I think we should read all posts by Rob Wade. I just looked as some of them tonight, and they tell of the sadness of the gay lifestyle and how the storyteller got to know Jesus Christ as his lord and savior. Please do not mock him because Jesus loves all of us, and all gays are being prayed for because they do not know the saving truth.
You Go Rob Wade!!!
Jessy Scholl
In our last episode, , the lovely and talented Jessy Scholl broadcast on alt.politics.homosexuality:
I guess you christian conservatives need something to cheer about today, since you're broken-hearted that your boy Eric Rudolph got captured accidentally. Sort of takes the fun out things when christian terrorists get apprehended, doesn't it?
The only thing I like about Eric Rudolph is that he is in jail. The only thing that he stands for is terrorism. The true Jesus Christ loves all people even you. He does not care if you are gay or committed the worst crime, if you ask him to come into your life, you will be saved.
Jessy Scholl
In our last episode, , the lovely and talented Jessy Scholl broadcast on alt.politics.homosexuality:
Shame on you for trying to put that over on me.
I know the myth of Jesus is wicked because I can see the behavior of Christians. If Jesus had existed and had been divine, his religion would have something better to do with itself than persecute gay people.
On Mon, 02 Jun 2003 10:16:11 -0500, Lars Eighner wrote in message news::
Are you kidding? Jesus' own disciples, the ones who were the closest to him, rarely knew what he was talking about. He even stumped the most learned men of the time. Do you really think that people living 2000 years later would have a better idea?
Jessy Scholl wrote in message
The only
loves all
worst
He even accepts Christian fundamentalists. An indication of his tolerance. Especially in light of His recorded loathing of Jewish hypocrites.
Moira, the Faerie Godmother
Jessy Scholl wrote:
Well the problem is worring where he will cum, in your life.
John 13: 23 Now there was leaning on Jesus' bosom one of his disciples, whom Jesus loved.
Philippians 1: 8 For God is my record, how greatly I long after you all in the bowels of Jesus Christ.
Philemon 1: 20 Yea, brother, let me have joy of thee in the Lord: refresh my bowels in the Lord.
Gen 43: 30 And Joseph made haste; for his bowels did yearn upon his brother: and he sought where to weep; and he entered into his chamber, and wept there.
Philemon 1: 16 Not now as a servant, but above a servant, a brother beloved, specially to me, but how much more unto thee, both in the flesh, and in the Lord?
Dennis Slater wrote in news:[email]:
You're misinterpreting these scriptures. The Greek word translated "bowels" in the translation you're using is "splagkhnizomai" and conveys deep emotion; it is more accurately translated (depending on context) "moved with pity", "tender affection", "tender compassion" and only refers to literal bowels in Acts 1:18.
So you are saying that all the Christians are working with books which are inaccurately translated -- or that the words used have changed in meaning over the years to make the meanings in that book suspect? And they're willing to bet their lives on this speciously-constructed hooie?
UsualNoise wrote:
Let me guess, the NIV so called bible, because it has the word homosexual in it. Here's a clue, Strong's work was publish in 1890, and the word homosexual was not coined until 1892. Now, with that knowledge, how did the word homosexual get into Strong's already published and finished work? Another clue, Strong's work was republished, with a few numerical corrections and it was so called modernized to fit the mood of the times, not the fact of the long and vast study of the words Strong and many others put into the work. There is nothing what so ever in the bible in context about homosexuality, only the sexual practices to the fertility gods as Baal, Molech and Venus.
Dennis Slater wrote in news:[email]:
Well, thanks for the diatribe, but that's not the version I use. The version I use does not contain the word "homosexual" in it, but translates the original text literally as, for example, "when a man lies down with a male the same as one lies down with a woman" (Lev. 20:13). To say the Bible has nothing to say about men having sex with other men is quite inaccurate.
In our last episode, , the lovely and talented UsualNoise broadcast on alt.politics.homosexuality:
That is clear a prohibition on bisexuality. A homosexual male doesn't "lie with a woman" at all, so he never lies with a man as he does with a woman.
Lars Eighner wrote in news:[email]:
No it isn't, and it's very misleading to reason that it is. It says "when a man lies down with a male the same as ONE lies down with a woman", not "when a man lies down with a male the same as HE lies down with a woman". The second clause is used as a generic example, not referring to the person in the first clause. It is prohibiting sexual relations between two men, period.
In the Christian-Greek scriptures, Paul reiterates this prohibition at 1 Corinthians 6:9,10 when he says that "Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men kept for unnatural purposes, nor men who lie with men, nor thieves, nor greedy persons, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit God's kingdom."
