version of this work (though extensively accomadated to the Pea) and the Liege Harmony which, even if a witness to the text of the Diatessaron, are mediated witnesses, and therefore, given the difficulties using tanslations of translations to determine the reading of a text, cannot be regarded as weighty witnesses to an original text's wording? Frederick Subject: Re: A **Reminder** of the BENEFITS of the Remedy of Abortion > ABORTION'S GREAT FRINGE BENEFIT! WHY is America doing so fabulously well, lately, with an unheard-of > economy? There are MANY interacting factors. But one factor that > CAN'T HURT is THIS one: In tens of millions of cases over the last > 27 yeachildren have NOT been born into hardship in such great > numbers as would have occurred without Roe vs. Wade, and a higher > percentage of children HAVE been born into loving, and stable homes. Craig, why do you keep posting this crap that has been repeatedly been shown to be false? Child abuse and neglect has gone up since Roe v Wade. Over ninety percent of battered children are wanted pregnancies. > That cannot have helped but to have been of HUGE benefit to society, > in terms of productivity and as a major contributor to the steeply- > declining crime rate, as more and more of those WANTED children (who > replaced the UNwanted ones who would otherwise have been born) > have been reaching adulthood and entering the workforce. Europe has a new economic crisis on its hands with declining populations. There are fewer people being born to replace the current aging workforce and to pay taxes for social programs. The crisis has been directly attributed to abortion. > Can I PROVE that? No. 'Nuff said. -- Subject: Re: A **Reminder** of the BENEFITS of the Remedy of Abortion > Europe has a new economic crisis on its hands with declining populations. > There are fewer people being born to replace the current aging workforce > and to pay taxes for social programs. The crisis has been directly > attributed to abortion. Oh well, nothing a healthy dose of immigration from overpopulated areas of the world can't solve. Subject: Re: A **Reminder** of the BENEFITS of the Remedy of Abortion Snubis, > Over ninety percent of battered children are wanted pregnancies. That doesn't change the fact that abortion is still a woman's right to choose. > Europe has a new economic crisis on its hands with declining populations. > There are fewer people being born to replace the current aging workforce > and to pay taxes for social programs. The crisis has been directly > attributed to abortion. Sounds scary...in any case. But, can you PROVE this? I don't think it's attributed to abortion, but rather to a decline in overall birth rates and the widespread use of contraception. In other words, the size of families are decreasing. May not be a good thing, but the right to control one's own reproductive function still stands. KD Subject: Re: A **Reminder** of the BENEFITS of the Remedy of Abortion > There is no reason to seek any societal good out of abortion. Society benefits from the ready AVAILABILITY of safe and > legal abortion to the same degree that it benefits from the ready > AVAILABILITY of aspirin, tonsillectomies, angioplasties, Band-Aids, > the setting of broken arms, or any *other* remedy. [tripe snipped] KOOKS like to SHOUT in CAPS. They see their MESSAGES as being so IPORTANT that they NEED to SHOUT them out. Subject: Re: A **Reminder** of the BENEFITS of the Remedy of Abortion > Until we OUST the election-thief on November 2nd, and replace him with > an *elected* President George Bush *was* elected. Get over it. -- Subject: Re: A **Reminder** of the BENEFITS of the Remedy of Abortion > Until we OUST the election-thief on November 2nd, and replace him with > an *elected* President >George Bush *was* elected. Get over it. Indeed. 5 votes to 4. -- Ray Fischer rfischer@sonic.net Subject: Re: A **Reminder** of the BENEFITS of the Remedy of Abortion > Until we OUST the election-thief on November 2nd, and replace him with > an *elected* President >George Bush *was* elected. Get over it. Indeed. 5 votes to 4. Wrong again. The Supreme Court stopped an illegal recount. Read the ruling. -- Subject: Re: A **Reminder** of the BENEFITS of the Remedy of Abortion > Until we OUST the election-thief on November 2nd, and replace him with > an *elected* President >George Bush *was* elected. Get over it. Indeed. 5 votes to 4. >Wrong again. The Supreme Court stopped an illegal recount. There was nothing illegal about it. > Read the ruling. Q: I'm not a lawyer and I don't understand the recent Supreme Court decision in Bush v. Gore. Can you explain it to me? A: Sure. I'm a lawyer. I read it. It says Bush wins, even if Gore got the most votes. Q: But wait a second. The US Supreme Court has to give a reason, right? A: Right. Q: So Bush wins because hand-counts are illegal? A: Oh no. Six of the justices (two-thirds majority) believed the hand-counts were legal and should be done. Q: Oh. So the justices did not believe that the hand-counts would find any legal ballots? A. Nope. The five conservative justices clearly held (and all nine justices agreed) that punch card balloting machines can produce an unfortunate number of ballots which are not punched in a clean, complete way by the voter. So there are legal votes that should be counted but can't be. Q: Oh. Does this have something to do with states' rights? Don't conservatives love that? A: