| Topic: |
Religions > Bible |
| User: |
"Craig Chilton" |
| Date: |
28 Sep 2005 09:42:47 PM |
| Object: |
Re: CHRISTIAN LOVE?????? |
On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 19:17:25 -0400,
Tony Clifton <TonyCliftonReturns@webtv.net> wrote:
[Some grammatical corrections have been applied, below. No
meanings have been altered.]
People seem to say a lot about Christian love on here. Well,
the Christian's first obligation is to love God. If we love God then
we won't call him a liar.
And we won't pretend he appointed a Gestapo, either, which
would attempt to ENFORCE real and misperceived Biblical precepts
upon society.
But the PSEUDO-Christians of the RRR Cult *do*.
They are the **SELF-appointed** and unauthorized Gestapo.
Most of whom have no real lives, and a real shortage of self-esteem...
generally are fairly ignorant... and so do this in a lame (and almost
always subconscious) attempt to boost their own self-image.
Homosexuals want us to tell them your not sinning its ok.
Naw. They just want busybodies to learn to mind their own
beeswax.
Unfortunately, busybodyism (along with hatefulness, selfishness,
and mindless bigotry) is a common denominator shared by ALL of
the RRR cultists. It infects ALL of them. A person can't even BE
a lemming of the RRR Cult unless he's a busybodyish control-freak.
It's almost enough to make a person wonder if the discovery of
the existence of a Busybody Gene is right around the corner.
(Researchers might want to take a closer look at DNA samples
from RRR cultists to see if they are genetically predisposed to that
defect.)
Let me tell you all something, WE ALL HAVE EVIL LUST.
And yet you concentrate your effort on "curing" that (as though
such were even possible), with respect to *homo*sexuals, and
IGNORE the very same trait in *hetero*sexuals.
Your spelling & vocabulary lesson for today: "H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-S-Y."
Everyone is not homosexual but sex outside of marriage is a sin
also. Sometimes we ALL sin sexually in our mind or in real life. But
the Christian knows they cant say well I sinned so it must be ok.
Even if we sin we still call it sin, we must admit we sin. YES I SIN,
in case you're all wondering. But I always ask God to forgive me for
my evil desire. I get back up and start again. We must always call
sin, "sin."
You might have done VERY well by ending this post right there.
Unfortunately, though...
We as Christians are loving the homosexuals by telling them they are
wrong.
WHERE is the statement that should have *accompanied* that one?
The one that says, "We as Christians are loving the sexually-active
*hetero*sexuals by telling them they are wrong."
Or how about THIS one? "We as Christians are loving al of the
unrepentant sinful people by telling them they are wrong."
If you saw a child walking in front of a moving truck, what would
you do??? Would you say, "Hey kid, I support you in your choice to
walk in front of that truck???" No. If you truly care you would risk your
own life to save the child. You would snatch the child against its
will if you had to, in order to save it.
But of course, ONLY the *homo*sexuals are "walking out in front of
moving trucks," right?
Since you aren't giving EQUAL consideration to the *hetero*sexuals
who are doing it.
Know what? If you REALLY were a Christian, instead of an RRR
Cult lemming/clone, you'd have been talking about **PEOPLE** -- not
"homosexuals."
Spelling & vocabulary words for the rest of the week:
"T-U-N-N-E-L V-I-S-I-O-N"
"B-I G-O-T-R-Y"
"B-R-A-I-N-W-A-S-H-E-D"
Christians see homosexuals and others on their way to eternal
death.
But **especially** those homosexuals, huh? Since you singled
them out, *rather* than simply saying, "Christians see unrepentant
sinners who haven't accepted Jesus as being their way to eternal
death."
That's what ACTUAL Christians (not most of the pseudo-Christian
RRR cultists) say.
[ ... ]
Sometimes even Christians fail to love the way we should.
I suggest that you start treating all people simply as *people*, rather
than separating them into groups from which some are singled-out and
targeted for special accusations.
Jesus is the message we are only the messengers. He was
perfect we are human.
Try and keep that in mind. It is the doorway **out** of the RRR
Cult and **into** Christianity.
-- Craig Chilton <xanadu222_@mchsi.com>
.
|
|
| User: "Johnny" |
|
| Title: Re: CHRISTIAN LOVE?????? |
29 Sep 2005 12:54:12 AM |
|
|
Not killing babies..............
Christian love.
Not stealing wives.
Christian love.
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Chief Instigator" |
|
| Title: Re: CHRISTIAN LOVE?????? |
29 Sep 2005 01:22:10 AM |
|
|
"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> writes:
Not killing babies..............
Christian love.
Not stealing wives.
Christian love.
Claiming that your god's going to kill anyone who dares to disagree with you:
THAT'S a Wentzky.
--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (patrick@io.com) Houston, Texas
chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (TCI's 2005-06 Houston Aeros)
LAST GAME: Chicago 5, Houston 3 (April 26)
NEXT GAME: Friday, October 7 vs. San Antonio, 7:35
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Craig Chilton" |
|
| Title: Re: CHRISTIAN LOVE?????? |
29 Sep 2005 07:07:37 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 29 Sep 2005 01:54:12 -0400,
Bigoted John Wentzky <wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote:
Not killing babies..............
Christian love.
Not stealing wives.
Christian love.
Agreed. NONE of which has **one whit** to do with anything that I
discussed in my post. To which you supposedly responded. So I've
restored, below, so that everyone can see that for themselves.
(Try growing a brain, Wentzky. Surely you can use the two neurons
you have as seeds.)
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 19:17:25 -0400,
Tony Clifton <TonyCliftonReturns@webtv.net> wrote:
[Some grammatical corrections have been applied, below. No
meanings have been altered.]
People seem to say a lot about Christian love on here. Well,
the Christian's first obligation is to love God. If we love God then
we won't call him a liar.
And we won't pretend he appointed a Gestapo, either, which
would attempt to ENFORCE real and misperceived Biblical precepts
upon society.
But the PSEUDO-Christians of the RRR Cult *do*.
They are the **SELF-appointed** and unauthorized Gestapo.
Most of whom have no real lives, and a real shortage of self-esteem...
generally are fairly ignorant... and so do this in a lame (and almost
always subconscious) attempt to boost their own self-image.
Homosexuals want us to tell them your not sinning its ok.
Naw. They just want busybodies to learn to mind their own
beeswax.
Unfortunately, busybodyism (along with hatefulness, selfishness,
and mindless bigotry) is a common denominator shared by ALL of
the RRR cultists. It infects ALL of them. A person can't even BE
a lemming of the RRR Cult unless he's a busybodyish control-freak.
It's almost enough to make a person wonder if the discovery of
the existence of a Busybody Gene is right around the corner.
(Researchers might want to take a closer look at DNA samples
from RRR cultists to see if they are genetically predisposed to that
defect.)
Let me tell you all something, WE ALL HAVE EVIL LUST.
And yet you concentrate your effort on "curing" that (as though
such were even possible), with respect to *homo*sexuals, and
IGNORE the very same trait in *hetero*sexuals.
Your spelling & vocabulary lesson for today: "H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-S-Y."
Everyone is not homosexual but sex outside of marriage is a sin
also. Sometimes we ALL sin sexually in our mind or in real life. But
the Christian knows they cant say well I sinned so it must be ok.
Even if we sin we still call it sin, we must admit we sin. YES I SIN,
in case you're all wondering. But I always ask God to forgive me for
my evil desire. I get back up and start again. We must always call
sin, "sin."
You might have done VERY well by ending this post right there.
Unfortunately, though...
We as Christians are loving the homosexuals by telling them they are
wrong.
WHERE is the statement that should have *accompanied* that one?
The one that says, "We as Christians are loving the sexually-active
*hetero*sexuals by telling them they are wrong."
Or how about THIS one? "We as Christians are loving al of the
unrepentant sinful people by telling them they are wrong."
If you saw a child walking in front of a moving truck, what would
you do??? Would you say, "Hey kid, I support you in your choice to
walk in front of that truck???" No. If you truly care you would risk your
own life to save the child. You would snatch the child against its
will if you had to, in order to save it.
But of course, ONLY the *homo*sexuals are "walking out in front of
moving trucks," right?
Since you aren't giving EQUAL consideration to the *hetero*sexuals
who are doing it.
Know what? If you REALLY were a Christian, instead of an RRR
Cult lemming/clone, you'd have been talking about **PEOPLE** -- not
"homosexuals."
Spelling & vocabulary words for the rest of the week:
"T-U-N-N-E-L V-I-S-I-O-N"
"B-I G-O-T-R-Y"
"B-R-A-I-N-W-A-S-H-E-D"
Christians see homosexuals and others on their way to eternal
death.
But **especially** those homosexuals, huh? Since you singled
them out, *rather* than simply saying, "Christians see unrepentant
sinners who haven't accepted Jesus as being their way to eternal
death."
That's what ACTUAL Christians (not most of the pseudo-Christian
RRR cultists) say.
[ ... ]
Sometimes even Christians fail to love the way we should.
