Science > Abortion > Re: Are YOU a Homophobe? If so, can you answer THESE Questions?
| Topic: |
Science > Abortion |
| User: |
"osprey" |
| Date: |
01 Apr 2004 12:55:41 PM |
| Object: |
Re: Are YOU a Homophobe? If so, can you answer THESE Questions? |
(Craig Chilton) wrote in message news:<40651edf.63886003@netnews.mchsi.com>...
1. WHY are you a BUSYBODY?
Why are you asking?
2. WHY would you give a flying rat's ***** about ANY
person's *private* sex life?
I don't.
3. WHY in the world would you seek to treat any
person or group of people with less respect based
solely on what they do in private, as consensual
adults? (How could that POSSIBLY be of ANY
importance to you?)
I don't.
4. IF you are opposed to same-sex marriage, WHY?
Because it is a sin. And if I was to support same sex marriage it
would be the same as saying the act of homosexuality is o.k., which it
isn't. So I will never vote for any candidate that supports
homosexual marriage.
Only a VALID, **factual** reason... such as a *way*
that any heterosexual couple's marriage would in
ANY way be threatened, and thus need "protection"
from this impending expansion of liberty... is appro-
priate as a response. (Mindless emotionalism
counts for *nothing*, and is NO excuse for
discrimination.)
Why are you the only one who thinks you can say what is valid or not?
That is a awful lot of power you are giving yourself. Ever occur to
you that some will disagree?
5. ENDA -- the totally-harmless "Employment Non-
Discrimination Act" -- which would have done
nothing more than ensure that people could NOT
be unfairly discriminated against in the workplace,
due to their sexual orientation -- failed by only ONE
(RRR cult-induced) vote in the U.S. Senate last
time, and will almost surely *pass* THIS time. Would
YOU be opposed to this very FAIR measure? If
so -- WHY?
I have no problem with laws that prohibit discrimination. A person is
there to
do a job, and only that job. Not bring in their personal lives. When
they bring in their personal lives, they set themselves up.
[[[ READERS -- if *any* person provides sensible and
intelligent answers to ANY the five above questions,
you'd better be sitting down. I've never seen ANY
person YET provide an intelligent and factual reason
for doing ANY of the above.
Craig Chilton < >
I believe my answers are sensible and intelligent. Your first
question about being a busybody, you kind of contradict yourself by
even asking people these questions. Makes you the busybody.
IMHO
.
|
|
| User: "Citizen" |
|
| Title: Re: Are YOU a Homophobe? If so, can you answer THESE Questions? |
19 Apr 2004 01:03:58 AM |
|
|
I agree with you as well.. No one seems to know how to properly use
that word.
How about, however, we point to a president who wants to change the
constitution itself because gays have been allowed to marry in some areas ?
Light Templar wrote:
Victor Borras wrote:
What really does it mean to be Homophobic?
Truthfully I think its a made-up word designed to belittle and shame
those that DO NOT AGREE with Homosexuality.
The term was first coined by a heterosexual psychologist to describe a real
condition, although I do agree that the term is overly used.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Light Templar" |
|
| Title: Re: Are YOU a Homophobe? If so, can you answer THESE Questions? |
19 Apr 2004 05:24:40 AM |
|
|
Citizen wrote:
I agree with you as well.. No one seems to know how to properly use
that word.
How about, however, we point to a president who wants to change the
constitution itself because gays have been allowed to marry in some
areas ?
That would be a proper use. :o)
--
I'd kill for a Nobel Peace Prize.
Steven Wright
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Fritz" |
|
| Title: Re: Are YOU a Homophobe? If so, can you answer THESE Questions? |
09 Apr 2004 03:37:15 AM |
|
|
Victor Borras wrote:
What really does it mean to be Homophobic?
Truthfully I think its a made-up word designed to belittle and shame those
that DO NOT AGREE with Homosexuality.
How does someone disagree with "homosexuality"?
It's there, it exist. What's not to agree with?
After all, is anyone called
Drugphobic if he/she does not agree with using any kind of drug? No!
It's called a choice or a good decision by some, 'to each his own' by those
who use them and agree with them.
If being homophobic is a person that believes its wrong being homosexual,
and disagrees with their marrying, and adopting children. Then I'd be
classified a homophobic.
Right.
Yet if disliked Asians, and disagreed with their lifestyles am I then
Asianphobic? No! Everyone has a God given right to choose, select,
dislike, or like, and it doesn't mean you have a phobia because of it.
What would you call someone that doesn't like homosexuals, for
no good reason?
Now if for no found reason, I dislike Asians, where I can't explain why,
then I'd be bordering on being phobic, and if I were to do harm to them,
simply because of what I feel, without any foundation, then I'd agree that
I'm phobic. Imagine, we all know of a group that 'hates' people of African
roots, where they are Black, and they also hate those of Jewish decent, and
yet they have NEVER been called phobic, this group we know as the KKK. One
reason for this is due to our Constitution that gives men the right of
choice, selection, so why is a person that disagrees with homosexuals
labeled homophobic? It's simply a way to discredit that right to select to
disagree with those who are gay. A way to say, 'if you hate or dislike even,
homosexuals, then you are the 'sick' one. This is wrong and it is a design
to belittle anyone that in any way does not accept homosexuality.
so that in effect you are put on the defense so you'd have to say that you
do like them. This is wrong!
So what you're doing is trying to turn it around again, and make the
homos look like the "sick ones".
--
Fritz
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Religion = tyranny.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "RobertVB" |
|
| Title: Re: Are YOU a Homophobe? If so, can you answer THESE Questions? |
08 Apr 2004 03:10:07 PM |
|
|
In article <lcda70h5snk8cln6bi15vv09475u6c9svo@4ax.com>, Pastor Dave
<nospam*-*pastordave38@yahoo.com> wrote:
The topic is your attack on the Bible, Christianity and
Paul. You were shown to be in error about your claim
about the text and about Paul only reading the
Septuagint.
FYI I did go and research this more on the internet. Seems there is a
whole body of work that preports that not only didn't Paul read Hebrew
but that he was never a Pharisee at all. Strongly suppressed and
denied by many Christian scholars for the obvious reasons, it still
makes interesting reading.
But in your corner, most reason that the letter to the Hebrews was
written in greek is because it really wasn't written by Paul at all:
" The author of Hebrews is not known, as the date and place of origin
are also uncertain. Some very old traditions attribute the book to
Paul, but it is unlikely that he wrote it as it differs greatly in
style and more importantly in theological language from his other
works...."
"Much can be determined however, about the author from the book itself.
For example, he was well versed in Greek, apparently read the Old
Testament in Greek (as he quotes from the Greek version of the time),
and was knowledgeable of current trends in opinions and philosophies
such as those of Philo and Greek thought."
Of course this really doesn't change the identification of the 'sin of
Sodom' in anyway but it still is interesting to see the controversy
that still surrounds this issue.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: Are YOU a Homophobe? If so, can you answer THESE Questions? |
08 Apr 2004 04:56:05 PM |
|
|
On 8 Apr 2004 20:10:07 GMT, RobertVB <nospam@4me.com>
spake thusly:
In article <lcda70h5snk8cln6bi15vv09475u6c9svo@4ax.com>, Pastor Dave
<nospam*-*pastordave38@yahoo.com> wrote:
The topic is your attack on the Bible, Christianity and
Paul. You were shown to be in error about your claim
about the text and about Paul only reading the
Septuagint.