Yes. These five justices have held that the federal government has no business telling a sovereign state university it can't steal trade secrets just because such stealing is prohibited by law. Nor does the federal government have any business telling a state that it should bar guns in schools. Nor can the federal government use the equal protection clause to force states to take measures to stop violence against women. Q: Is there an exception in this case? A: Yes, the Gore exception. States have no rights to control their own state elections when it can result in Gore being elected President. This decision is limited to only this situation. Q: C'mon. The Supremes didn't really say that. You're exaggerating. A: Nope. They held Our consideration is limited to the present circumstances, as the problem of equal protection in election processes generally presents many complexities. Q: What complexities? A: They didn't say. Q: I'll bet I know the reason. I heard Jim Baker say this. The votes can't be counted because the Florida Supreme Court changed the rules of the election after it was held. Right? A. Wrong. The US Supreme Court made clear that the Florida Supreme Court did not change the rules of the election. But the US Supreme Court found the failure of the Florida Court to change the rules was wrong. Q: Huh? A: The Legislature declared that the only legal standard for counting vote is clear intent of the voter. The Florida Court was condemned for not adopting a clearer standard. Q: I thought the Florida Court was not allowed to change the Legislature's law after the election. A: Right. Q: So what's the problem? A: They should have. The US Supreme Court said the Florida Supreme Court should have adopt[ed] adequate statewide standards for determining what is a legal vote. Q: I thought only the Legislature could adopt new law. A: Right. Q: So if the Court had adopted new standards, I thought it would have been overturned. A: Right. You're catching on. Q: If the Court had adopted new standards, it would have been overturned for changing the rules. And if it didn't, it's overturned for not changing the rules. That means that no matter what the Florida Supreme Court did, legal votes could never be counted if they would end up with a possible Gore victory. A: Right. Next question. Q: Wait, wait. I thought the problem was equal protection, that some counties counted votes differently from others. Isn't that a problem? A: It sure is. Across the nation, we vote in a hodgepodge of systems. Some, like the optical-scanners in largely Republican-leaning counties record 99.7% of the votes. Some, like the punchcard systems in largely Democratic-leaning counties record only 97% of the votes. So approximately 3% of Democratic votes are thrown in the trash can. Q: Aha! That's a severe equal-protection problem!!! A: No it's not. The Supreme Court wasn't worried about the 3% of Democratic ballots thrown in the trashcan in Florida. That complexity was not a problem. Q: Was it the butterfly ballots that violated Florida law and tricked more than 20,000 Democrats to vote for Buchanan or Gore and Buchanan? A: Nope. The Supreme Court has no problem believing that Buchanan got his highest, best support in a precinct consisting of a Jewish old age home with Holocaust survivowho apparently have changed their mind about Hitler. Q: Yikes. So what was the serious equal protection problem? A: The problem was neither the butterfly ballot nor the 3% of Democrats (largely African-American) disenfranchised. The problem is that somewhat less than .005% of the ballots (100 to 300 votes) may have been determined under slightly different standards because judges sworn to uphold the law and doing their best to accomplish the legislative mandate of clear intent of the voter may have a slightly opinion about the voter's intent, even though a single judge was overseeing the entire process to resolve any disputes. Q: A single judge? I thought the standards were different. I thought that was the whole point of the Supreme Court opinion. A: Judge Terry Lewis, who received the case upon remand from the Florida Supreme Court, had already ordered each of the counties to fax him their standards so he could be sure they were uniform when the US Supreme Court stopped him from counting the uncounted votes (favoring Gore). Republican activists did their best to send junk faxes to Lewis in order to prevent him from standardizing the process in a way that could justify the vote counting. They succeeded. Q: Hmmm. Well, even if those .005% of difficult-to-tell votes are thrown out, you can still count the votes where everyone agrees the voter's intent is clear, right? A: Nope. Q: Why not? A: No time. Q: I thought the Supreme Court said that the Constitution was more important than speed. A: It did. It said, The press of time does not diminish the constitutional concern. A desire for speed is not a general excuse for ignoring equal protection guarantees. Q: Well that makes sense. So there's time to count the votes when the intent is clear and everyone is treated equally then. Right? A: No. The Supreme Court won't allow it. Q: But they just said that the constitution is more important than time! A: You forget. There is the Gore exception. Q: No time to count legal votes where everyone, even Republicans, agree the intent is clear? Why not? A: Because December 12 was yesterday. Q: Is December 12 a deadline for counting votes? A: No. January 6, 2001 is the deadline. In the Election of 1960, Hawaii's votes weren't counted until January 4, 1961 Q: So why is December 12 important? A: December 12 is a deadline by which Congress can't challenge the results. Q: What does the Congressional role have to do with the Supreme Court? A: Nothing. Q: But I thought -- A: The Florida Supreme Court had earlier held it would like to complete its work by December 12 to make things easier for Congress. The United States Supreme Court is trying to help the Florida Supreme Court out by forcing the Florida court to abide by a deadline that everyone agrees is not binding. Q: But I thought the Florida Court was going to just barely have the votes counted by December 12. A: They would have made it, but the five conservative justices stopped the recount last Saturday. Q: Why? A: Justice Scalia said some of the counts may not be legal. Q: So why not separate the votes into piles -- indentations for Gore, hanging chads for Bush, votes that everyone agrees went to one candidate or the other -- so that we know exactly how Florida voted before determining who won? Then, if some ballots (say, indentations) have to be thrown out, the American people will know right away who won Florida? A. Great idea! An intelligent, rational solution to a difficult problem! The US Supreme Court rejected it. (Gore exception) They held that such counts would likely to produce election results showing Gore won and Gore's winning would cause public acceptance and that would cast[] a cloud over Bush's legitimacy that would harm democratic stability. Q: In other words, if America knows the truth that Gore won, they won't accept the US Supreme Court overturning Gore's victory? A: Yes. Q: Is that a legal reason to stop recounts? Or a political one? A: Let's just say in all of American history and all of American law, this reason has no basis in law. But that didn't stop the five conservatives from creating new law out of thin air. Q: Aren't these conservative justices against judicial activism? A: Yes, when liberal judges are perceived to have done it. Q: Well, if the December 12 deadline is not binding, why not count the votes afterward? A: The US Supreme Court, after admitting the December 12 deadline is not binding, set December 12 as a binding deadline at 10 p.m. on December 12. Q: Didn't the US Supreme Court condemn the Florida Supreme Court for arbitrarily setting a deadline? A: Yes. Q: But, but -- A: Not to worry. The US Supreme Court does not have to follow laws it sets for other courts. Q: So who caused Florida to miss the December 12 deadline? A: The Bush lawyers who first went to court to stop the recount, the rent-a-mob in Miami that got paid Florida vacations for intimidating officials, and the US Supreme Court for stopping the recount Q: So who is punished for this behavior? A: Gore, of course. Q: Tell me this, are Florida's election laws unconstitutional? A: Yes, according to the Supreme Court. Q: And the laws of 50 states that allow votes to be cast or counted differently are unconstitutional? A: Yes, according to the logic of the Supreme Court opinion. And 33 states have the same clear intent of the voter standard that the US Supreme Court found was illegal in Florida. Q: Then why aren't the results of 33 states thrown out? A: Um. Because...um...the Supreme Court doesn't say... Q: But if Florida's certification includes counts expressly declared by the US Supreme Court to be unconstitutional, we don't know who really won the election there, right? A: Right. But a careful analysis by the Miami Herald shows Gore won Florida by about 20,000 votes (excluding the butterfly ballot errors). Q: So, what do we do, have a re-vote? Throw out the entire state? count under a single uniform standard? A: No. We just don't count the votes that favor Gore. Q: That's completely bizarre! That sounds like rank political favoritism! Did the justices have any financial interest in the case? A: Scalia's two sons are both lawyers working for Bush. Thomas's wife is collecting applications for people who want to work in the Bush administration. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor was upset during an election-night party when she heard erroneous reports that Florida had been won by Vice President Al Gore, exclaiming, ``this is terrible,'' according to a report in Newsweek magazine released Sunday. Quoting two witnesses, Newsweek said O'Connor then declared that meant the election was ``over'' because Gore had also won two other key states. O'Connor reportedly then walked off to get a plate of food, and her husband, John, explained to friends and acquaintances that she was upset because they wanted to retire to Arizona and a Gore presidency meant they would have to wait another four years because she did not want a Democrat to name her successor. Q: Why didn't they recuse themselves? A: If either had recused himself, the vote would be 4-4, and the Florida Supreme Court decision allowing recounts would have been affirmed. Q: I can't believe the justices acted in such a blatantly political way. A: Read the opinions for yourself: http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/supremecourt/00-949_dec12.fdf http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/00pdf/00%2D949.pdf Q: So what are the consequences of this? A: The guy who got the most votes in the US and in Florida and under our Constitution (Al Gore) will lose to