I suggest that you start treating all people simply as *people*, rather
than separating them into groups from which some are singled-out and
targeted for special accusations.
Jesus is the message we are only the messengers. He was
perfect we are human.
Try and keep that in mind. It is the doorway **out** of the RRR
Cult and **into** Christianity.
-- Craig Chilton <xanadu222_@mchsi.com>
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Craig Chilton" |
|
| Title: Re: CHRISTIAN LOVE?????? |
29 Sep 2005 08:09:32 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 29 Sep 2005 02:42:47 GMT,
Tony Clifton <TonyCliftonTerurns@webtv.ner> wrote:
Craig Chilton <xanadu222_@mchsi.com> wrote:
Tony Clifton <TonyCliftonReturns@webtv.net> wrote:
[Some grammatical corrections have been applied, below. No
meanings have been altered.]
People seem to say a lot about Christian love on here. Well,
the Christian's first obligation is to love God. If we love God then
we won't call him a liar.
And we won't pretend he appointed a Gestapo, either, which
would attempt to ENFORCE real and misperceived Biblical precepts
upon society.
But the PSEUDO-Christians of the RRR Cult *do*.
They are the **SELF-appointed** and unauthorized Gestapo.
Most of whom have no real lives, and a real shortage of self-esteem...
generally are fairly ignorant... and so do this in a lame (and almost
always subconscious) attempt to boost their own self-image.
Homosexuals want us to tell them your not sinning its ok.
Naw. They just want busybodies to learn to mind their own
beeswax.
Unfortunately, busybodyism (along with hatefulness, selfishness,
and mindless bigotry) is a common denominator shared by ALL of
the RRR cultists. It infects ALL of them. A person can't even BE
a lemming of the RRR Cult unless he's a busybodyish control-freak.
It's almost enough to make a person wonder if the discovery of
the existence of a Busybody Gene is right around the corner.
(Researchers might want to take a closer look at DNA samples
from RRR cultists to see if they are genetically predisposed to that
defect.)
Let me tell you all something, WE ALL HAVE EVIL LUST.
And yet you concentrate your effort on "curing" that (as though
such were even possible), with respect to *homo*sexuals, and
IGNORE the very same trait in *hetero*sexuals.
Your spelling & vocabulary lesson for today: "H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-S-Y."
Everyone is not homosexual but sex outside of marriage is a sin
also. Sometimes we ALL sin sexually in our mind or in real life. But
the Christian knows they cant say well I sinned so it must be ok.
Even if we sin we still call it sin, we must admit we sin. YES I SIN,
in case you're all wondering. But I always ask God to forgive me for
my evil desire. I get back up and start again. We must always call
sin, "sin."
You might have done VERY well by ending this post right there.
Unfortunately, though...
We as Christians are loving the homosexuals by telling them they are
wrong.
WHERE is the statement that should have *accompanied* that one?
The one that says, "We as Christians are loving the sexually-active
*hetero*sexuals by telling them they are wrong."
Or how about THIS one? "We as Christians are loving al of the
unrepentant sinful people by telling them they are wrong."
If you saw a child walking in front of a moving truck, what would
you do??? Would you say, "Hey kid, I support you in your choice to
walk in front of that truck???" No. If you truly care you would risk your
own life to save the child. You would snatch the child against its
will if you had to, in order to save it.
But of course, ONLY the *homo*sexuals are "walking out in front of
moving trucks," right?
Since you aren't giving EQUAL consideration to the *hetero*sexuals
who are doing it.
Know what? If you REALLY were a Christian, instead of an RRR
Cult lemming/clone, you'd have been talking about **PEOPLE** -- not
"homosexuals."
Spelling & vocabulary words for the rest of the week:
"T-U-N-N-E-L V-I-S-I-O-N"
"B-I G-O-T-R-Y"
"B-R-A-I-N-W-A-S-H-E-D"
Christians see homosexuals and others on their way to eternal
death.
But **especially** those homosexuals, huh? Since you singled
them out, *rather* than simply saying, "Christians see unrepentant
sinners who haven't accepted Jesus as being their way to eternal
death."
That's what ACTUAL Christians (not most of the pseudo-Christian
RRR cultists) say.
[ ... ]
Sometimes even Christians fail to love the way we should.
I suggest that you start treating all people simply as *people*, rather
than separating them into groups from which some are singled-out and
targeted for special accusations.
Jesus is the message we are only the messengers. He was
perfect we are human.
Try and keep that in mind. It is the doorway **out** of the RRR
Cult and **into** Christianity.
I didn't finish reading what you said so I really cant quote you.
Ah. Then going off-half-cocked is another trait that we can accur-
ately ascribe to you? Along with all the ones evidenced above, and
your gutlessly putting this up as a separate post, rather than directly
responding to the points made in the post? That's even worse than the
gutlessness of top-posting. Since with top-posting, the previous post at
least remains available BELOW that, for the readers to examine.
I will just say this, read the bible before you talk.
(I wonder why hypocrites like you are the ones who tend the MOST
to show disrespect for the Bible by not capitalizing its title? You don't
*start* your sentences with lower-case letters, do you? So I think we
can assume that this isn't due to lack of grammatical knowledge on
your part.)
My father was a minister, I attended a Christian college (in which I
took Bible courses), have given a lot of individual study to it over the
last 55 years, and I am therefore pretty well-versed in it.
God did tell all his people to speak out against sin.
Uh-huh. AFTER removing the yule log from your OWN eye.
And before you start chucking any more stones of bigotry at the gays,
you might want to decide whether or not YOU are a "sinless" person.
As for someone being ignorant, why are you on a Christian board
when your obviously gay?
ROTFL!!!! (*Now* he's **really** done it, folks! :) )
(1) There ARE Christians in these groups which are *designated*
as Christian. Along with one **humongous** quantity of
UN-Christian hateful bigots who *pretend* to be Christians,
and those include some actual, but enormously-DELUDED
actual Christians who have been CONNED by the RRR Cult's
mindless and often-UN-Biblical dogmas and propaganda.
(2) ACTUAL Christians can logically be expected to retaliate against
such lies, which have been painting *them* with the brush of
hate and bigotry that only the RRR Cult's losers deserve. (The
RRR *depends* upon being misperceived as Christian, so it
dishonestly cloaks itself in the once-respectable mantle of
Christianity. And has been dragging the image of Christianity,
as a whole, down ever since.
(3) I'm not, and never have been, gay. Any more than I was black
when I was a worker/activist in Mississippi during Civil Rights
Movement I. It has been determined that fair-minded and
egalitarian HETEROsexual defenders of the gays in their
quest for across-the-board EQUAL rights actually outnumber
the gays, themselves, by a ratio of 9 to 1.
Well anyway I wont wish you well in your sin,...
I don't wish you well in yours, either. But if there is even so much
as a microscopic SPLINTER in my eye, I won't run after you, whining
and screeching about *your* sins the way that YOUR sorry ilk does
to the groups of people they so mindlessly and hatefully target.
...but I will say God loves you to.
Which is *also* the only saving grace that YOU have going for you.
He just ask[s] you to repent. If you choose not to repent you'll
face eternal judgement.
And why do I get the impression you probably would NOT have
been saying all of this to me if you'd known beforehand that I'm
NOT gay? (See again that first spelling/vocabulary lesson I provided
you, above.)
If you are right I have nothing to worry about because I am sure
you think everyone goes to heaven.
Nope. But repentant sinners (both gay and straight; only JESUS
was perfect) who have accepted Jesus, will. Including you, should
that be the case in your OWN instance.
<redundancy-flush>
-- Craig Chilton <xanadu222_@mchsi.com>
--
RRR cult lemmings... dumber than dirt.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: CHRISTIAN LOVE?????? |
29 Sep 2005 01:36:15 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 29 Sep 2005 02:42:47 GMT, Craig Chilton
<xanadu222_@mchsi.com> spake thusly:
Christians see homosexuals and others on their way to eternal
death.
But **especially** those homosexuals, huh? Since you singled
them out, *rather* than simply saying, "Christians see unrepentant
sinners who haven't accepted Jesus as being their way to eternal
death."
Homosexuals are the ones who happen to post and say that
their sin is okay, forcing a response. You lied when you
said that they just want people to mind their own business.
If that were true, they wouldn't have "Gay Pride Parades"
and when we see an, "Adultery Pride Parade" and people in
these groups saying that their adultery is okay, we'll make
sure to respond to that also.
From now on, we will call them, "Homosexual Pride Parades".
We're taking the word "gay" back.
--
Pastor Dave Raymond
1st Century Church of Christ
Craig threatens me with a law suit:
http://Craig-threatens-PastorDave.notlong.com
I prove that Craig does indeed like young girls
and that it is not libel:
http://PastorDave-proves-his-case.notlong.com
Craig knowing he has been bagged, wooses out
of suing me:
http://Craig-wooses-out.notlong.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Craig Chilton" |
|
| Title: Re: CHRISTIAN LOVE?????? |
29 Sep 2005 07:25:42 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 29 Sep 2005 06:36:15 GMT,
PHONY-pastor Dave wrote:
Craig Chilton <xanadu222_@mchsi.com> wrote:
Christians see homosexuals and others on their way to eternal
death.