FYI I did go and research this more on the internet. Seems there is a
whole body of work that preports that not only didn't Paul read Hebrew
but that he was never a Pharisee at all. Strongly suppressed and
denied by many Christian scholars for the obvious reasons, it still
makes interesting reading.
People who hate God always come up with false
documents.
--
± 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
"If the solar system was brought about by an accidental
collision, then the appearance of organic life on this
planet was also an accident and the whole evolution of
man was an accident too. If so, then all our thought
processes are mere accidents - the accidental
by-product of the movement of atoms. And this holds
for the materialists' and astronomers' as well as for
anyone else's. But if their thoughts - i.e., of
materialism and astronomy - are merely accidental
by-products, why should we believe them to be true?
I see no reason for believing that one accident
should be able to give a correct account of all
the other accidents." - C.S. Lewis, God in the Dock
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
.
|
|
|
| User: "RobertVB" |
|
| Title: Re: Are YOU a Homophobe? If so, can you answer THESE Questions? |
08 Apr 2004 05:23:01 PM |
|
|
In article <5jib705n1h70c3b75i4seahmm16as9p8rn@4ax.com>, Pastor Dave
<nospam*-*pastordave38@yahoo.com> wrote:
On 8 Apr 2004 20:10:07 GMT, RobertVB <nospam@4me.com>
spake thusly:
In article <lcda70h5snk8cln6bi15vv09475u6c9svo@4ax.com>, Pastor Dave
<nospam*-*pastordave38@yahoo.com> wrote:
The topic is your attack on the Bible, Christianity and
Paul. You were shown to be in error about your claim
about the text and about Paul only reading the
Septuagint.
FYI I did go and research this more on the internet. Seems there is a
whole body of work that preports that not only didn't Paul read Hebrew
but that he was never a Pharisee at all. Strongly suppressed and
denied by many Christian scholars for the obvious reasons, it still
makes interesting reading.
People who hate God always come up with false
documents.
You can't hate something that doesn't exist.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "RainLover" |
|
| Title: Re: Are YOU a Homophobe? If so, can you answer THESE Questions? |
08 Apr 2004 06:27:35 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 07 Apr 2004 19:21:53 -0400, Pastor Dave <nospam*-*pastordave38@yahoo.com> wrote:
Ezekial 16:
49 Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom: pride,
fullness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in
her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand
of the poor and needy.
50 And the were haughty, and committed abominations before me:
therefore I took them away as I saw good.
It's pretty simple... when something says "THIS IS THE INIQUITY OF..." and then lists the sins,
that's it. Nothing to argue or justify. Nothing to "accept" or question.
"AND committed abominations". Don't forget that part
of the passage.
What? were that having an all-you-can-eat shrimp feast?
Maybe wearing a nice cotton-poly blend (it's hot there you know?)
Just because it says abomination, why do you presume it has anything to do with sex? Get your mind
out of the gutter, Man!!!
"Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them
in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication,
and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an
example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire."
- Jude 7
Even you said in a previous post that they concidered anyone not of their nation to be strange
flesh, so between the angel angle and the foreigner angle... you 'gay' hypothisis is looking weaker
by the minute.
James, Seattle
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: Are YOU a Homophobe? If so, can you answer THESE Questions? |
08 Apr 2004 09:51:00 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 08 Apr 2004 16:27:35 -0700, RainLover
<SP-AMB-LOCKrainlover@raincity.com> spake thusly:
"AND committed abominations". Don't forget that part
of the passage.
Just because it says abomination, why do you presume it has anything to do with sex? Get your mind
out of the gutter, Man!!!
Since it also states that they "went after strange
flesh" and since they wanted to rape the man.
--
± 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
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
.
|
|
|
| User: "RobertVB" |
|
| Title: Re: Are YOU a Homophobe? If so, can you answer THESE Questions? |
09 Apr 2004 12:30:42 PM |
|
|
In article <ar3c70l7g0as7ont70ae7pnthu3miekosl@4ax.com>, Pastor Dave
<nospam*-*pastordave38@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Thu, 08 Apr 2004 16:27:35 -0700, RainLover
<SP-AMB-LOCKrainlover@raincity.com> spake thusly:
"AND committed abominations". Don't forget that part
of the passage.
Just because it says abomination, why do you presume it has anything to do
with sex? Get your mind
out of the gutter, Man!!!
Since it also states that they "went after strange
flesh" and since they wanted to rape the man.
No indication they wanted to rape the men.
Absolutely no indication that 'strange flesh' is 'man flesh infact lots
of indications its not.
Strange flesh (Jude 7)
Derivation
sar'-kos het'-er-as
genitive singular feminine noun (G4561) lit. flesh
genitive singular feminine adjective (G2081) lit. different kind
Definition
The forbidden sexual mixture of two different kinds of flesh (ie.
human with animal1), akin to the sexual mixture of angels with
womankind2.
The mention of angels in the context of the femininity of sarkos
heteras (feminine because Gomorra is feminine) implies a sexual
encounter between angels and women, which is consistent with
Scripture2. To the extent that the word for flesh, (sarx), is
feminine, there is also a flashback to the fall of humankind, how sin
that was unnatural was combined with the once pure human nature3 to the
extent that the human nature became sinful4.
Although it is logical to say that a different kind of body implies a
different kind of flesh, the implication that angels have flesh so as
to say the flesh of angels is avoided by Paul in his discourse on the
spiritual body, where he compared flesh bodies to spiritual bodies5.
Therefore, strange flesh is not about angels confusing with womankind,
where what had no flesh had mixed with what had flesh, nor is strange
flesh about humankind mixing with humankind, but rather, is
specifically about the mixing of two different kinds of flesh, the
bestial sexual union of humankind with animal as that which occurred in
Sodom and Gomorrah.
Furthermore, the term strange flesh, as used in Jude 7, in no way
promotes homosexuality nor does it specifically mention it so as to
condemn that is simply not the subject of the verse.
Moreover, the difference in the kinds of flesh being combined excludes
homosexuality, heterosexuality and bisexuality, all three, from being
the subject of discussion. Whether a male human mixed with either a
male or female animal or a female human mixed with either a male or
female animal would not make a difference ˛humankind and animal
represent different kinds of flesh, sarkos heteras. [See Bestiality].
It is important to understand in Jude that comparisons are being made
among similar actions and their like consequences:
what the angels had done to womankind, to the effect that they received
eternal condemnation6
what the wicked of Sodom and Gomorrah had done, to the effect that they
were destroyed by fire, a type of what the evil angels would receive7
what the ungodly men who crept in unnoticed8 were doing presently, to
the effect that they would receive condemnation for their offenses,
like those before them who had sinned in similar ways and who
consequently received condemnation9.
Documentation
1Ex 22.19; Le 18.23; 20.16. 2Ge 6.1f, 4
3Ge 3.1-6. 4Ge 3.7f; cf. Ge 6.5
51 Cor 15.35-41
6Jude 6. 7Jude 7. 8Jude 4. 9Jude 8, 10-13, 16, 18f; cf. 2 Pe 2.6.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: Are YOU a Homophobe? If so, can you answer THESE Questions? |
09 Apr 2004 12:32:29 PM |
|
|
On 9 Apr 2004 17:30:42 GMT, RobertVB <nospam@4me.com>
spake thusly:
In article <ar3c70l7g0as7ont70ae7pnthu3miekosl@4ax.com>, Pastor Dave
<nospam*-*pastordave38@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Thu, 08 Apr 2004 16:27:35 -0700, RainLover
<SP-AMB-LOCKrainlover@raincity.com> spake thusly:
"AND committed abominations". Don't forget that part
of the passage.