America's second choice (Bush) who won the all important 5-4 Supreme Court vote, which trumps America's choice Q: I thought in a democracy, the guy with the most votes wins. A: True, in a democracy. But America in 2000 is no longer a democracy. In America in 2000, the guy with the most US Supreme Court votes wins. Q: So what will happen to the Supreme Court when Bush becomes President? A: He will appoint more justices in the mode of Thomas and Scalia to ensure that the will of the people is less and less respected. Soon lawless justices may constitute 6-3 or even 7-2 on the court. Q: Is there any way to stop this? A: YES. No federal judge can be confirmed without a vote in the Senate. It takes 60 votes to break a filibuster. If only 41 of the 50 Democratic Senators stand up to Bush and his Supremes and say that they will not approve a single judge appointed by him until a of terror can end...and one day we can hope to return to the rule of law and the will of the people. Q: What do I do now? A: Email this to everyone you know, and write or call your Senator, reminding him or her that Gore beat Bush by several hundred thousand votes (three times Kennedy's margin over Nixon) and that you believe that VOTERS rather than JUDGES should determine who wins an election by counting every vote. And to protect our judiciary from overturning the will of the people, you want them to confirm NO NEW when a president is finally chosen by the American people, instead of Antonin Scalia. Mark H. Levine Attorney at Law P.S. Q: Isn't anyone on the US Supreme Court a rational follower of the rule of law? A: Yes. Read the four dissents. Excerpts below: Justice John Paul Stevens (Republican appointed by Ford): Although we may never know with complete certainty the identity of the winner of this year's Presidential election, the identity of the loser is perfectly clear. It is the Nation's confidence in the judge as an impartial guardian of the rule of law. Justice David Souter (Republican appointed by Bush): Before this Court stayed the effort to [manually recount the ballots] the courts of Florida were ready to do their best to get that job done. There is no justification for denying the State the opportunity to try to count all the disputed ballots now. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg (Democrat appointed by Clinton): Chief Justice Rehnquist would disrupt Florida's republican regime. [In other words, democracy in Florida is imperiled.] The court should not let its untested prophecy that counting votes is impractical decide the presidency of the United States. Justice Steven Breyer (Democrat appointed by Clinton): There is no justification for the majority's remedy....We risk a self-inflicted wound -- a wound that may harm not just the court, but the nation. -- Ray Fischer rfischer@sonic.net Subject: Re: A **Reminder** of the BENEFITS of the Remedy of Abortion > Q: But if Florida's certification includes counts expressly > declared by the US Supreme Court to be unconstitutional, we don't > know who really won the election there, right? > A: Right. But a careful analysis by the Miami Herald shows Gore won > Florida by about 20,000 votes (excluding the butterfly ballot errors). Wrong again (no surprise there). The Miami Herald found that Gore would have only gained 790 votes, short of the 930 needed for victory. http://abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/DailyNews/herald_ ballots010226.html -- Subject: Re: A **Reminder** of the BENEFITS of the Remedy of Abortion > Q: But if Florida's certification includes counts expressly > declared by the US Supreme Court to be unconstitutional, we don't > know who really won the election there, right? > A: Right. But a careful analysis by the Miami Herald shows Gore won > Florida by about 20,000 votes (excluding the butterfly ballot errors). >Wrong again (no surprise there). The Miami Herald found that Gore would have >only gained 790 votes, short of the 930 needed for victory. In fact the media recount put Gore ahead of Bush. >http://abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/DailyNews/herald_ ballots010226.html This link does not say anything about a recount of the state. It refers only to a recount of a couple of counties. -- Ray Fischer rfischer@sonic.net Subject: Re: A **Reminder** of the BENEFITS of the Remedy of Abortion Q: But if Florida's certification includes counts expressly > declared by the US Supreme Court to be unconstitutional, we don't > know who really won the election there, right? > A: Right. But a careful analysis by the Miami Herald shows Gore won > Florida by about 20,000 votes (excluding the butterfly ballot errors). >Wrong again (no surprise there). The Miami Herald found that Gore would >have only gained 790 votes, short of the 930 needed for victory. In fact the media recount put Gore ahead of Bush. http://abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/DailyNews/herald_ ballots010226.ht >ml This link does not say anything about a recount of the state. It > refers only to a recount of a couple of counties. The two recounts after the election showed that Bush was the winner. -- Subject: Re: A **Reminder** of the BENEFITS of the Remedy of Abortion Q: But if Florida's certification includes counts expressly > declared by the US Supreme Court to be unconstitutional, we don't > know who really won the election there, right? > A: Right. But a careful analysis by the Miami