But **especially** those homosexuals, huh? Since you singled
them out, *rather* than simply saying, "Christians see unrepentant
sinners who haven't accepted Jesus as being their way to eternal
death."
Homosexuals are the ones who happen to post and say that
their [behavior/lifestyle/orientation]* is okay, forcing a response.
* Take your pick of any of those three, to be fair. Any
"sins" they may commit are NO worse than all that LYING
you constantly engage in, hypocrite.
CLUE for the Clueless: People don't DEFEND themselves unless
they have been **attacked** FIRST. And in this case, they had
been attacked by hateful, bigoted, and bone-IGNORANT losers.
You lied...
BZZZZzzzzttt!! I never lie in ANY of my posts, liar.
(I guess that shows the inability of at least ONE habitual liar --
you -- to recognize truth when you see it.)
... when you said that they just want people to mind their own
business. If that were true, they wouldn't have "Gay Pride Parades"...
Those are entirely in *reaction* to the bigotry that's been directed
toward them. Just as black rallies and marches during Civil Rights I
was a reaction to the bigotry to which THEY had been directed. Had
such bigotry never existed, the parades (by both blacks and gays
never would have happened. Any more than we see "Lefty Pride
Parades" or "Blue-Eyes Pride Parades" on the part of left-handers and
people having blue eyes.
You know something? It's hard to even IMAGINE that any person
could **possibly** be as abjectly-IGNORANT as *you* constantly prove
yourself to be.
...and when we see an, "Adultery Pride Parade" and people in
these groups saying that their adultery is okay, we'll make
sure to respond to that also.
I'm sure that you and your sociopathic ilk WOULD do that -- busybodyish
and control-freakish loser with no life. Rather than have
the MINIMAL amount of intelligence that it would take to mind your
own business and recognize that that would be NO one else's business
but those directly involved. Because that, TOO, could only happen if
mindless bigots like *you* were to **attack** them FIRST.
<remaining IDIOCY flushed>
<previous post -- most of which you couldn't even BEGIN to
respond to with any intelligence (any more than you were
able to, to even one small paragraph of it -- restored. So that
everyone can clearly see all the points that you didn't have
the guts (or the intelligence) to tackle.> ---
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 19:17:25 -0400,
Tony Clifton <TonyCliftonReturns@webtv.net> wrote:
[Some grammatical corrections have been applied, below. No
meanings have been altered.]
People seem to say a lot about Christian love on here. Well,
the Christian's first obligation is to love God. If we love God then
we won't call him a liar.
And we won't pretend he appointed a Gestapo, either, which
would attempt to ENFORCE real and misperceived Biblical precepts
upon society.
But the PSEUDO-Christians of the RRR Cult *do*.
They are the **SELF-appointed** and unauthorized Gestapo.
Most of whom have no real lives, and a real shortage of self-esteem...
generally are fairly ignorant... and so do this in a lame (and almost
always subconscious) attempt to boost their own self-image.
Homosexuals want us to tell them your not sinning its ok.
Naw. They just want busybodies to learn to mind their own
beeswax.
Unfortunately, busybodyism (along with hatefulness, selfishness,
and mindless bigotry) is a common denominator shared by ALL of
the RRR cultists. It infects ALL of them. A person can't even BE
a lemming of the RRR Cult unless he's a busybodyish control-freak.
It's almost enough to make a person wonder if the discovery of
the existence of a Busybody Gene is right around the corner.
(Researchers might want to take a closer look at DNA samples
from RRR cultists to see if they are genetically predisposed to that
defect.)
Let me tell you all something, WE ALL HAVE EVIL LUST.
And yet you concentrate your effort on "curing" that (as though
such were even possible), with respect to *homo*sexuals, and
IGNORE the very same trait in *hetero*sexuals.
Your spelling & vocabulary lesson for today: "H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-S-Y."
Everyone is not homosexual but sex outside of marriage is a sin
also. Sometimes we ALL sin sexually in our mind or in real life. But
the Christian knows they cant say well I sinned so it must be ok.
Even if we sin we still call it sin, we must admit we sin. YES I SIN,
in case you're all wondering. But I always ask God to forgive me for
my evil desire. I get back up and start again. We must always call
sin, "sin."
You might have done VERY well by ending this post right there.
Unfortunately, though...
We as Christians are loving the homosexuals by telling them they are
wrong.
WHERE is the statement that should have *accompanied* that one?
The one that says, "We as Christians are loving the sexually-active
*hetero*sexuals by telling them they are wrong."
Or how about THIS one? "We as Christians are loving al of the
unrepentant sinful people by telling them they are wrong."
If you saw a child walking in front of a moving truck, what would
you do??? Would you say, "Hey kid, I support you in your choice to
walk in front of that truck???" No. If you truly care you would risk your
own life to save the child. You would snatch the child against its
will if you had to, in order to save it.
But of course, ONLY the *homo*sexuals are "walking out in front of
moving trucks," right?
Since you aren't giving EQUAL consideration to the *hetero*sexuals
who are doing it.
Know what? If you REALLY were a Christian, instead of an RRR
Cult lemming/clone, you'd have been talking about **PEOPLE** -- not
"homosexuals."
Spelling & vocabulary words for the rest of the week:
"T-U-N-N-E-L V-I-S-I-O-N"
"B-I G-O-T-R-Y"
"B-R-A-I-N-W-A-S-H-E-D"
Christians see homosexuals and others on their way to eternal
death.
But **especially** those homosexuals, huh? Since you singled
them out, *rather* than simply saying, "Christians see unrepentant
sinners who haven't accepted Jesus as being their way to eternal
death."
That's what ACTUAL Christians (not most of the pseudo-Christian
RRR cultists) say.
[ ... ]
Sometimes even Christians fail to love the way we should.
I suggest that you start treating all people simply as *people*, rather
than separating them into groups from which some are singled-out and
targeted for special accusations.
Jesus is the message we are only the messengers. He was
perfect we are human.
Try and keep that in mind. It is the doorway **out** of the RRR
Cult and **into** Christianity.
-- Craig Chilton <xanadu222_@mchsi.com>
.
|
|
|
| User: "someone" |
|
| Title: Re: CHRISTIAN LOVE?????? |
29 Sep 2005 07:59:12 AM |
|
|
Craig Chilton wrote:
On Thu, 29 Sep 2005 06:36:15 GMT,
PHONY-pastor Dave wrote:
Craig Chilton <xanadu222_@mchsi.com> wrote:
Christians see homosexuals and others on their way to eternal
death.
But **especially** those homosexuals, huh? Since you singled
them out, *rather* than simply saying, "Christians see unrepentant
sinners who haven't accepted Jesus as being their way to eternal
death."
Homosexuals are the ones who happen to post and say that
their [behavior/lifestyle/orientation]* is okay, forcing a response.
* Take your pick of any of those three, to be fair. Any
"sins" they may commit are NO worse than all that LYING
you constantly engage in, hypocrite.
So, you admit they commit sins yet pounce on Pastor Dave for calling it
sin.
CLUE for the Clueless: People don't DEFEND themselves unless
they have been **attacked** FIRST. And in this case, they had
been attacked by hateful, bigoted, and bone-IGNORANT losers.
You lied...
BZZZZzzzzttt!! I never lie in ANY of my posts, liar.
Sure you do. You lied above when you changed the words that Pastor
Dave used. True, you mark it so that people know you are putting words
in the other person's mouth. But it is a dishonest tactic used by
someone who hates the idea of free speech. You lied when you said you
were going to take Pastor Dave to court. And you lie when you call
abortion a harmless remedy.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Craig Chilton" |
|
| Title: Re: CHRISTIAN LOVE?????? |
29 Sep 2005 09:33:45 AM |
|
|
On 29 Sep 2005 05:59:12 -0700,
"someone" cowardly-anonymous wrote:
Craig Chilton <xanadu222_@mchsi.com> wrote:
PHONY-pastor Dave wrote:
Craig Chilton <xanadu222_@mchsi.com> wrote:
Christians see homosexuals and others on their way to eternal
death.
But **especially** those homosexuals, huh? Since you singled
them out, *rather* than simply saying, "Christians see unrepentant
sinners who haven't accepted Jesus as being their way to eternal
death."
Homosexuals are the ones who happen to post and say that
their [behavior/lifestyle/orientation]* is okay, forcing a response.
* Take your pick of any of those three, to be fair. Any
"sins" they may commit are NO worse than all that LYING
you constantly engage in, hypocrite.
So, you admit they commit sins yet pounce on Pastor Dave for
calling it sin.
Look -- ignorant LOON! Do you figure that **you** are sinless? Guess
what? You're not. And neither is ANYone else. And for any person to
single out any group of people and start shouting "Sinners!" at them
specifically is the EPITOME of stupidity, ignorance, and hypocrisy.
CLUE for the Clueless: People don't DEFEND themselves unless
they have been **attacked** FIRST. And in this case, they had
been attacked by hateful, bigoted, and bone-IGNORANT losers.