Just because it says abomination, why do you presume it has anything to do
with sex? Get your mind
out of the gutter, Man!!!
Since it also states that they "went after strange
flesh" and since they wanted to rape the man.
No indication they wanted to rape the men.
Absolutely no indication that 'strange flesh' is 'man flesh infact lots
of indications its not.
Your lies have already been exposed. As I said, we are
done with this issue.
--
± 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
Evolution =
Unknown chemicals in the primordial past...through...
Unknown processes which no longer exist...produced...
Unknown life forms which are not to be found, but
could through...
Unknown reproduction methods spawn new life...in an..
Unknown atmospheric composition...in an...
Unknown oceanic soup complex...at an...
Unknown time and place.
Dr. Henry Morris
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
.
|
|
|
| User: "RobertVB" |
|
| Title: Re: Are YOU a Homophobe? If so, can you answer THESE Questions? |
09 Apr 2004 02:42:21 PM |
|
|
In article <ognd70p3sa24vc2h7m7075ah1l9dl8uoib@4ax.com>, Pastor Dave
<nospam*-*pastordave38@yahoo.com> wrote:
On 9 Apr 2004 17:30:42 GMT, RobertVB <nospam@4me.com>
spake thusly:
In article <ar3c70l7g0as7ont70ae7pnthu3miekosl@4ax.com>, Pastor Dave
<nospam*-*pastordave38@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Thu, 08 Apr 2004 16:27:35 -0700, RainLover
<SP-AMB-LOCKrainlover@raincity.com> spake thusly:
"AND committed abominations". Don't forget that part
of the passage.
Just because it says abomination, why do you presume it has anything to do
with sex? Get your mind
out of the gutter, Man!!!
Since it also states that they "went after strange
flesh" and since they wanted to rape the man.
No indication they wanted to rape the men.
Absolutely no indication that 'strange flesh' is 'man flesh infact lots
of indications its not.
Your lies have already been exposed. As I said, we are
done with this issue.
HAHAHA! You lose and declare victory! does your pride know no limits?
Here lets repeat all of the things you have absolutely no answer for
other than to falsely accuse someone of lying once again. This is all
verified data, this is all true, as you know:
The word 'yada' is used 873 times in the old testament, usually to mean
some variation of the word 'know' or 'knowledge'. I handful of times
it is used to mean consensual sexual intercourse between a man and
woman. In 2 of the cases YOU say it means forced homosexual sex
between men. That's less than 0.2% of the times it used.
In neither instance is there any actual homosexual activity recorded
before, during, or after the supposed request.
In the Sodom instance the crowd breaks in to the home, no sex involved.
All pre New Testament commentary does not mention homosexual behavior
but rather pride and hostility towards strangers.
In the new testament, Jesus refers to Sodom in context of how places
will be treated when they turn his disciples away - again hostility and
inhospitality.
Jude 7 is the only reference to fornication and mentions that the
inhabitants went after 'strange flesh' a reference to the jewish legend
that the women of Sodom had had sex with angels and a topic of interest
in the time of Jude's writing because of its astral gnostic tie ins to
popular beliefs of the time. No one would call homosexual activity
'gonig after strange flesh', in fact no one ever did anywhere in
writings of the time.
in the second usage instance in Judges 19, the crowd rapes a concubine
all night to the point of death when she is thrust out the door.
The man when relating this harrowing event says the crowd wanted to
slay him, not rape him. When he does refer to the womens rape he says
she was 'forced', not that they 'knew' her. 'Know' in its sexual
context in the bible is ALWAYS used for consentual activity, not forced
activity.
So there is absolutely NO justification for saying that these 2
instances of the use of the word 'yada' mean homosexual sex other by
blindly repeating historical distortions of the ancient original
meaning.
Face it, your wrong about the 'sin of Sodom'.
Strange flesh (Jude 7)
Derivation
sar'-kos het'-er-as
genitive singular feminine noun (G4561) lit. flesh
genitive singular feminine adjective (G2081) lit. different kind
Definition
The forbidden sexual mixture of two different kinds of flesh (ie.
human with animal1), akin to the sexual mixture of angels with
womankind2.
The mention of angels in the context of the femininity of sarkos
heteras (feminine because Gomorra is feminine) implies a sexual
encounter between angels and women, which is consistent with
Scripture2. To the extent that the word for flesh, (sarx), is
feminine, there is also a flashback to the fall of humankind, how sin
that was unnatural was combined with the once pure human nature3 to the
extent that the human nature became sinful4.
Although it is logical to say that a different kind of body implies a
different kind of flesh, the implication that angels have flesh so as
to say the flesh of angels is avoided by Paul in his discourse on the
spiritual body, where he compared flesh bodies to spiritual bodies5.
Therefore, strange flesh is not about angels confusing with womankind,
where what had no flesh had mixed with what had flesh, nor is strange
flesh about humankind mixing with humankind, but rather, is
specifically about the mixing of two different kinds of flesh, the
bestial sexual union of humankind with animal as that which occurred in
Sodom and Gomorrah.
Furthermore, the term strange flesh, as used in Jude 7, in no way
promotes homosexuality nor does it specifically mention it so as to
condemn that is simply not the subject of the verse.
Moreover, the difference in the kinds of flesh being combined excludes
homosexuality, heterosexuality and bisexuality, all three, from being
the subject of discussion. Whether a male human mixed with either a
male or female animal or a female human mixed with either a male or
female animal would not make a difference ˛humankind and animal
represent different kinds of flesh, sarkos heteras. [See Bestiality].
It is important to understand in Jude that comparisons are being made
among similar actions and their like consequences:
what the angels had done to womankind, to the effect that they received
eternal condemnation6
what the wicked of Sodom and Gomorrah had done, to the effect that they
were destroyed by fire, a type of what the evil angels would receive7
what the ungodly men who crept in unnoticed8 were doing presently, to
the effect that they would receive condemnation for their offenses,
like those before them who had sinned in similar ways and who
consequently received condemnation9.
Documentation
1Ex 22.19; Le 18.23; 20.16. 2Ge 6.1f, 4
3Ge 3.1-6. 4Ge 3.7f; cf. Ge 6.5
51 Cor 15.35-41
6Jude 6. 7Jude 7. 8Jude 4. 9Jude 8, 10-13, 16, 18f; cf. 2 Pe 2.6.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "RainLover" |
|
| Title: Re: Are YOU a Homophobe? If so, can you answer THESE Questions? |
06 Apr 2004 05:38:03 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 06 Apr 2004 09:23:25 -0400, Pastor Dave <nospam*-*pastordave38@yahoo.com> wrote:
Eze 16:
49 Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom: pride,
fullness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in
her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand
of the poor and needy.
50 And the were haughty, and committed abominations before me:
therefore I took them away as I saw good.
Seems to me that there are A LOT of christians who still fall under the Sins of Sodom around today
and they would do well to change their ways.