Herald shows Gore won > Florida by about 20,000 votes (excluding the butterfly ballot errors). >Wrong again (no surprise there). The Miami Herald found that Gore would >have only gained 790 votes, short of the 930 needed for victory. In fact the media recount put Gore ahead of Bush. http://abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/DailyNews/herald_ ballots010226.ht >ml This link does not say anything about a recount of the state. It > refers only to a recount of a couple of counties. >The two recounts after the election showed that Bush was the winner. At the heart of the legal wrangling is whether manual recounts in Miami-Dade, Palm Beach, and Broward counties should be included in Florida's final presidential vote totals. Lawyers for Texas Gov. George W. Bush, the Republican presidential candidate, asked the court on Sunday to reject those ballots and allow Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris to certify unofficial results that give Bush the lead. http://www.cnn.com/2000/LAW/11/19/legal.filings/ -- Ray Fischer rfischer@sonic.net Subject: Re: A **Reminder** of the BENEFITS of the Remedy of Abortion > Q: I thought in a democracy, the guy with the most votes wins. > A: True, in a democracy. But America in 2000 is no longer a > democracy. In America in 2000, the guy with the most US Supreme > Court votes wins. America never was a democracy. And the American people don't vote for the president. -- Subject: Re: A **Reminder** of the BENEFITS of the Remedy of Abortion > Q: I thought in a democracy, the guy with the most votes wins. > A: True, in a democracy. But America in 2000 is no longer a > democracy. In America in 2000, the guy with the most US Supreme > Court votes wins. >America never was a democracy. People don't vote in the United States? > And the American people don't vote for the >president. Who said that they do? -- Ray Fischer rfischer@sonic.net Subject: Re: A **Reminder** of the BENEFITS of the Remedy of Abortion > Q: I thought in a democracy, the guy with the most votes wins. > A: True, in a democracy. But America in 2000 is no longer a > democracy. In America in 2000, the guy with the most US Supreme > Court votes wins. > America never was a democracy. People don't vote in the United States? Voting does not equal democracy. When Saddam was the leader of Iraq, people voted for him. Did that make Iraq a democracy? The Constitution of the United States says that the United States is a republic. -- Subject: Re: A **Reminder** of the BENEFITS of the Remedy of Abortion > rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) > Q: I thought in a democracy, the guy with the most votes wins. > A: True, in a democracy. But America in 2000 is no longer a > democracy. In America in 2000, the guy with the most US Supreme > Court votes wins. > America never was a democracy. People don't vote in the United States? >Voting does not equal democracy. When Saddam was the leader of Iraq, people >voted for him. Did that make Iraq a democracy? The Constitution of the United >States says that the United States is a republic. What kind of republic? Theocratic? Oligarchic? Hereditary? Or democratic? democracy: Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives. http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=democracy Looks like the US is a democracy after all. -- Ray Fischer rfischer@sonic.net Subject: Re: A **Reminder** of the BENEFITS of the Remedy of Abortion Until we OUST the election-thief on November 2nd, and replace him > with an *elected* President George Bush *was* elected. Get over it. Indeed. 5 votes to 4. >Wrong again. The Supreme Court stopped an illegal recount. There was nothing illegal about it. It was illegal because only one recount was allowed. Gore wanted a second recount in selected counties. Bush got the most votes anyway. http://abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/DailyNews/herald_ ballots010226.html -- Subject: Re: A **Reminder** of the BENEFITS of the Remedy of Abortion Until we OUST the election-thief on November 2nd, and replace him > with an *elected* President George Bush *was* elected. Get over it. Indeed. 5 votes to 4. >Wrong again. The Supreme Court stopped an illegal recount. There was nothing illegal about it. >It was illegal because only one recount was allowed. Which is one more than was actually done. But it isn't the place of the US Supreme Court to dictate to Florida how it conducts its election. The US Constitution says, quite explicitely, that the states determine how elections are conducted. > Gore wanted a second >recount in selected counties. Revisionist history. -- Ray Fischer rfischer@sonic.net Subject: Re: A **Reminder** of the BENEFITS of the Remedy of Abortion Until we OUST the election-thief on November 2nd, and replace him > with an *elected* President George Bush *was* elected. Get over it. Indeed. 5 votes to 4. Wrong again. The Supreme Court stopped an illegal recount. There was nothing illegal about it. >It was illegal because only one recount was allowed. Which is one more than was actually done. Wrong again (no surprise there). A machine recount was done the day after the election. Gore even got second recount and he still lost. -- Subject: Re: A **Reminder** of the BENEFITS of the Remedy of Abortion Until we OUST the election-thief on November 2nd, and replace him > with an *elected* President George Bush *was* elected. Get over it. Indeed. 