You lied...
BZZZZzzzzttt!! I never lie in ANY of my posts, liar.
(I guess that shows the inability of at least ONE habitual liar --
you -- to recognize truth when you see it.)
Sure you do. You lied above when you changed the words that
Pastor Dave used.
Wrong. In BRACKETS, and thus perfectly legitimately, I substituted
**honest** and **accurate** verbiage for DIShonest and INaccurate
wording, without changing the meanings.
True, you mark it so that people know you are putting words
in the other person's mouth.
See above.
But it is a dishonest tactic used by someone who hates the idea
of free speech.
Bullcrap!! It is an act of restoring HONESTY to that which otherwise
would comprise lies and distortions.
You lied when you said you were going to take Pastor Dave to court.
Wrong again. WHEN I said that, it still was my *intention* to sue him
for his mindless and hateful libel.
And you lie when you call abortion a harmless remedy.
Wrong again. That is ALL that abortion is. Nothing more and nothing
less. An enormously-BENEFICIAL remedy. And *you* and your ilk lie
consistently and constantly when you denigrate it for NO valid reason.
You're batting ZERO again today, anonymous loser.
Situation normal.
(Tell me -- do you ENJOY making so total a fool of yourself? No
wonder you cower cravenly in anonymity. People who support
SHAMEFUL agendas as you do, usually do. And many of us who
are egalitarian DEFENDERS of human rights and civil liberties have
no NEED to... so we don't.)
-- Craig Chilton <xanadu222_@mchsi.com>
--
RRR cult lemmings... dumber than dirt.
.
|
|
|
| User: "someone" |
|
| Title: Re: CHRISTIAN LOVE?????? |
29 Sep 2005 10:58:49 PM |
|
|
Craig Chilton wrote:
On 29 Sep 2005 05:59:12 -0700,
"someone" cowardly-anonymous wrote:
Craig Chilton <xanadu222_@mchsi.com> wrote:
PHONY-pastor Dave wrote:
Craig Chilton <xanadu222_@mchsi.com> wrote:
Christians see homosexuals and others on their way to eternal
death.
But **especially** those homosexuals, huh? Since you singled
them out, *rather* than simply saying, "Christians see unrepentant
sinners who haven't accepted Jesus as being their way to eternal
death."
Homosexuals are the ones who happen to post and say that
their [behavior/lifestyle/orientation]* is okay, forcing a response.
* Take your pick of any of those three, to be fair. Any
"sins" they may commit are NO worse than all that LYING
you constantly engage in, hypocrite.
So, you admit they commit sins yet pounce on Pastor Dave for
calling it sin.
Look -- ignorant LOON! Do you figure that **you** are sinless?
No. But that wasn't the question.
what? You're not. And neither is ANYone else. And for any person to
single out any group of people and start shouting "Sinners!" at them
specifically is the EPITOME of stupidity, ignorance, and hypocrisy.
No it isn't. It's simply recognizing that a sin is a sin. And now we
have you acknowledging that homosexuality is a sin. Thank you.
CLUE for the Clueless: People don't DEFEND themselves unless
they have been **attacked** FIRST. And in this case, they had
been attacked by hateful, bigoted, and bone-IGNORANT losers.
You lied...
BZZZZzzzzttt!! I never lie in ANY of my posts, liar.
(I guess that shows the inability of at least ONE habitual liar --
you -- to recognize truth when you see it.)
Sure you do. You lied above when you changed the words that
Pastor Dave used.
[Yes I did. You see, I'm a lot closer to being a fascist than are those I >accuse of being fascist. I hate free speech when said speech is not in >agreement with me so I change the words to suit my own agenda.]
Well, at least you admit it.
True, you mark it so that people know you are putting words
in the other person's mouth.
[Yes, that's how I try to hide my own hypocrisy.]
But it is a dishonest tactic used by someone who hates the idea
of free speech.
[Well, I was hoping no one would call me on it.]
You lied when you said you were going to take Pastor Dave to court.
Wrong again. WHEN I said that, it still was my *intention* to sue him
for his mindless and hateful libel.
It was an empty and ridiculous attempt to get him to appease you and
you know it. Even you couldn't be so stupid as to believe you had a
legitimate cause of action.
And you lie when you call abortion a harmless remedy.
Wrong again.
Is that why women die or become infertile after abortions?
(Tell me -- do you ENJOY making so total a fool of yourself?
Clearly, not as much as you do. That law suit threat was a classic.
I've never seen anyone back pedal so fast. You're a hoot.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Craig Chilton" |
|
| Title: Re: CHRISTIAN LOVE?????? |
29 Sep 2005 11:57:32 PM |
|
|
On 29 Sep 2005 20:58:49 -0700,
"someone" cowardly-anonymous wrote:
Craig Chilton <xanadu222_@mchsi.com> wrote:
"someone" cowardly-anonymous wrote:
Craig Chilton <xanadu222_@mchsi.com> wrote:
PHONY-pastor Dave wrote:
Craig Chilton <xanadu222_@mchsi.com> wrote:
Christians see homosexuals and others on their way to eternal
death.
But **especially** those homosexuals, huh? Since you singled
them out, *rather* than simply saying, "Christians see unrepentant
sinners who haven't accepted Jesus as being their way to eternal
death."
Homosexuals are the ones who happen to post and say that
their [behavior/lifestyle/orientation]* is okay, forcing a response.
* Take your pick of any of those three, to be fair. Any
"sins" they may commit are NO worse than all that LYING
you constantly engage in, hypocrite.
So, you admit they commit sins yet pounce on Pastor Dave for
calling it sin.
Look -- ignorant LOON! Do you figure that **you** are sinless?
No. But that wasn't the question.
No. That's what you "conveniently" and dishonestly chose
to overlook.
Guess what? You're not. And neither is ANYone else. And for
any person to single out any group of people and start shouting
"Sinners!" at them specifically is the EPITOME of stupidity, ignorance,
and hypocrisy.
No it isn't. It's simply recognizing that a sin is a sin. And now we
have you acknowledging that homosexuality is a sin. Thank you.
Wrong again! I did no such thing as acknowledge that homosexuality
is a sin, and therefore there is NOTHING for you, as a homophobic *****,
to thank me for. NO one is sinless, and that means that homosexuals are
included in that pool (which comprises ALL of humanity) that is sinful.
And their being homosexual MAY or MAY NOT be associated with that
sinfulness.
(You aren't especially bright, are you. No surprise. Almost ALL
bigots are dimwits, or they couldn't BE gigots.)
CLUE for the Clueless: People don't DEFEND themselves unless
they have been **attacked** FIRST. And in this case, they had
been attacked by hateful, bigoted, and bone-IGNORANT losers.
You lied...
BZZZZzzzzttt!! I never lie in ANY of my posts, liar.
(I guess that shows the inability of at least ONE habitual liar --
you -- to recognize truth when you see it.)
Sure you do. You lied above when you changed the words that
Pastor Dave used.
#### FORGERY that was the **opposite** of what I said, flushed. ####
You really are a STUPID one. Incredibly stupid!!
<original comment restored> ---
Wrong. In BRACKETS, and thus perfectly legitimately, I substituted
**honest** and **accurate** verbiage for DIShonest and INaccurate
wording, without changing the meanings.
What part of "without changing the meanings" were you too RETARDED
to comprehend?
[[[ There's an important example in what you just saw here, Readers.
The sociopathic bigots of the RRR Cult have NO facts to draw
upon in order to support and back up their bigoted agendas. So
the sort of DISHONESTY you just witnessed is one of the sleazy
tactics that they desperately employ in lieu of the supporting facts
that they would dearly LOVE to be able to produce -- but which
don't even EXIST. (Interestingly, they are such ignorant dolts
that they don't even seem to realize how transparent and lame
it is to do that... and that all they are doing is making a further
(and very welcome, to *sensible* people) contribution to the
laughingstock status of both them and their moronic and hateful
agendas. ]]]
True, you mark it so that people know you are putting words
in the other person's mouth.
#### FORGERY flush. SAME reason as before: abject dishonesty. ####
<original text restored. As has been done from here on.> ---
See above.
But it is a dishonest tactic used by someone who hates the idea
of free speech.
Bullcrap!! It is an act of restoring HONESTY to that which otherwise
would comprise lies and distortions.
You lied when you said you were going to take Pastor Dave to court.
Wrong again. WHEN I said that, it still was my *intention* to sue him
for his mindless and hateful libel.
It was an empty and ridiculous attempt to get him to appease you and
you know it.
Wrong again. Had i not concluded that he'd probably get off as a result
of being adjudged irrational, I **would** most assuredly have sued him. So
stop making a lying ***** of yourself.
Even you couldn't be so stupid as to believe you had a legitimate
cause of action.
Had he been a rational person, it would have been an open-and-shut
case in my favor, and everyone in here having any intelligence and
common sense knows it. (I guess that lets you out.)
And you lie when you call abortion a harmless remedy.