The pro-homosexual would have us believe that this is
all Scripture has to say about Sodom and what their sin
was. They like to ignore the word, "abominations" in
the passage they quote from Ezekiel. They don't seem
to be able to read the text with common sense. Yes, it
lists pride, etc., as sins committed by Sodom. They
fail however, to note the phrase... "AND committed
ABOMINATIONS before me...". It doesn't equate the
abominations with the pride. It says, "AND (meaning,
"in addition to", or, "and also") committed
abominations".
Did you ever notice how the pro-homosexuals try to
twist the word "abomination" in Scripture, to suit
their own purpose
HUGE SNIP of bible
"Pro-Homosexual"???
What in the heck is the phrase 'common sense' doing in your rebuttal above? "Common sense" would
say that if modern Christians look at most of the "abominations" of the bible and utterly IGNORE
them, why would you pick out the ONE that you want to believe?
What about the PRO-SEAFOOD Christians? It's also an abomination to eat shellfish (and wear mixed
fiber clothing, and have sex during a woman's period, etc)
Just because Christians say the story of Sodom is NOT about homosexuality, you go off on a RANT of
magnificant proportions.
Such is your lot in life as a homophobic person I suppose.
James, Seattle
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "L. Michael Roberts" |
|
| Title: Re: Are YOU a Homophobe? If so, can you answer THESE Questions? |
05 Apr 2004 01:46:28 PM |
|
|
Pastor Dave wrote:
On 4 Apr 2004 16:25:05 GMT, RobertVB <nospam@4me.com>
spake thusly:
In article <k58070lb3ffj2oifro3iikmbvqhrdvkuva@4ax.com>, Pastor Dave
<nospam*-*pastordave38@yahoo.com> wrote:
On 3 Apr 2004 14:10:15 GMT, RobertVB <nospam@4me.com>
spake thusly:
<snip>
You are still not dealing with the facts. Attempts are
being made, to limit my religious beliefs and speech.
Please provide documentation of these attempts to limit your religious
beliefs and speech that you speak of and evidence of who is attempting
these limitations.
--
+==================== 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"
+================================================================+
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: Are YOU a Homophobe? If so, can you answer THESE Questions? |
06 Apr 2004 08:31:02 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 05 Apr 2004 14:46:28 -0400, "L. Michael
Roberts" <L_Michael_Roberts@NoSpamThanks.net> spake
thusly:
You are still not dealing with the facts. Attempts are
being made, to limit my religious beliefs and speech.
Please provide documentation of these attempts to limit your religious
beliefs and speech that you speak of and evidence of who is attempting
these limitations.
Already have.
+==================== 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"
+================================================================+
So you are using the computers at the company you work
for, to spread your personal agenda?
--
± 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.drdino.com/cse.asp?pg=real_video
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
.
|
|
|
| User: "L. Michael Roberts" |
|
| Title: Re: Are YOU a Homophobe? If so, can you answer THESE Questions? |
06 Apr 2004 10:11:00 AM |
|
|
Pastor Dave wrote:
On Mon, 05 Apr 2004 14:46:28 -0400, "L. Michael
Roberts" <L_Michael_Roberts@NoSpamThanks.net> spake
thusly:
You are still not dealing with the facts. Attempts are
being made, to limit my religious beliefs and speech.
Please provide documentation of these attempts to limit your religious
beliefs and speech that you speak of and evidence of who is attempting
these limitations.
Already have.
Where? I have not seen it. Since you make this claim, you should be
bale to back it up with evidence least people think you are beating
false witness and thereby imperiling your immortal soul.
Since you claim to have posted this info, it should take but a moment
to locate your post in the Google archive and to provide the URL.
+==================== 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"
+================================================================+
So you are using the computers at the company you work
for, to spread your personal agenda?
I am the president of the company and as such, would not want anyone to
misconstrue what I say as being the "official position" of the company -
especially when posting to technical/science forums. And yes, I do have
one of my my own personal computers installed in my office next to the
company computers... and yes I do have permission to use the company net
connection to access the net on my personal computer... and yes I do
work long hours and have occasional "down time" which I fill by reading
web sites [/. being a favourite] and posting to USEnet.... and yes, the
CEO and board of directors are well aware of my net surfing and my
opinions on EQUAL rights for ALL citizens... and yes, the company policy
we have allows other employees to use the internet for their personal
surfing and Email during office hours provided all projects are
completed on time.
Any other questions?
--
+==================== 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"
+================================================================+
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: Are YOU a Homophobe? If so, can you answer THESE Questions? |
06 Apr 2004 03:09:08 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 06 Apr 2004 11:11:00 -0400, "L. Michael
Roberts" <L_Michael_Roberts@NoSpamThanks.net> spake
thusly:
Pastor Dave wrote:
On Mon, 05 Apr 2004 14:46:28 -0400, "L. Michael
Roberts" <L_Michael_Roberts@NoSpamThanks.net> spake
thusly:
You are still not dealing with the facts. Attempts are
being made, to limit my religious beliefs and speech.
Please provide documentation of these attempts to limit your religious
beliefs and speech that you speak of and evidence of who is attempting
these limitations.
Already have.
Where? I have not seen it.
Yes you have. You are debating it.
+==================== 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"
+================================================================+
So you are using the computers at the company you work
for, to spread your personal agenda?
I am the president of the company and as such, would not want anyone to
misconstrue what I say as being the "official position" of the company -
So the answer is yes.
--
± 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
The fact is, if you can't believe the beginning,
you can't believe the end and shouldn't claim to.
To disbelieve the beginning, is to doubt many things
that Jesus said. After all, He made it clear that
He believed it. If you believe in the Trinity, how
can you believe that God wouldn't know how it all
started? If you can't believe the beginning, then
get off the pulpit.
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
.
|
|
|
| User: "L. Michael Roberts" |
|
| Title: Re: Are YOU a Homophobe? If so, can you answer THESE Questions? |
07 Apr 2004 12:41:12 AM |
|
|
Pastor Dave wrote:
On Tue, 06 Apr 2004 11:11:00 -0400, "L. Michael
Roberts" <L_Michael_Roberts@NoSpamThanks.net> spake
thusly:
Pastor Dave wrote:
On Mon, 05 Apr 2004 14:46:28 -0400, "L. Michael
Roberts" <L_Michael_Roberts@NoSpamThanks.net> spake
thusly:
You are still not dealing with the facts. Attempts are
being made, to limit my religious beliefs and speech.
Please provide documentation of these attempts to limit your religious
beliefs and speech that you speak of and evidence of who is attempting
these limitations.
Already have.
Where? I have not seen it.
Yes you have. You are debating it.
YOU have made the claim that "..Attempts are being made, to limit my
religious beliefs and speech." I have asked you to provide proof. You
have, as yet, failed to provide said proof and now you claim that I am
debating these "Attempts ... to limit my religious beliefs and speech.".
I still have not seen any proof and thus how could I be debating it?
Please explain how I am debating something you have not provided
information on.
<snip>
So you are using the computers at the company you work
for, to spread your personal agenda?
I am the president of the company and as such, would not want anyone to
misconstrue what I say as being the "official position" of the company -
So the answer is yes.
You know, as someone who claims the "high moral ground" and who even
claims to be a "pastor", it is so sad and disappointing to see how you
bring Christianity into disrepute by your lies. Sadder still is that
you think other people are fooled by these lies or that lying is
acceptable in Jesus's name.