5 votes to 4. Wrong again. The Supreme Court stopped an illegal recount. There was nothing illegal about it. >It was illegal because only one recount was allowed. Which is one more than was actually done. >Wrong again (no surprise there). A machine recount was done the day after >the election. Running magnetic tapes through the machine again does not recount any ballots. -- Ray Fischer rfischer@sonic.net Subject: Re: A **Reminder** of the BENEFITS of the Remedy of Abortion Until we OUST the election-thief on November 2nd, and replace him > with an *elected* President George Bush *was* elected. Get over it. not really. he was appointed as the result of a court decision not to count votes for his opponent, the person who was actually elected. -- James Keegan has shown he does not favor and/or support legalized abortion. -coward bobby heishman lying as Osprey I also have you on record for not supporting and/or favoring legalized abortion as well. -Robert Heishman lying as coward Osprey about Ray Fischer in Subject: Re: A **Reminder** of the BENEFITS of the Remedy of Abortion > Until we OUST the election-thief on November 2nd, and replace him > with an *elected* President George Bush *was* elected. Get over it. not really. he was appointed as the result of a court decision not to > count votes for his opponent, the person who was actually elected. The only thing the court did was stop an illegal recount. -- Subject: Re: A **Reminder** of the BENEFITS of the Remedy of Abortion Until we OUST the election-thief on November 2nd, and replace > him with an *elected* President George Bush *was* elected. Get over it. not really. he was appointed as the result of a court decision > not to count votes for his opponent, the person who was actually > elected. The only thing the court did was stop an illegal recount. does it make you feel better to lie about what is common knowledge? -- James Keegan has shown he does not favor and/or support legalized abortion. -coward bobby heishman lying as Osprey I also have you on record for not supporting and/or favoring legalized abortion as well. -Robert Heishman lying as coward Osprey about Ray Fischer in Subject: Re: A **Reminder** of the BENEFITS of the Remedy of Abortion X-No-Archive: yes in alt.abortion with message-id The only thing the court did was stop an illegal recount. >does it make you feel better to lie about what is common knowledge? The only 'common knowledge' it that there will never be an agreement about this. Subject: Re: A **Reminder** of the BENEFITS of the Remedy of Abortion > in alt.abortion with message-id The only thing the court did was stop an illegal recount. >does it make you feel better to lie about what is common knowledge? The only 'common knowledge' it that there will never be an agreement > about this. of course there will. the facts of the matter won't change. it is common for people to resist accepting things that are so ugly and so despicable that their sensibilities are offended. take watergate, for example. it tooks years for people to accept facts. that facts didn't change. only perceptions changed. the same could be said for the roman catholic church's cover ups of so much child abuse. the facts didn't change. only perceptions changed. -- James Keegan has shown he does not favor and/or support legalized abortion. -coward bobby heishman lying as Osprey I also have you on record for not supporting and/or favoring legalized abortion as well. -Robert Heishman lying as coward Osprey about Ray Fischer in Subject: Re: A **Reminder** of the BENEFITS of the Remedy of Abortion > Until we OUST the election-thief on November 2nd, and replace > him with an *elected* President George Bush *was* elected. Get over it. not really. he was appointed as the result of a court decision > not to count votes for his opponent, the person who was actually > elected. The only thing the court did was stop an illegal recount. does it make you feel better to lie about what is common knowledge? http://abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/DailyNews/herald_ ballots010226.html Prove your position. -- Subject: Re: A **Reminder** of the BENEFITS of the Remedy of Abortion Until we OUST the election-thief on November 2nd, and replace > him with an *elected* President George Bush *was* elected. Get over it. not really. he was appointed as the result of a court decision > not to count votes for his opponent, the person who was > actually elected. The only thing the court did was stop an illegal recount. does it make you feel better to lie about what is common > knowledge? http://abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/DailyNews/herald_ ballots010 > 226.html Prove your position. you made the claim George Bush *was* elected. are you admitting your claim was false? -- James Keegan has shown he does not favor and/or support legalized abortion. -coward bobby heishman lying as Osprey I also have you on record for not supporting and/or favoring legalized abortion as well. -Robert Heishman lying as coward Osprey about Ray Fischer in Subject: Re: A **Reminder** of the BENEFITS of the Remedy of Abortion > Until we OUST the election-thief on November 2nd, and replace > him with an *elected* President George Bush *was* elected. Get over it. not really. he was appointed as the result of a court decision > not to count votes for his opponent, the person who was > actually elected. The only thing the court did was stop an illegal