Wrong again. That is ALL that abortion is. Nothing more and nothing
less. An enormously-BENEFICIAL remedy. And *you* and your ilk lie
consistently and constantly when you denigrate it for NO valid reason.
You're batting ZERO again today, anonymous loser.
Situation normal.
Is that why women die or become infertile after abortions?
MORE of them die from childbirth. Thus, if they were FORCED to
gestate to term against their will, 9 out of 10 of those deaths could be
laid at the feet of the hateful losers who CAUSED it to be forced upon
them.
(Tell me -- do you ENJOY making so total a fool of yourself?
No wonder you cower cravenly in anonymity. People who support
SHAMEFUL agendas as you do, usually do. And many of us who
are egalitarian DEFENDERS of human rights and civil liberties have
no NEED to... so we don't.)
-- Craig Chilton <xanadu222_@mchsi.com>
--
RRR cult lemmings... dumber than dirt.
.
|
|
|
| User: "someone" |
|
| Title: Re: CHRISTIAN LOVE?????? |
30 Sep 2005 08:30:27 AM |
|
|
Craig Chilton wrote:
On 29 Sep 2005 20:58:49 -0700,
"someone" cowardly-anonymous wrote:
Craig Chilton <xanadu222_@mchsi.com> wrote:
"someone" cowardly-anonymous wrote:
Craig Chilton <xanadu222_@mchsi.com> wrote:
PHONY-pastor Dave wrote:
Craig Chilton <xanadu222_@mchsi.com> wrote:
Christians see homosexuals and others on their way to eternal
death.
But **especially** those homosexuals, huh? Since you singled
them out, *rather* than simply saying, "Christians see unrepentant
sinners who haven't accepted Jesus as being their way to eternal
death."
Homosexuals are the ones who happen to post and say that
their [behavior/lifestyle/orientation]* is okay, forcing a response.
* Take your pick of any of those three, to be fair. Any
"sins" they may commit are NO worse than all that LYING
you constantly engage in, hypocrite.
So, you admit they commit sins yet pounce on Pastor Dave for
calling it sin.
Look -- ignorant LOON! Do you figure that **you** are sinless?
No. But that wasn't the question.
No. That's what you "conveniently" and dishonestly chose
to overlook.
I'm not overlooking it. It's simply not the question. Try to stay on
topic.
Guess what? You're not. And neither is ANYone else. And for
any person to single out any group of people and start shouting
"Sinners!" at them specifically is the EPITOME of stupidity, ignorance,
and hypocrisy.
No it isn't. It's simply recognizing that a sin is a sin. And now we
have you acknowledging that homosexuality is a sin. Thank you.
Wrong again! I did no such thing as acknowledge that homosexuality
is a sin,
Well, yes, you did. You may not have intended to, but if you read your
statements in context, you, in essence said, "you're a sinner too so
shut up." The "too" implies clearly that you view practicing
homosexuality to be a sin.
Sure you do. You lied above when you changed the words that
Pastor Dave used.
#### FORGERY that was the **opposite** of what I said, flushed. ####
Oh, when others do it, it's forgery. When you do it, it's honest. I
see. The height of hypocrisy.
What part of "without changing the meanings" were you too RETARDED
to comprehend?
You see, I didn't change the meaning any more than you change the
meaning when you insert what you believe the other person has actually
said. The sad thing is, all you do is reveal your disdain for free
speech and the the free exchange of ideas.
it is to do that... and that all they are doing is making a further
(and very welcome, to *sensible* people) contribution to the
laughingstock status of both them and their moronic and hateful
agendas.
My dear man, after your empty threat to take Pastor Dave to court, you
shouldn't be talking about laughingstock status. That was truly a
moronic moment for you.
You lied when you said you were going to take Pastor Dave to court.
Wrong again. WHEN I said that, it still was my *intention* to sue him
for his mindless and hateful libel.
It was an empty and ridiculous attempt to get him to appease you and
you know it.
Wrong again. Had i not concluded that he'd probably get off as a result
of being adjudged irrational,
Irrationality is not a defense to libel. And you can still take him to
small claims court. In Florida, all you have to do to serve is mail
the summons registered return receipt requested. I'm sure he'll accept
it.
I **would** most assuredly have sued him.
You came to that conclusion after you made the empty threat? Now all
you do is reveal that you shoot from the hip first and think later.
So
stop making a lying ***** of yourself.
Oh, no one here can do that as well as you have.
Even you couldn't be so stupid as to believe you had a legitimate
cause of action.
Had he been a rational person, it would have been an open-and-shut
case in my favor, and everyone in here having any intelligence and
common sense knows it. (I guess that lets you out.)
You're going to have to come up with something better than that. That
dog don't hunt. As a matter of fact, it would be far easier for you to
prove yourself incompetent to stand trial based on your irrational
tirades. Now you're promoting yourself to learned psychologist and
judging, based on a few usenet posts, whether someone else is rational
enough to go through with a civil action? You are funny. $5,000 is
the limit in small claims in Florida. It's easy to serve the papers.
For very little money, you could give it a go and not look like such a
complete idiot. Why not go for it.
And you lie when you call abortion a harmless remedy.
Wrong again. That is ALL that abortion is. Nothing more and nothing
less. An enormously-BENEFICIAL remedy. And *you* and your ilk lie
consistently and constantly when you denigrate it for NO valid reason.
You're batting ZERO again today, anonymous loser.
Situation normal.
Is that why women die or become infertile after abortions?
MORE of them die from childbirth.
Yes, but I didn't say childbirth is harmless, now, did I.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Craig Chilton" |
|
| Title: Re: CHRISTIAN LOVE?????? |
30 Sep 2005 07:43:18 PM |
|
|
On 30 Sep 2005 06:30:27 -0700,
"someone" <someone462000@yahoo.com> wrote:
Craig Chilton <xanadu222_@mchsi.com> wrote:
"someone" cowardly-anonymous wrote:
Craig Chilton <xanadu222_@mchsi.com> wrote:
"someone" cowardly-anonymous wrote:
Craig Chilton <xanadu222_@mchsi.com> wrote:
PHONY-pastor Dave wrote:
Craig Chilton <xanadu222_@mchsi.com> wrote:
Christians see homosexuals and others on their way to eternal
death.
But **especially** those homosexuals, huh? Since you singled
them out, *rather* than simply saying, "Christians see unrepentant
sinners who haven't accepted Jesus as being their way to eternal
death."
Homosexuals are the ones who happen to post and say that
their [behavior/lifestyle/orientation]* is okay, forcing a response.
* Take your pick of any of those three, to be fair. Any
"sins" they may commit are NO worse than all that LYING
you constantly engage in, hypocrite.
So, you admit they commit sins yet pounce on Pastor Dave for
calling it sin.
Look -- ignorant LOON! Do you figure that **you** are sinless?
No. But that wasn't the question.
No. That's what you "conveniently" and dishonestly chose
to overlook.
I'm not overlooking it. It's simply not the question. Try to stay on
topic.
I am and you're not.
Guess what? You're not. And neither is ANYone else. And for
any person to single out any group of people and start shouting
"Sinners!" at them specifically is the EPITOME of stupidity, ignorance,
and hypocrisy.
No it isn't. It's simply recognizing that a sin is a sin. And now we
have you acknowledging that homosexuality is a sin. Thank you.
Wrong again! I did no such thing as acknowledge that homosexuality
is a sin,
Well, yes, you did. You may not have intended to, but if you read your
statements in context, you, in essence said, "you're a sinner too so
shut up." The "too" implies clearly that you view practicing homosexuality
to be a sin.
(1) Wrong. Since i personally have no notion that it is, I certainly
would NOT have implied it. Not even unintentionally.
(2) I wonder why you are so obviously-DESPERATE to put other
words in people's mouths?
Sure you do. You lied above when you changed the words that
Pastor Dave used.
#### FORGERY that was the **opposite** of what I said, flushed. ####
Oh, when others do it, it's forgery. When you do it, it's honest. I
see. The height of hypocrisy.
Damn, but you are a DUMB one!!
When i substitute *honest* and *neutral* terminology for words
that are lies and/or are propagandistic, i do NOT change the original
meaning of the sentence. When moronic and dishonest loons like
PHONY-pastor Dave changes words -- even though within brackets --
to state the exact OPPOSITE... that **is** forgery.
Did you get beyond preschool in your education. Or are you simply
that **profoundly** dishonest and lacking in common sense?
What part of "without changing the meanings" were you too
RETARDED to comprehend?
You see, I didn't change the meaning any more than you change the
meaning when you insert what you believe the other person has actually
said. The sad thing is, all you do is reveal your disdain for free
speech and the the free exchange of ideas.
Yep. DUMB and DUMBER!
<Already-covered material flushed. Over and done with.>
-- Craig Chilton <xanadu222_@mchsi.com>
.
|
|
|
| User: "someone" |
|
| Title: Re: CHRISTIAN LOVE?????? |
01 Oct 2005 08:11:12 AM |
|
|
Craig Chilton wrote:
Guess what? You're not. And neither is ANYone else. And for
any person to single out any group of people and start shouting
"Sinners!" at them specifically is the EPITOME of stupidity, ignorance,
and hypocrisy.