You dishonestly snipped my response without marking it so as to distort
my words by omitting the balance of them. I provide you with an honest
answer as to how I use my personal computer, hooked up to the company
network, with full knowledge of my activities by the board of directors
and you choose to cut that, dishonestly and without attribution, to
change what I said.
You make Jesus cry with your lies and distortions, you give your
religion a bad name, and you heap shame and disrepute on the many fine
clergy that labour mightily to do the Lord's work. Repent hell-bound
sinner!
For those who may not have seen my answer in full, here is what "pastor
Dave" dishonestly snipped without marking the cut:
I am the president of the company and as such, would not want anyone to misconstrue what I say as being the "official position" of the company - especially when posting to technical/science forums. And yes, I do have one of my my own personal computers installed in my office next to the company computers... and yes I do have permission to use the company net connection to access the net on my personal computer... and yes I do work long hours and have occasional "down time" which I fill by reading web sites [/. being a favourite] and posting to USEnet.... and yes, the CEO and board of directors are well aware of my net surfing and my opinions on EQUAL rights for ALL citizens... and yes, the company policy we have allows other employees to use the internet for their personal surfing and Email during office hours provided all projects are completed on time.
Any other questions?
--
+==================== 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"
+================================================================+
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Xypher" |
|
| Title: Re: Are YOU a Homophobe? If so, can you answer THESE Questions? |
04 Apr 2004 08:24:07 PM |
|
|
Wrong--the Gentiles were not nonChristians as you suppose. The Gentiles the
Bible speaks of are those who were given grace unto salvation--they believed
on Christ. They were not given the law of Moses. That is what made the
Gentiles a law unto themselves. They worshipped the Lord in Spirit without
ever having been given the law because they believed in Christ. Christ
justifed their belief. He did not give us the right to refuse his
commandments in Eden but left it up to our free will. Those who love God,
keep his commandments.
"RobertVB" <nospam@4me.com> wrote in message
news:c4pct1$lf8$0@216.39.173.68...
In article <k58070lb3ffj2oifro3iikmbvqhrdvkuva@4ax.com>, Pastor Dave
<nospam*-*pastordave38@yahoo.com> wrote:
On 3 Apr 2004 14:10:15 GMT, RobertVB <nospam@4me.com>
spake thusly:
And if it's a sin for gays to get married, then why not just let God
deal
with them personally?
He will. But He also commands that His laws and His
ways be followed.
By Christians.
No, by all.
"For the invisible things of him from the creation of
the world are clearly seen, being understood by the
things that are made, even his eternal power and
Godhead; so that they are without excuse:"
- Romans 1:20
Ok no mention of being told what to do here.
"For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by
nature the things contained in the law, these, having
not the law, are a law unto themselves:" - Romans 2:4
Ok it says the Gentiles (non Christians) are a law unto themselves.
Clearly they don't have to follow Xtian laws except incidentally.
"...but now [God] commandeth all men every where to
repent:" - Acts 17:30
and he gave us the right to refuse his commandments since before the
garden of eden.
Ok you've convinced me - God isn't going to force me to follow his
laws, why areyou trying?
In the US you can't hold non-believers to your religious law.
The U.S. was founded about Biblical Law. You can claim
it came from Britain, but where do you think they got
it (and so on and so on, etc.)?
No, the US was based on British laws based on saxon greco roman.
Point of fact most of the 10 commandments are not even encoded into
law. There are no laws for the two greatest commandments 'love god
with all your heart; and 'you love your neighbor as you will love
yourself'
No US law is very obviously NOT biblical law.
No one is forcing you to violate a single one of your
magic skyfather's laws.
Actually, you're wrong. That is being attempted.
No or no more than from the beginning of the country - the obligation
you have as an american citizen to allow others to follow beliefs that
are not yours. You most definitely don't have a right to force others
to act as if they were followers of your religion.
.
|
|
|
| User: "RobertVB" |
|
| Title: Re: Are YOU a Homophobe? If so, can you answer THESE Questions? |
05 Apr 2004 02:00:16 AM |
|
|
In article <Xy2cc.15963$lt2.14253@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
Xypher <xypher@earthlink.net> wrote:
Wrong--the Gentiles were not nonChristians as you suppose. The Gentiles the
Bible speaks of are those who were given grace unto salvation--they believed
on Christ.
Even better then they aren't covered at all!
They were not given the law of Moses. That is what made the
Gentiles a law unto themselves. They worshipped the Lord in Spirit without
ever having been given the law because they believed in Christ. Christ
justifed their belief. He did not give us the right to refuse his
commandments in Eden but left it up to our free will. Those who love God,
keep his commandments.
So those that don't worship Jehovah free not to? Again, even better!
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "RainLover" |
|
| Title: Re: Are YOU a Homophobe? If so, can you answer THESE Questions? |
05 Apr 2004 10:12:07 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 04 Apr 2004 10:55:26 -0400, Pastor Dave <nospam*-*pastordave38@yahoo.com> wrote:
On 3 Apr 2004 14:10:15 GMT, RobertVB <nospam@4me.com>
spake thusly:
And if it's a sin for gays to get married, then why not just let God deal
with them personally?
He will. But He also commands that His laws and His
ways be followed.
By Christians.
No, by all.
This is the sticking point, isn't it? You honestly cannot fathom the FACT that others do not
believe as you do. They worship in different ways and to different gods. In your opinion, they are
all worshipping 'false gods' but they believe if their god as strongly as you do in yours.
Why do ALL people in the USA have to follow YOUR interpretation of your religious book?
And a Question:
What do YOU do on Sundays? Hopefully you don't watch sports or television or work or shop because
you are breaking one of the 10 commandments if you do. Keep the Sabbath Holy.
Of course, the Sabbath is actually on SATURDAYS, so even if you're keeping sunday holy, you're
wrong.
You can't even obey God's laws yourself, but you have no problems telling everyone else to obey.
For surely, you ARE a preacher.
In the US you can't hold non-believers to your religious law.
The U.S. was founded about Biblical Law. You can claim
it came from Britain, but where do you think they got
it (and so on and so on, etc.)?
When the U.S. was founded Slavery was welcomed and a 50 year old man could take a 11 year old wife.
You don't get to pick and chose the History of the U.S. any more than you pick and choose the parts
of the Bible you force on others.
No one is forcing you to violate a single one of your
magic skyfather's laws.
Actually, you're wrong. That is being attempted.
No they aren't. YOU can follow every LAW you wish to in your interpretation of the bible except
killing witches, stoning sons, stoning adulterers, and a few other other LAWS that hurt others.
Having a same-sex marriage in your state doesn't force YOU to violate one of God's Laws.
You should be more concerning yourself with all of God's Laws that you current DON'T follow instead
of what the Lesbian down the street might be doing this weekend. (no, you're not invited to the
wedding)
James, Seattle
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: Are YOU a Homophobe? If so, can you answer THESE Questions? |
06 Apr 2004 08:40:41 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 05 Apr 2004 08:12:07 -0700, RainLover
<SP-AMB-LOCKrainlover@raincity.com> spake thusly:
On Sun, 04 Apr 2004 10:55:26 -0400, Pastor Dave <nospam*-*pastordave38@yahoo.com> wrote:
On 3 Apr 2004 14:10:15 GMT, RobertVB <nospam@4me.com>
spake thusly:
And if it's a sin for gays to get married, then why not just let God deal
with them personally?
He will. But He also commands that His laws and His
ways be followed.