recount. does it make you feel better to lie about what is common > knowledge? http://abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/DailyNews/herald_ ballots010 > 226.html Prove your position. > you made the claim George Bush *was* elected. are you admitting > your claim was false? No. Prove Bush wasn't elected. -- Subject: Re: A **Reminder** of the BENEFITS of the Remedy of Abortion Until we OUST the election-thief on November 2nd, and > replace him with an *elected* President George Bush *was* elected. Get over it. not really. he was appointed as the result of a court > decision not to count votes for his opponent, the person who > was actually elected. The only thing the court did was stop an illegal recount. does it make you feel better to lie about what is common > knowledge? http://abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/DailyNews/herald_ ballots0 > 10 226.html Prove your position. > you made the claim George Bush *was* elected. are you admitting > your claim was false? No. i didn't think you could prove your claim. given that, usenet convention dictates that the claim is considered false. -- James Keegan has shown he does not favor and/or support legalized abortion. -coward bobby heishman lying as Osprey I also have you on record for not supporting and/or favoring legalized abortion as well. -Robert Heishman lying as coward Osprey about Ray Fischer in Subject: Re: A **Reminder** of the BENEFITS of the Remedy of Abortion > Until we OUST the election-thief on November 2nd, and > replace him with an *elected* President George Bush *was* elected. Get over it. not really. he was appointed as the result of a court > decision not to count votes for his opponent, the person who > was actually elected. The only thing the court did was stop an illegal recount. does it make you feel better to lie about what is common > knowledge? http://abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/DailyNews/herald_ ballots0 > 10 226.html Prove your position. > you made the claim George Bush *was* elected. are you admitting > your claim was false? No. i didn't think you could prove your claim. given that, usenet > convention dictates that the claim is considered false. I've already proven my position. I'll take your refusal to provide proof for your claim as an admission of defeat. -- Subject: Re: A **Reminder** of the BENEFITS of the Remedy of Abortion Until we OUST the election-thief on November 2nd, and > replace him with an *elected* President George Bush *was* elected. Get over it. not really. he was appointed as the result of a court > decision not to count votes for his opponent, the person > who was actually elected. The only thing the court did was stop an illegal recount. does it make you feel better to lie about what is common > knowledge? http://abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/DailyNews/herald_ballot > s0 10 226.html Prove your position. > you made the claim George Bush *was* elected. are you > admitting your claim was false? No. i didn't think you could prove your claim. given that, usenet > convention dictates that the claim is considered false. I've already proven my position. are you so frightened about your failure to prove your position that you felt compelled to blatantly lie? oh well, show readers the proof you claim to have already proven. *smirk* -- James Keegan has shown he does not favor and/or support legalized abortion. -coward bobby heishman lying as Osprey I also have you on record for not supporting and/or favoring legalized abortion as well. -Robert Heishman lying as coward Osprey about Ray Fischer in Subject: Re: A **Reminder** of the BENEFITS of the Remedy of Abortion > Until we OUST the election-thief on November 2nd, and > replace him with an *elected* President George Bush *was* elected. Get over it. not really. he was appointed as the result of a court > decision not to count votes for his opponent, the person > who was actually elected. The only thing the court did was stop an illegal recount. does it make you feel better to lie about what is common > knowledge? http://abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/DailyNews/herald_ballot > s0 10 226.html Prove your position. you made the claim George Bush *was* elected. are you > admitting your claim was false? No. i didn't think you could prove your claim. given that, usenet > convention dictates that the claim is considered false. I've already proven my position. are you so frightened about your failure to prove your position that > you felt compelled to blatantly lie? oh well, show readers the proof you claim to have already proven. I've already posted it once in this thread and it's quoted in this post. If your position is so weak that you can't even disprove the facts I've given you then I accept your concession of defeat. -- Subject: Re: A **Reminder** of the BENEFITS of the Remedy of Abortion Until we OUST the election-thief on November 2nd, and > replace him with an *elected* President George Bush *was* elected. Get over it. not really. he was appointed as the result of a court > decision not to count votes for his opponent, the person > who was actually elected. The only thing the court did was stop an illegal recount. does it make you feel better to lie about what is common > knowledge? http://abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/DailyNews/herald_ball > ot s0 10 226.html Prove your position. you made the