No it isn't. It's simply recognizing that a sin is a sin. And now we
have you acknowledging that homosexuality is a sin. Thank you.
Wrong again! I did no such thing as acknowledge that homosexuality
is a sin,
Well, yes, you did. You may not have intended to, but if you read your
statements in context, you, in essence said, "you're a sinner too so
shut up." The "too" implies clearly that you view practicing homosexuality
to be a sin.
(1) Wrong. Since i personally have no notion that it is, I certainly
would NOT have implied it. Not even unintentionally.
(2) I wonder why you are so obviously-DESPERATE to put other
words in people's mouths?
I'm desperate? I don't change words of others in posts. I'm not
afraid to let you or anyone else speak as they see fit. You did, in
essense, say, that I am a sinner and, as such, have no right to point
the finger at homosexual sin. Of course, not only are you implying
that homosexuality is a sin, but you are incorrect about what the Bible
has to say on that topic. If you were, pastors would never be able to
preach on sin because they are not sinless.
Sure you do. You lied above when you changed the words that
Pastor Dave used.
#### FORGERY that was the **opposite** of what I said, flushed. ####
Oh, when others do it, it's forgery. When you do it, it's honest. I
see. The height of hypocrisy.
Damn, but you are a DUMB one!!
When i substitute *honest* and *neutral* terminology for words
that are lies and/or are propagandistic, i do NOT change the original
meaning of the sentence.
You change the meaning the author intended. That's not only dishonest,
but it demonstrates your own fear and hate of the free exchange of
ideas. You further demonstrated my point when you "flushed" my
substitutions of what I determine to be *honest* substitutions for your
words. Voltaire you ain't.
What part of "without changing the meanings" were you too
RETARDED to comprehend?
You see, I didn't change the meaning any more than you change the
meaning when you insert what you believe the other person has actually
said. The sad thing is, all you do is reveal your disdain for free
speech and the the free exchange of ideas.
Yep.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Craig Chilton" |
|
| Title: Re: CHRISTIAN LOVE?????? |
01 Oct 2005 11:59:19 AM |
|
|
On 1 Oct 2005 06:11:12 -0700,
"someone" cowardly-anonymous wrote:
Craig Chilton <xanadu222_@mchsi.com> wrote:
"someone" cowarly-anonymous wrote:
Craig Chilton <xanadu222_@mchsi.com> wrote:
"someone" cowarly-anonymous wrote:
Craig Chilton <xanadu222_@mchsi.com> wrote:
Guess what? You're not. And neither is ANYone else. And for
any person to single out any group of people and start shouting
"Sinners!" at them specifically is the EPITOME of stupidity, ignorance,
and hypocrisy.
No it isn't. It's simply recognizing that a sin is a sin. And now we
have you acknowledging that homosexuality is a sin. Thank you.
Wrong again! I did no such thing as acknowledge that homosexuality
is a sin, and therefore there is NOTHING for you, as a homophobic *****,
to thank me for. NO one is sinless, and that means that homosexuals are
included in that pool (which comprises ALL of humanity) that is sinful.
And their being homosexual MAY or MAY NOT be associated with that
sinfulness.
(You aren't especially bright, are you. No surprise. Almost ALL
bigots are dimwits, or they couldn't BE gigots.)
Well, yes, you did. You may not have intended to, but if you read your
statements in context, you, in essence said, "you're a sinner too so
shut up." The "too" implies clearly that you view practicing homosexuality
to be a sin.
(1) Wrong. Since I personally have no notion that it is, I certainly
would NOT have implied it. Not even unintentionally.
(2) I wonder why you are so obviously-DESPERATE to put other
words in people's mouths?
I'm desperate? I don't change words of others in posts. I'm not
afraid to let you or anyone else speak as they see fit.
Neither am I. Everyone in here is free to POLLUTE their **own**
posts with lies, propaganda, deceptions, and abject stupidity, to
their heart's content. (And, of course, thereby make total public
fools of themselves, and add to everyone's continued recognition
that they are the laughingstocks of Usenet.)
And then when people *respond* to posts of theirs which contain
such mindless inanities, falsehoods, expressions of bigotry, deceptions,
lies, and propaganda -- then said responders have JUST as much
right to make HONEST and NEUTRAL substitutions for those words/
expressions of ignorance and hate, when including the previous poster's
comments. As long as the substitutions are enclosed in brackets, so
that everyone will know that the substitutions have been honestly
provided by a different person. AND -- as long as the fundamental
meaning of the original writing is not twisted to have a significantly
different meaning than it originally had.
In short -- NO honest and fair-minded person is EVER obliged or
required to REPEAT the abject stupidity and/or hatefulness of a
clueless/hateful louse/bigot in HIS/HER posts.
Think you've GOT that this time? Or will you choose to REMAIN
dumber than dirt, as is so typical of RRR cult lemmings?
You did, in essense, say, that I am a sinner...
"In essence" my foot! I made it very CLEAR that **everyone** is
a sinner. Since Jesus was the ONLY sinless person who ever live, it
couldn't be otherwise. It had nothing at all to do with homosexuality,
which actually may not, in and of itself, be at ALL sinful. The Ten
Commandments don't mention it, and neither did Jesus. leaving us with
nothing but the opinion of a disciple to rely on. And for all we know, he
may simply have been a homophobic bigot.
and, as such, have no right to point the finger at homosexual sin. Of
course, not only are you implying that homosexuality is a sin, but you
are incorrect about what the Bible has to say on that topic.
See above.
If you were, pastors would never be able to preach on sin because
they are not sinless.
If the pastors preached only with respect to things that God and Jesus
clearly delineated as being sinful... *while* ACKNOWLEDGING their *own*
(the preachers') sinfulness, so as not to be hypocrites... that would be
no problem.
Sure you do. You lied above when you changed the words that
Pastor Dave used.
#### FORGERY that was the **opposite**
of what I said, flushed. ####
Oh, when others do it, it's forgery. When you do it, it's honest. I
see. The height of hypocrisy.
Damn, but you are a DUMB one!!
When i substitute *honest* and *neutral* terminology for words
that are lies and/or are propagandistic, i do NOT change the original
meaning of the sentence.
You change the meaning the author intended.
Yeah? PROVE it. (And if in the course of doing that, you prove that
the author was a bigot, then we come back to the responder's NOT being
obliged to REPEAT the bigotry of others in his/her posts.
That's not only dishonest,...
It is NOT dishonest to assiduously NOT **repeat** the dishonest of
others.
...but it demonstrates your own fear and hate of the free exchange of
ideas. You further demonstrated my point when you "flushed" my
substitutions of what I determine to be *honest* substitutions for your
words. Voltaire you ain't.
Whine, whine, whine!! If you ever have a valid point to make, let us
all know. So far, you aren't even close.
What part of "without changing the meanings" were you too
RETARDED to comprehend?
You see, I didn't change the meaning any more than you change the
meaning when you insert what you believe the other person has actually
said. The sad thing is, all you do is reveal your disdain for free
speech and the the free exchange of ideas.
Yep. DUMB and DUMBER!
Everyone in here is free to POLLUTE their **own** posts with
lies, propaganda, deceptions, and abject stupidity, to their hearts'
content. (And, of course, thereby make total public fools of them-
selves, and add to everyone's continued recognition that they are
the laughingstocks of Usenet.)
And then when people *respond* to posts of theirs which contain
such mindless inanities, falsehoods, expressions of bigotry, deceptions,
lies, and propaganda -- then said responders have JUST as much
right to make HONEST and NEUTRAL substitutions for those words/
expressions of ignorance and hate, when including the previous poster's
comments. As long as the substitutions are enclosed in brackets, so
that everyone will know that the substitutions have been honestly
provided by a different person. AND -- as long as the fundamental
meaning of the original writing is not twisted to have a significantly
different meaning than it originally had.
In short -- NO honest and fair-minded person is EVER obliged or
required to REPEAT the abject stupidity and/or hatefulness of a
clueless/hateful louse/bigot in HIS/HER posts.
-- Craig Chilton <xanadu222_@mchsi.com>
--
RRR cult lemmings... dumber than dirt.
.
|
|
|
| User: "someone" |
|
| Title: Re: CHRISTIAN LOVE?????? |
01 Oct 2005 06:37:43 PM |
|
|
Craig Chilton wrote:
I'm desperate? I don't change words of others in posts. I'm not
afraid to let you or anyone else speak as they see fit.
Neither am I.
Sure you are. And please don't ever change. Your disdain for free
speech highlights how empty your arguments really are.
And then when people *respond* to posts of theirs which contain
such mindless inanities, falsehoods, expressions of bigotry, deceptions,
lies, and propaganda -- then said responders have JUST as much
right to make HONEST and NEUTRAL substitutions for those words/
Not if they want reputations as honest people.
You did, in essense, say, that I am a sinner...
"In essence" my foot! I made it very CLEAR that **everyone** is
a sinner.