By Christians.
No, by all.
This is the sticking point, isn't it? You honestly cannot fathom the FACT that others do not
believe as you do.
What you or they believe, is irrelevant. The point was
about what His word says.
In the US you can't hold non-believers to your religious law.
The U.S. was founded about Biblical Law. You can claim
it came from Britain, but where do you think they got
it (and so on and so on, etc.)?
When the U.S. was founded Slavery was welcomed and a 50 year old man could take a 11 year old wife.
You don't get to pick and chose the History of the U.S. any more than you pick and choose the parts
of the Bible you force on others.
A 50 year old man can still take a 12 year old wife in
Texas. What's your point? The facts is, that YOU
equate all of U.S. history to the Bible, I don't.
People disobeying the Bible, does not mean that the
nation was not founded upon Biblical laws.
No one is forcing you to violate a single one of your
magic skyfather's laws.
Actually, you're wrong. That is being attempted.
No they aren't.
Yes, they are.
--
± 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.answersingenesis.org
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: Are YOU a Homophobe? If so, can you answer THESE Questions? |
06 Apr 2004 09:38:40 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 05 Apr 2004 08:12:07 -0700, RainLover
<SP-AMB-LOCKrainlover@raincity.com> spake thusly:
Why do ALL people in the USA have to follow YOUR interpretation of your religious book?
Where have I interpreted it? The fact is, that I
quoted the exact passages for you and they stated
clearly what I said they did. You chose to snip them
out of your response and then pretend that I was only
giving my interpretation of a passage that you claim
may mean something else. You claimed that God only
commanded that His laws be followed by Christians. I
stated that He commanded everyone everywhere to follow
them and provided the following passage, which you
conveniently snipped out, because it put the necessary
nails in the coffin of your argument...
"...but now [God] commandeth all men every where to
repent:" - Acts 17:30
Yes, God did command all men everywhere to follow Him.
You may not like that, but your like, or dislike of it,
is irrelevant.
And I note that you now use the term, "some religious
book". Why? because you know that your previous
argument that God didn't say that, except to
Christians, didn't work. That makes you dishonest,
which I will demonstrate now.
The conversation went as follows:
RobertVB: And if it's a sin for gays to get married,
then why not just let God deal with them personally?
Pastor Dave: He will. But He also commands that His
laws and His ways be followed.
RobertVB: By Christians.
Note that the discussion was about what God says and
not "some religious book", which is the argument you
deceptively tried to fall back to.
You responded by saying that I should let Him deal with
it personally.
I said that He will and that He also commands that His
ways should be followed. Note: That HIS ways should be
followed, NOT "the ways of some religious book".
You then responded by saying that He commanded them to
be followed by Christians, since your whole statement
was, "By Christians.", in response to my statement
about what God commands. Therefore, you knew that you
were not responding to a statement about "some
religious book", but rather, to a statement about what
God commands.
Do not think that your words will not come back to
haunt you and that you can play this deceptive game
with me. I based my responses on YOUR words. Live
with your own statements and do not try to run away
from them. They are noted for all to see. Be honest
and forthright in your statements, instead of seeking
to deceive. It does not further your argument, but
rather, only results in the destruction of it, as
everyone can plainly see. I do have a good grasp on
the English language and playing word games won't work
with me.
And a Question:
What do YOU do on Sundays? Hopefully you don't watch sports or television or work or shop because
you are breaking one of the 10 commandments if you do. Keep the Sabbath Holy.
Of course, the Sabbath is actually on SATURDAYS, so even if you're keeping sunday holy, you're
wrong.
You can't even obey God's laws yourself, but you have no problems telling everyone else to obey.
For surely, you ARE a preacher.
And there you are, being judgmental, while claiming it
is Christians who are judgmental.
And there you are, thinking that launching a personal
attack on me somehow equates to winning an argument.
Rather, it only shows the weakness of your position and
the lack of integrity on your part and demonstrates for
all, that you know that you have been caught by your
own argument and that you are unable to back up your
position, which again, is evident by your snippage of
the passage I quoted and your personal attack on me.
And there you are, speaking as a fool without wisdom,
since only those without wisdom would speak without the
facts and that is what you are doing.
You try to use the word, "if", as if that would be a
way for you to claim that you weren't actually accusing
me of "keeping Sunday holy" as the Sabbath. Yet, you
go on to say, "You can't even obey God's laws", thereby
making an accusation, as if it were fact and thereby
negating your weak attempt to have a fall back
position, by using the word "if". As I said, I have a
good grasp on the English language.
The fact is, you do not even understand Christianity,
nor are you really familiar with God's word and yet,
you pretend to be able to educate me on the subject?
1) There are three different kinds of Laws in the Old
Testament, given by God.
Ritual laws (clothing of one cloth, eat only this or
that, etc.): These are no longer in effect and are
among the laws that were fulfilled in Christ and that
is supported by the New Testament (see Acts 10:9-16 and
Acts 15:28-29).
Shadows of what was to come in Christ (Sabbaths, the
Temple, animal sacrifices, etc.): These are also among
the laws that were fulfilled by Jesus Christ (see
Colossians 2:16-17; 1 Corinthians 3:16; 2 Corinthians
6:16; Hebrews 10:1-12).
Moral laws (Do not murder, do not commit adultery, love
your neighbor, etc.): These are still in effect. Not
unto condemnation for those in Christ (Romans 8:1), but
they are still in effect as a moral guide for
Christians and are fulfilled in the following, as Jesus
said... "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy
heart and soul", and in, "Thou shalt love thy neighbor
as thyself". Now before you attempt to confuse the
issue, nowhere does the Bible preach love as equating
to the approval of sin. If it did, then there would be
no call in the Bible to repent, which means to turn
from sin, in attitude and action.
"...but now [God] commandeth all men every where to
repent:" - Acts 17:30
2) The Sabbath Law was a shadow of what was to come.
It is still however, a good way to live. God commanded
a day of rest and we should observe that, as it is good
for the body and the soul to rest on the seventh day of
each week. In fact, I believe it was France that tried
to go to a ten day week and it didn't work out. The
body refused to adjust. God knows how He made His
creation.
3) I do not observe Sunday as the Sabbath, since it is
not the Sabbath. My wife and I gather with the rest of
the flock that day, just as the first Christians did
(Acts 20:7; 1 Corinthians 16:2). Not because the
Sabbath was changed. It never was. They probably
gathered on the first day, for a number of reasons.
The Jews still attended Synagogue on the Sabbath (both
Paul and Jesus and others are noted for going in to the
Synagogue on the Sabbath and preaching the Gospel).
The best way to preach to many Jews, is on the day they
would be gathered together in one place.
If a Christian Jew chose to observe the Sabbath, they
would be restricted to a short amount of travel on that
day, which equated to about 3/4 of a mile. That
hindered them from traveling.
Jesus rose on the first day of the week and it would be
logical to gather on that day.
The Roman Catholic Church claims to have changed the
Sabbath and any Protestants who believe that it has
changed, are in error and are, most without realizing
it, following the same Roman Catholic Church that they
claim is not of God.
As for my wife and myself, we do not consider ourselves
Catholic, nor Protestant. We do not take part in
labels of denomination, or religions, etc.. We are
Christians, period, just as the first century church
came to be called (Acts 11:26), which simply states
that we are followers of Christ, in heart, soul and
mind and does not affiliate us with anyone except Jesus
Christ, being the Divine Expression of God, as it says
in John 1.