claim George Bush *was* elected. are you > admitting your claim was false? No. i didn't think you could prove your claim. given that, usenet > convention dictates that the claim is considered false. I've already proven my position. are you so frightened about your failure to prove your position > that you felt compelled to blatantly lie? oh well, show readers the proof you claim to have already > proven. I've already posted it once in this thread and it's quoted in this > post. you are lying. i take this as your final admission that your claim was false. i consider you unqualified to ask others to support their claims since you will not support yours. -- James Keegan has shown he does not favor and/or support legalized abortion. -coward bobby heishman lying as Osprey I also have you on record for not supporting and/or favoring legalized abortion as well. -Robert Heishman lying as coward Osprey about Ray Fischer in Subject: Re: A **Reminder** of the BENEFITS of the Remedy of Abortion > Until we OUST the election-thief on November 2nd, and > replace him with an *elected* President George Bush *was* elected. Get over it. not really. he was appointed as the result of a court > decision not to count votes for his opponent, the person > who was actually elected. The only thing the court did was stop an illegal recount. does it make you feel better to lie about what is common > knowledge? http://abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/DailyNews/herald_ball > ot s0 10 226.html Prove your position. you made the claim George Bush *was* elected. are you > admitting your claim was false? No. i didn't think you could prove your claim. given that, usenet > convention dictates that the claim is considered false. I've already proven my position. are you so frightened about your failure to prove your position > that you felt compelled to blatantly lie? oh well, show readers the proof you claim to have already > proven. I've already posted it once in this thread and it's quoted in this > post. you are lying. i take this as your final admission that your claim > was false. i consider you unqualified to ask others to support their claims > since you will not support yours. that you have yet to dispute, much less mention. You can't even provide one scrap of evidence to support your claim and you were the one who made the first claim. I you will not back up your claims you will prove yet again that liberals cannot answer direct questions. -- Subject: Re: A **Reminder** of the BENEFITS of the Remedy of Abortion Until we OUST the election-thief on November 2nd, and > replace him with an *elected* President George Bush *was* elected. Get over it. not really. he was appointed as the result of a court > decision not to count votes for his opponent, the > person who was actually elected. The only thing the court did was stop an illegal > recount. does it make you feel better to lie about what is common > knowledge? http://abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/DailyNews/herald_ba > ll ot s0 10 226.html Prove your position. you made the claim George Bush *was* elected. are you > admitting your claim was false? No. i didn't think you could prove your claim. given that, usenet > convention dictates that the claim is considered false. I've already proven my position. are you so frightened about your failure to prove your position > that you felt compelled to blatantly lie? oh well, show readers the proof you claim to have already > proven. I've already posted it once in this thread and it's quoted in > this post. you are lying. i take this as your final admission that your > claim was false. i consider you unqualified to ask others to support their claims > since you will not support yours. I supported it, you moron! you are lying again, coward. maybe you should stamp your foot and cry. -- James Keegan has shown he does not favor and/or support legalized abortion. -coward bobby heishman lying as Osprey I also have you on record for not supporting and/or favoring legalized abortion as well. -Robert Heishman lying as coward Osprey about Ray Fischer in Subject: Re: A **Reminder** of the BENEFITS of the Remedy of Abortion > Until we OUST the election-thief on November 2nd, and > replace him with an *elected* President George Bush *was* elected. Get over it. not really. he was appointed as the result of a court > decision not to count votes for his opponent, the > person who was actually elected. The only thing the court did was stop an illegal > recount. does it make you feel better to lie about what is common > knowledge? http://abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/DailyNews/herald_ba > ll ot s0 10 226.html Prove your position. you made the claim George Bush *was* elected. are you > admitting your claim was false? No. i didn't think you could prove your claim. given that, usenet > convention dictates that the claim is considered false. I've already proven my position. are you so frightened about your failure to prove your position > that you felt compelled to blatantly lie? oh well, show readers the proof you claim to have already > proven. I've already posted it once in this thread and it's quoted in > this post. you are lying. i take this as your final admission that your > claim was false. i consider you unqualified to ask others to support their claims > since you will not support yours. I supported it, you moron! you are lying again, coward. --