That's nice but you snipped my post to the point of losing the context.
Another favorite tactic of those who have agendas for which there is
no true defense.
If you were, pastors would never be able to preach on sin because
they are not sinless.
If the pastors preached only with respect to things that God and Jesus
clearly delineated as being sinful... *while* ACKNOWLEDGING their *own*
(the preachers') sinfulness, so as not to be hypocrites... that would be
no problem.
Gee, that's exactly the type of thing to which you do object here.
Damn, but you are a DUMB one!!
When i substitute *honest* and *neutral* terminology for words
that are lies and/or are propagandistic, i do NOT change the original
meaning of the sentence.
You change the meaning the author intended.
Yeah? PROVE it.
Don't need to. It speaks for itself. If the author had intended to
use the words you substitute, he would have.
That's not only dishonest,...
It is NOT dishonest to assiduously NOT **repeat** the dishonest of
others.
It's dishonest not to let the other person's words stand as they were
written. You can mark them in brackets all you want. But please
continue because it simply illustrates more clearly what a coward you
truly are. That empty threat to sue Pastor Dave was another great
illustration. Why don't you follow through and take him to small
claims court since that is easy peasy to do in the state of Florida.
Because you're a coward without a case.
...but it demonstrates your own fear and hate of the free exchange of
ideas. You further demonstrated my point when you "flushed" my
substitutions of what I determine to be *honest* substitutions for your
words. Voltaire you ain't.
Whine, whine, whine!!
I'm not whining. I want you to continue to do just what you do. No
complaints here.
You see, I didn't change the meaning any more than you change the
meaning when you insert what you believe the other person has actually
said. The sad thing is, all you do is reveal your disdain for free
speech and the the free exchange of ideas.
Yep. DUMB and DUMBER!
Everyone in here is free to POLLUTE their **own** posts with
lies, propaganda, deceptions, and abject stupidity,
Honey, if we removed all the lies, propaganda, deceptions and abject
stupidity from your posts, there wouldn't be anything left to put in
brackets.
to their hearts'
content. (And, of course, thereby make total public fools of them-
selves, and add to everyone's continued recognition that they are
the laughingstocks of Usenet.)
If I were you, after that embarrassing threat you made to sue Pastor
Dave, I wouldn't attempt to apply the label "laughingstock" to anyone
else. You're wearing it so well right now that no one else can
compare.
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Secretary of HomIntern" |
|
| Title: Re: CHRISTIAN LOVE?????? |
02 Oct 2005 10:09:35 AM |
|
|
I was busily flonking away in alt.politics.homosexuality, when The Goddess
Eris Herself suddenly made me reply to someone:
If I were you, after that embarrassing threat you made to sue Pastor
Dave, I wouldn't attempt to apply the label "laughingstock" to anyone
else. You're wearing it so well right now that no one else can
compare.
Oh, not at all! You wear it quite well.
--
___________________________________________________________________________
Hail Eris! "The personal _is_ political."
Bent Depraved N. Deviant *****-Smoker, Esq., Superfaggot
"Stupidity excuses nothing. It's only a reason...." -- Phxbrd
Economic Left/Right: -7.63 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.38
"The whining has just begun." -- John Wentzky
Killfiled by: directory; Anim8rfsk
"It's not nice to misrepresent Mother Nature."
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Craig Chilton" |
|
| Title: Re: CHRISTIAN LOVE?????? |
01 Oct 2005 09:09:49 PM |
|
|
On 1 Oct 2005 16:37:43 -0700,
"someone" cowardly-anonymous <someone462000@yahoo.com> wrote:
Craig Chilton (*Never*-anonymous) <xanadu222_@mchsi> wrote:
"someone" cowardly-anonymous <someone462000@yahoo.com> wrote:
Craig Chilton (*Never*-anonymous) <xanadu222_@mchsi> wrote:
"someone" cowardly-anonymous <someone462000@yahoo.com> wrote:
Craig Chilton (*Never*-anonymous) <xanadu222_@mchsi> wrote:
"someone" cowardly-anonymous <someone462000@yahoo.com> wrote:
Craig Chilton (*Never*-anonymous) <xanadu222_@mchsi> wrote:
[ ... ]
Guess what? You're not. And neither is ANYone else. And for
any person to single out any group of people and start shouting
"Sinners!" at them specifically is the EPITOME of stupidity, ignorance,
and hypocrisy.
No it isn't. It's simply recognizing that a sin is a sin. And now we
have you acknowledging that homosexuality is a sin. Thank you.
Wrong again! I did no such thing as acknowledge that homosexuality
is a sin, and therefore there is NOTHING for you, as a homophobic *****,
to thank me for. NO one is sinless, and that means that homosexuals are
included in that pool (which comprises ALL of humanity) that is sinful.
And their being homosexual MAY or MAY NOT be associated with that
sinfulness.
(You aren't especially bright, are you. No surprise. Almost ALL
bigots are dimwits, or they couldn't BE bigots.)
Well, yes, you did. You may not have intended to, but if you read your
statements in context, you, in essence said, "you're a sinner too so
shut up." The "too" implies clearly that you view practicing homosexuality
to be a sin.
(1) Wrong. Since I personally have no notion that it is, I certainly
would NOT have implied it. Not even unintentionally.
(2) I wonder why you are so obviously-DESPERATE to put other
words in people's mouths?
I'm desperate? I don't change words of others in posts. I'm not
afraid to let you or anyone else speak as they see fit.
Neither am I. ###--> Everyone in here is free to POLLUTE their
**own** posts with lies, propaganda, deceptions, and abject stupidity,
to their heart's content. (And, of course, thereby make total public
fools of themselves, and add to everyone's continued recognition
that they are the laughingstocks of Usenet.) <--###
(Material between the "###" symbols is verbiage that indicts you... so
it was noteworthy that you OMITTED it. Of course, I've *restored* it,
and it *continues* to indict you.)
Sure you are. And please don't ever change. Your disdain for free
speech highlights how empty your arguments really are.
I fully respect free speech, as I pointed out in the portion of the
paragraph above, which as the COWARD that you are, you left out.
When bigots make such total fools of themselves in their OWN posts,
that's a GOOD thing for society to see. And when other people *respond*
to those posts, it's even MORE helpful when the dishonesty of the first
poster -- the bigot who supported a loathsome agenda -- is spotlighted.
And then when people *respond* to posts of theirs which contain
such mindless inanities, falsehoods, expressions of bigotry, deceptions,
lies, and propaganda -- then said responders have JUST as much
right to make HONEST and NEUTRAL substitutions for those words/
###--> expressions of ignorance and hate, when including the previous
poster's comments. As long as the substitutions are enclosed in brackets,
so that everyone will know that the substitutions have been honestly
provided by a different person. AND -- as long as the fundamental
meaning of the original writing is not twisted to have a significantly
different meaning than it originally had.
In short -- NO honest and fair-minded person is EVER obliged or
required to REPEAT the abject stupidity and/or hatefulness of a
clueless/hateful louse/bigot in HIS/HER posts.
Think you've GOT that this time? Or will you choose to REMAIN
dumber than dirt, as is so typical of RRR cult lemmings? <--###
Not if they want reputations as honest people.
Wrong! See again the material that you, as a COWARDLY bigot,
omitted (which I've restored.).
You did, in essense, say, that I am a sinner...
"In essence" my foot! I made it very CLEAR that **everyone** is
a sinner.
That's nice but you snipped my post to the point of losing the context.
Probably only redundancies. Nothing like the snip-fest of RELEVANT
material which you just engaged in (and which I've undone).
Another favorite tactic of those who have agendas for which there is
no true defense.
ROTFL!!!!!!
The ONLY defense *any* egalitarian needs (even though the relevant
FACTS that support him are in the dozens) is the fact that he's defending
individual liberties against mindless, busybodyish, and control-freakish
bigots.
Want to see a person who has INdefensible agendas? Here are two:
(1) Anti-Choicers (abortion)
(2) Homophobes (gay rights; same-sex marriage)
No relevant *facts* even EXIST that support their mindless, hateful, and
loathsome agendas against personal liberties.
Those people not only are loathsome bigots -- they *also* are a JOKE.
If you were, pastors would never be able to preach on sin because
they are not sinless.
If the pastors preached only with respect to things that God and Jesus
clearly delineated as being sinful... *while* ACKNOWLEDGING their *own*
(the preachers') sinfulness, so as not to be hypocrites... that would be
no problem.
Gee, that's exactly the type of thing to which you do object here.
Wrong. Nice try. No cigar.
Damn, but you are a DUMB one!!
When i substitute *honest* and *neutral* terminology for words
that are lies and/or are propagandistic, i do NOT change the original
meaning of the sentence.
You change the meaning the author intended.
Yeah? PROVE it.
Don't need to. It speaks for itself. If the author had intended to
use the words you substitute, he would have.