Now, everything I have said about what the Bible says
above, I have supported Biblically and without my own
personal interpretation. I have merely repeated what
it states clearly, in a manner that you can easily
understand and nothing that I have said about it, is
adverse to the plain wording of the passages, taken at
face value, regardless of what other people claim to
believe, or claim it really says. They interpret it.
I do not, since I have taken it at face value. So
before you make accusations about me and what I am
saying about Scripture and about whether or not I am
violating God's Laws, you would do well to (no offense)
understand what it is you are talking about first.
--
± 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
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
.
|
|
|
| User: "RainLover" |
|
| Title: Re: Are YOU a Homophobe? If so, can you answer THESE Questions? |
06 Apr 2004 07:01:35 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 06 Apr 2004 10:38:40 -0400, Pastor Dave <nospam*-*pastordave38@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Mon, 05 Apr 2004 08:12:07 -0700, RainLover
<SP-AMB-LOCKrainlover@raincity.com> spake thusly:
Why do ALL people in the USA have to follow YOUR interpretation of your religious book?
Where have I interpreted it? The fact is, that I
quoted the exact passages for you and they stated
clearly what I said they did. You chose to snip them
out of your response and then pretend that I was only
giving my interpretation of a passage that you claim
may mean something else. You claimed that God only
commanded that His laws be followed by Christians.
No, you misunderstood me. I'm sure you think the Christian God is speaking to Everyone... But the
Gods of other people's religions are just as valid to THEM as yours is to you. If a Buddhist
doesn't believe in the Christian God, then they do not believe in "sin" either.
On the other hand, THEIR Buddha explains life and how to live it, in some ways, better than the
Christian God. The Buddha explains how to live this life so your next reincarnation is a better
life.
Of course, YOU don't believe the Buddha's spiritual path, which is fine, for YOU, but you cannot
impose your spiritual beliefs onto those who do not recognise your God, even if your religious text
(written by men (and women)) tells you that Your God is the "only" god.
Does this make sense to you? I may not be explaining it well.
I
stated that He commanded everyone everywhere to follow
them and provided the following passage, which you
conveniently snipped out, because it put the necessary
nails in the coffin of your argument...
Your religious text cannot put any nails in my coffin because I do not believe in coffins or being
buried upon my death.
I'm not trying to be an ***** here... but I do NOT believe in being buried, be it underground or in a
cave with a large boulder in front of it.
"...but now [God] commandeth all men every where to
repent:" - Acts 17:30
Yes, God did command all men everywhere to follow Him.
You may not like that, but your like, or dislike of it,
is irrelevant.
I don't mind your religious text saying that. What I mind is you, a follower of Jesus, ignoring
your own sinful life and the lives of those in your congregation in favor of pointing out the
percieved "sins" of those around you.
Other Christian churches don't even see Homosexuality as a sin at all. You all read the same text,
why are YOU correct and THEY wrong?
I KNOW! I KNOW!!! Because you believe YOU are correct. HINT: They believe THEY are correct just
as strongly as you do, so where does that put you?
And I note that you now use the term, "some religious
book".
SNIP the conversation that you had with someone other than me, Rainlover.
You responded by saying that I should let Him deal with
it personally.
Nope, I didn't say that.
I said that He will and that He also commands that His
ways should be followed. Note: That HIS ways should be
followed, NOT "the ways of some religious book".
Again, I didn't say that, but, you don't follow in your GOD'S ways... you DO follow in the ways you
interpret the Bible to guide you. Other christians interpret it differently, but, of course, THEY
are all wrong and YOU are right(eous).
Do not think that your words will not come back to
haunt you and that you can play this deceptive game
with me. I based my responses on YOUR words.
Ah, the Irony of such a statement in a post the one time you've mistaken me for someone else (or,
possibly, I've mistaken a post to someone else for one to me, although the first part of this post
were quotes from my previous post) It's getting quite complicated....
Live
with your own statements and do not try to run away
from them. They are noted for all to see. Be honest
and forthright in your statements, instead of seeking
to deceive. It does not further your argument, but
rather, only results in the destruction of it, as
everyone can plainly see. I do have a good grasp on
the English language and playing word games won't work
with me.
Ouch. That would have hurt if you didn't combine two different people's posts.
And a Question:
What do YOU do on Sundays? Hopefully you don't watch sports or television or work or shop because
you are breaking one of the 10 commandments if you do. Keep the Sabbath Holy.
Of course, the Sabbath is actually on SATURDAYS, so even if you're keeping sunday holy, you're
wrong.
You can't even obey God's laws yourself, but you have no problems telling everyone else to obey.
For surely, you ARE a preacher.
See? This is why I'm confused... because NOW you're quoting ME again... so I'll respond.
And there you are, being judgmental, while claiming it
is Christians who are judgmental.
I'm not judging you, Pastor... I'm just saying God says to keep the Sabbath Holy and no christian
sect that I know of (other than 4 Squares and a couple of other hardcore, old-time faiths) keep it
Holy.
Why aren't you so adament about one of the commandments as you are about a debateable interpretation
of a few out-of-context scriptures that you say are about homosexuality... not that that has
anything to do with same-sex marriages in a secular government.
And there you are, thinking that launching a personal
attack on me somehow equates to winning an argument.
Rather, it only shows the weakness of your position and
the lack of integrity on your part and demonstrates for
all, that you know that you have been caught by your
own argument and that you are unable to back up your
position, which again, is evident by your snippage of
the passage I quoted and your personal attack on me.
What "personal" attack on you? I said christians don't even keep the sabbath holy. If you're like
99% of the other christians, you don't either, yet you find the time to argue about something that
should be none of your business... two people in love wanting to get married.
And there you are, speaking as a fool without wisdom,
since only those without wisdom would speak without the
facts and that is what you are doing.
I've never claimed to be more than a fool. I keep and open mind and listen more than I speak (not
that you'd notice that here.) :-) I have wisdom, but I've never claimed to have the ultimate
wisdom or the only wisdom.
Your "facts" are actually spiritual beliefs that you're mistaking for "facts".... Other religious
people are just as sure of themselves as you are and are just as quick to point out how wrong YOU
are...
ah, the makings of war since time in memorial. . . .
You try to use the word, "if", as if that would be a
way for you to claim that you weren't actually accusing
me of "keeping Sunday holy" as the Sabbath. Yet, you
go on to say, "You can't even obey God's laws", thereby
making an accusation, as if it were fact and thereby
negating your weak attempt to have a fall back
position, by using the word "if". As I said, I have a
good grasp on the English language.
The fact is, you do not even understand Christianity,
nor are you really familiar with God's word and yet,
you pretend to be able to educate me on the subject?
I'm not trying to educate you in Christianity, although I'm much more familiar with the religion
that you might think... just because I don't use "doctor" or "pastor" or "father" before my name
here in Usenet doesn't mean I'm not... or that I'm not well educated on the subject.
If I'm wrong... if you do Keep the Sabbath Holy, then I'm sorry. I didn't mean it as an accusation,
but I've NEVER met a christian who actively keeps the Sabbath. You'd be the first one.
1) There are three different kinds of Laws in the Old
Testament, given by God.
Ritual laws (clothing of one cloth, eat only this or
that, etc.): These are no longer in effect and are
among the laws that were fulfilled in Christ and that
is supported by the New Testament (see Acts 10:9-16 and
Acts 15:28-29).