If he had intended to use the WORDS, he might have. But by
using the verbiage that he DID employ, he was dishonestly dispar-
aging things that didn't deserve to be disparaged. I.e., in lieu of the
nonexistent facts that he couldn't being to draw upon *because* no
facts existed that could have done him any good, he LYINGLY
attempted to propagandize verbally. By my substituting HONEST
terminology (in brackets) for that hate-terminology, he was quickly
exposed as *being* nothing more than a vacuous and speciously-
mindless bigot who'd never had any FACTS that he could draw upon.
That's not only dishonest,...
It is NOT dishonest to assiduously NOT **repeat** the dishonest of
others.
It's dishonest not to let the other person's words stand as they were
written.
Wrong. In MY post, I can neutralize the mindlessness, the hatefulness,
and the attempted propagandizing quite legitimately by -- in brackets --
showing only the HONEST *equivalent* verbiage.
You can mark them in brackets all you want.
Quite legitimately. Since I do NOT, in that process, change the verbiage
into something ELSE. My changes do nothing but to neutralize that
attempted hate and dishonesty.
But please continue because it simply illustrates more clearly what
a coward you truly are.
ROTFL!!!!! *I* always post under my REAL name because (1) I have
the courage of my convictions to stand behind that which I write. Always!
And (2) because I do NOT -- ever -- support SHAMFUL loathsome and
sociopathic agendas that seek to deprive people of their human and civil
rights, and their individual liberties.
Meanwhile, you CONSTANTLY support SHAMFUL loathsome and
sociopathic agendas that seek to deprive people of their human and
civil rights, and their individual liberties. And obviously LACK the
courage of your convictions. So it's no wonder you cravenly cower
behind an alias like a scared little kid.
And you call **me** a coward. ROTFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
That empty threat to sue Pastor Dave was another great
illustration.
It was NOT an empty threat. Your lying and/or ignorance thus
is duly noted.
Why don't you follow through and take him to small claims court
since that is easy peasy to do in the state of Florida.
In ALL states, it is possible for a defendant to avoid prosecution if it
can be demonstrated that he is irrational. Based on the very OBVIOUS
irrationality of phony-pastor Dave's posts, and knowing that the defense
could use those to make that point, I figured it was a lost cause before I
started. And I also reconsidered after realizing that people in here
already KNOW that I'm honest in my posts, and that he constantly lies in
his. Thus, he had NO credibility in the first place, so therefore did me
no harm with his idiotic act of libel.
That's that. Q.E.D.
<Remaining redundant lies and stupidity flushed.
Nothing worthwhile lost.>
-- Craig Chilton <xanadu222_@mchsi.com>
--
RRR cult lemmings... dumber than dirt.
.
|
|
|
| User: "someone" |
|
| Title: Re: CHRISTIAN LOVE?????? |
02 Oct 2005 08:24:09 AM |
|
|
Craig Chilton wrote:
On 1 Oct 2005 16:37:43 -0700,
I'm desperate? I don't change words of others in posts. I'm not
afraid to let you or anyone else speak as they see fit.
Neither am I. ###--> Everyone in here is free to POLLUTE their
**own** posts with lies, propaganda, deceptions, and abject stupidity,
to their heart's content. (And, of course, thereby make total public
fools of themselves, and add to everyone's continued recognition
that they are the laughingstocks of Usenet.) <--###
(Material between the "###" symbols is verbiage that indicts you...
Indicts me? It's your opinion and has been given the notice that your
opinions are due. It's funny the way you change the posts of others
yet, when they delete your mindless drivel so as to save bandwidth, you
feel you must restore it for those who might have missed it the first
six dozen times. Chilton, don't ever change.
Sure you are. And please don't ever change. Your disdain for free
speech highlights how empty your arguments really are.
I fully respect free speech,
No you don't. You respect speech you agree with. That's not the same
thing.
In short -- NO honest and fair-minded person is EVER obliged or
required to REPEAT the abject stupidity and/or hatefulness of a
clueless/hateful louse/bigot in HIS/HER posts.
Think you've GOT that this time? Or will you choose to REMAIN
dumber than dirt, as is so typical of RRR cult lemmings? <--###
Not if they want reputations as honest people.
Wrong! See again the material that you, as a COWARDLY bigot,
omitted (which I've restored.).
It's not ommitted out of cowardice. It's ommitted because it's
repetitive. In many instances, less is more. You have yet to learn
that.
You did, in essense, say, that I am a sinner...
"In essence" my foot! I made it very CLEAR that **everyone** is
a sinner.
That's nice but you snipped my post to the point of losing the context.
Probably only redundancies.
It wasn't a redundancy. You completely ignored the context. It's a
tactic you use often when you've lost an argument.
Another favorite tactic of those who have agendas for which there is
no true defense.
ROTFL!!!!!!
The ONLY defense *any* egalitarian needs (even though the relevant
FACTS that support him are in the dozens) is the fact that he's defending
individual liberties against mindless, busybodyish, and control-freakish
bigots.
For someone who needs such a small amount of defense for his arguments,
you sure use a lot of verbiage.
Those people not only are loathsome bigots -- they *also* are a JOKE.
No one is currently a bigger joke than the person who made that empty
threat to Pastor Dave.
If you were, pastors would never be able to preach on sin because
they are not sinless.
If the pastors preached only with respect to things that God and Jesus
clearly delineated as being sinful... *while* ACKNOWLEDGING their *own*
(the preachers') sinfulness, so as not to be hypocrites... that would be
no problem.
Gee, that's exactly the type of thing to which you do object here.
Wrong. Nice try. No cigar.
Oh, that was convincing.
You change the meaning the author intended.
Yeah? PROVE it.
Don't need to. It speaks for itself. If the author had intended to
use the words you substitute, he would have.
If he had intended to use the WORDS, he might have. But by
using the verbiage that he DID employ,
He was using the words he intended. You are dishonest and cowardly when
you change those words.
That's not only dishonest,...
It is NOT dishonest to assiduously NOT **repeat** the dishonest of
others.
It's dishonest not to let the other person's words stand as they were
written.
Wrong.
Sure it is. And you prove it when you object when people do the same
thing to posts of yours.
You can mark them in brackets all you want.
Quite legitimately. Since I do NOT, in that process, change the verbiage
into something ELSE.
Yes you do. You morph it into your own idea of what should be said.
That is dishonest and cowardly.
But please continue because it simply illustrates more clearly what
a coward you truly are.
ROTFL!!!!! *I* always post under my REAL name because (1) I have
the courage of my convictions to stand behind that which I write. Always!
And (2) because I do NOT -- ever -- support SHAMFUL loathsome and
sociopathic agendas that seek to deprive people of their human and civil
rights, and their individual liberties.
Lots of people on both sides post under handles. It's been around as
long as usenet has been around and is as tiresome a straw dog as all
your other straw dogs. Your accusations are as ridiculous as your
empty threats. If you think people I know aren't aware of my opinions
on abortion or anything else, you'd better think again. I'm sure any
other person who posts here could say the same.
And you call **me** a coward. ROTFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Yes, because you are one.
That empty threat to sue Pastor Dave was another great
illustration.
It was NOT an empty threat.
Oh? Then where is the lawsuit?
Why don't you follow through and take him to small claims court
since that is easy peasy to do in the state of Florida.
In ALL states, it is possible for a defendant to avoid prosecution if it
can be demonstrated that he is irrational.
If that were the case, most people could not be brought to trial in
civil or criminal court because most actions that are against the law
are in some way irrational. Take drunk driving for instance. A taxi
cab ride costs between $20 and $50 around these here parts. Yet people
pay thousands of dollars in fines and lawyers fees so they can avoid
calling a taxi. Very irrational. And that silly argument begs the
question....did you just discover that he is "legally irrational." It
must be new information to you or you wouldn't have made the threat in
the first place knowing it wouldn't go anywhere.
Based on the very OBVIOUS
irrationality of phony-pastor Dave's posts, and knowing that the defense
could use those to make that point, I figured it was a lost cause before I
started.
Try small claims court. I bet he'd promise not to use "legal
irrationality" as a defense.
And I also reconsidered after realizing that people in here
already KNOW that I'm honest in my posts, and that he constantly lies in
his. Thus, he had NO credibility in the first place, so therefore did me
no harm with his idiotic act of libel.
Ah, now we get to it. It was an empty threat. Of course he did no
harm. It wouldn't be any problem for him to prove that your reputation
here isn't subject to any more damage than that which you yourself
inflict upon it.
<Remaining redundant lies and stupidity flushed.
Nothing worthwhile lost.>
Your hypocrisy and disdain for the free speech of others is noted.
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Secretary of HomIntern" |
|
| Title: Re: CHRISTIAN LOVE?????? |
02 Oct 2005 09:49:26 PM |
|
|
I was busily flonking away in alt.politics.homosexuality, when The Goddess
Eris Herself suddenly made me reply to someone:
He was using the words he intended. You are dishonest and cowardly when
you change those words.
No, he's just being an all-around great guy, whereas Dave is an all-around
phony and bigot, much like Heishman and Wentzky.
--
___________________________________________________________________________
Hail Eris! "The personal _is_ political."
Bent Depraved N. Deviant *****-Smoker, Esq., Superfaggot
&qu | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