Shadows of what was to come in Christ (Sabbaths, the
Temple, animal sacrifices, etc.): These are also among
the laws that were fulfilled by Jesus Christ (see
Colossians 2:16-17; 1 Corinthians 3:16; 2 Corinthians
6:16; Hebrews 10:1-12).
Moral laws (Do not murder, do not commit adultery, love
your neighbor, etc.): These are still in effect. Not
unto condemnation for those in Christ (Romans 8:1), but
they are still in effect as a moral guide for
Christians and are fulfilled in the following, as Jesus
said... "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy
heart and soul", and in, "Thou shalt love thy neighbor
as thyself". Now before you attempt to confuse the
issue, nowhere does the Bible preach love as equating
to the approval of sin. If it did, then there would be
no call in the Bible to repent, which means to turn
from sin, in attitude and action.
You're splitting hairs between the old laws to be ignored and the ones to be obeyed. Romans 8:2
says " For the law of the spirit of life in Christ Jesus has freed you from the law of sin and
death"
This says that the sacrifice of Jesus has freed us all from the laws of Sin... it doesn't
differentiate between "ritual law" 'the sabbath' or 'Moral Law'. It just says "THE LAWS OF SIN".
You have every right to INTERPRET that however you'd like, which is exactly what I'd expect of
anyone.
3) I do not observe Sunday as the Sabbath, since it is
not the Sabbath.
One of the Ten Commandments, and you choose not to obey it.
The Jews still attended Synagogue on the Sabbath (both
Paul and Jesus and others are noted for going in to the
Synagogue on the Sabbath and preaching the Gospel).
The best way to preach to many Jews, is on the day they
would be gathered together in one place.
So you're saying you COULD still keep the sabbath holy, but choose not to. Okay.
The Roman Catholic Church claims to have changed the
Sabbath and any Protestants who believe that it has
changed, are in error and are, most without realizing
it, following the same Roman Catholic Church that they
claim is not of God.
Catholics ARE christians.
Now, everything I have said about what the Bible says
above, I have supported Biblically and without my own
personal interpretation.
You're lying to yourself on this one. Every Christian interprets the bible in his/her own way.
I have merely repeated what
it states clearly, in a manner that you can easily
understand and nothing that I have said about it, is
adverse to the plain wording of the passages, taken at
face value, regardless of what other people claim to
believe, or claim it really says.
You can SAY "it states clearly" all you want, but the truth is, many of the passages you've written
in these posts and given interpretations or laymen's explainations for (for the slower children in
the class) are NOT CLEAR since other christians would argue your conclusions.
Of course, YOU would simply (and simplistically) say: 'but it's SO OBVIOUS... you're trying to
change what it says'.....
Interpretations. Yours, and theirs.
They interpret it.
I do not, since I have taken it at face value.
No... You interpret it as much as "they" do... you just refuse to see that.
So
before you make accusations about me and what I am
saying about Scripture and about whether or not I am
violating God's Laws, you would do well to (no offense)
understand what it is you are talking about first.
God's Law: Keep the Sabbath Holy
Your Answer: "I do not observe Sunday as the Sabbath, since it is
not the Sabbath."
Yet you know when the Sabbath IS and still choose not to Keep it. Why? Because THAT commandment
"has been fulfilled", while the ones before and after it haven't.
See the 'interpretation' part of what I'm saying here?
james, Seattle
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: Are YOU a Homophobe? If so, can you answer THESE Questions? |
06 Apr 2004 07:57:07 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 06 Apr 2004 17:01:35 -0700, RainLover
<SP-AMB-LOCKrainlover@raincity.com> spake thusly:
"...but now [God] commandeth all men every where to
repent:" - Acts 17:30
Yes, God did command all men everywhere to follow Him.
You may not like that, but your like, or dislike of it,
is irrelevant.
I don't mind your religious text saying that. What I mind is you, a follower of Jesus, ignoring
your own sinful life and the lives of those in your congregation in favor of pointing out the
percieved "sins" of those around you.
You don't know what my life is like.
Other Christian churches don't even see Homosexuality as a sin at all. You all read the same text,
why are YOU correct and THEY wrong?
God says it's sin. Therefore, it's sin.
And I note that you now use the term, "some religious
book".
SNIP the conversation that you had with someone other than me, Rainlover.
You responded by saying that I should let Him deal with
it personally.
Nope, I didn't say that.
I saw later that you were not the person who originally
wrote it. My apologies.
--
± 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://home.clear.net.nz/pages/bryanp/Evolution/Gre.Sci..htm
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Are YOU a Homophobe? If so, can you answer THESE Questions? |
06 Apr 2004 11:41:04 PM |
|
|
Pharisee Dave <nospam*-*pastordave38@yahoo.com> wrote:
RainLover
"...but now [God] commandeth all men every where to
repent:" - Acts 17:30
Yes, God did command all men everywhere to follow Him.
You may not like that, but your like, or dislike of it,
is irrelevant.
I don't mind your religious text saying that. What I mind is you, a follower of Jesus, ignoring
your own sinful life and the lives of those in your congregation in favor of pointing out the
percieved "sins" of those around you.
You don't know what my life is like.
Other Christian churches don't even see Homosexuality as a sin at all. You all read the same text,
why are YOU correct and THEY wrong?
God says it's sin.
You're not God.
Jesus said that you are NOT to deny gays the right to marry.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: Are YOU a Homophobe? If so, can you answer THESE Questions? |
07 Apr 2004 06:20:25 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 07 Apr 2004 04:41:04 GMT,
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) spake thusly:
Pharisee Dave <nospam*-*pastordave38@yahoo.com> wrote:
RainLover
"...but now [God] commandeth all men every where to
repent:" - Acts 17:30
Yes, God did command all men everywhere to follow Him.
You may not like that, but your like, or dislike of it,
is irrelevant.
I don't mind your religious text saying that. What I mind is you, a follower of Jesus, ignoring
your own sinful life and the lives of those in your congregation in favor of pointing out the
percieved "sins" of those around you.
You don't know what my life is like.
Other Christian churches don't even see Homosexuality as a sin at all. You all read the same text,
why are YOU correct and THEY wrong?
God says it's sin.
You're not God.
Does one have to be a lawyer to know that murder is
wrong? Or does the legal system expect that we can
understand this simple thing?
Jesus said that you are NOT to deny gays the right to marry.
Where? Chapter and verse, please.
--
± 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://atschool.eduweb.co.uk/sbs777/vital/evolutio.html
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
.
|
|
|
| User: "RainLover" |
|
| Title: Re: Are YOU a Homophobe? If so, can you answer THESE Questions? |
07 Apr 2004 08:15:52 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 07 Apr 2004 07:20:25 -0400, Pastor Dave <nospam*-*pastordave38@yahoo.com> wrote:
Other Christian churches don't even see Homosexuality as a sin at all. You all read the same text,
why are YOU correct and THEY wrong?
God says it's sin.
You're not God.
Does one have to be a lawyer to know that murder is
wrong? Or does the legal system expect that we can
understand this simple thing?
There's a lot of gray in between the Black and white world you seem to be living in. What about
Murder in self-defense for instance?
And Same-sex marriage is no where near the level of murder. Maybe in your mind it is though. . .
< | | | | | | | |