However, please do not assume that because I believe homosexuality is wrong in God's eyes I hate homosexuals or that I view homosexuals as people of any lesser value than anyone else. I do not. I believe that all men and women who do not currently live by Bible standards have the capacity to do so, and spend time in my community trying to bring the Bible's message of comfort to all, regardless of race, religion, or lifestyle.
UsualNoise wrote:
And how does that have anything to do with homosexuality? Two men have sex all the time in jail but that does not make them homosexuals, nor does heterosexuals having sex in the sexual rituals to Molech make it a sin of homosexual sex, it is idolatry that is the sin not the sex.
And again you take the verses out of the context of the times and the rest of the chapter and the rest of the bible. The above verses have nothing what so ever to do with homosexuality, The people of Corinth were notorious sexual worshipers to Venus and still Baal. This involves temple prostitution and sexual rituals of ever sort. Paul lives there for a year and a half, he was very aware of the mixing of God's rituals and the fertility rituals. Thus Paul was telling them to stop it, and some did and were cleansed of these idolatrous sexual rituals. Had you take the verses in context you would know that. See 1 Cor 6:9-20, here is another clue Romans was written in Corinth, and was talking about the sexual rituals to the fertility gods he knew wa in Rome the same as in Corinth.
So you would make homosexuals not have loving relationships as Jesus required of humans, just for you mistranslation of certain verses. Nice hypocrite.
Mark 12: 31 And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these.
Dennis Slater wrote in news:3EDE3866.210AFD94 @nictow.com:
I certainly do, thanks. You can show love toward someone without approving of their lifestyle. Jesus said to "love your enemies".
In article , UsualNoise wrote:
Except in this case, what you're spitting on is another person's ability to create and derive love from their relationships. What could be more contemptuous than trying to kill another human being's ability and capacity for love?
"Letao" wrote in message news:[email]...
Chopping off their head and pissing down their neck?
Just a guess, Jim
In article , "Clave" wrote:
Then there's that.
UsualNoise wrote:
As per usual with your lot, run from facts and just skip them and go about proclaiming there is a sin, no matter what is presented. You are not basing your enemies lifestyle on facts, just your bigotry.
On Wed, 04 Jun 2003 20:44:50 +0000, UsualNoise wrote in message news::
So you consider homosexuals your enemies? I feel sorry for you.
Bill Baker wrote in news:[email]:
No, I was using that quote as an example that you can show love for all people, even if you don't agree with how they live their life. As I mentioned in another post, I certainly harbor no ill will toward anyone with a different sexual orientation than me.
UsualNoise wrote:
Yet you want to control their lifestyles, to deny them their fundamental rights to marry and to try to procreate. If that is not ill will I don't know what is. You seem to feel that denying an entire group of homosexuals, transsexuals, bisexuals, and intersexuals born that way the right to marry and procreate is no ill will. Sodomy laws based on the misinterpretation of the bible denies infertile couples the right to try to procreate.
On Thu, 05 Jun 2003 03:20:30 +0000, UsualNoise wrote in message news::
Then you have no objections to them getting married to the person of their choosing, even if the person they choose is of the same sex?
UsualNoise wrote:
Men having sex with other men does not make them homosexuals, otherwise most men in jails would be homosexuals. What your lot cannot understand is the fertility gods were worshiped by the giving of the seed. They did so with Chemarim priests, males, as in the Catholic church. They were not homosexuals, they were religious folks. It is not a sin of homosexuality, it is a much worse sin of idolatry, which was treason and carried the death penalty.
When will your lot grow up?
Dennis Slater wrote in news:[email]:
What "lot" am I in? You see to be assuming much about me that isn't true. My point is that "men having sex with other men" is grouped in the Bible with adultery, idolatry, etc., as practices of which God disapproves. Same-sex intercourse is no better or worse than extramarital opposite-sex intercourse and is no better or worse than idolatry. All are equally condemned in the Bible.
UsualNoise wrote in message
isn't
in
than
Not so, actually. Most sex outside marriage is not mentioned in the bible. Of course adultery is forbidden as one of the biggies, but not multiple wives, nor pre-marital sex or, for that matter, incest. Idolatry is one of the biggies.
Moira, the Faerie Godmother
UsualNoise wrote:
Neither of which are condemned in the bible, only if it is done in the idolatrous sexual worship of fertility gods. The same-sex intercourse is not condemned, only the reason for doing it, to worship Baal and Molech or Venus . The only reason adultery is condemned is it violates the property rights of their owners. Women and children were property.
Only for the misinformed.
Dennis Slater wrote in news:[email]:
You truly do not have a good grasp of Bible teachings if you believe that. Any Bible scholar (with no particular religious or social agenda) will refute this baseless argument. Fornication (any use of the sexual organs in a sex act outside of marriage) is condemned over and over and over in the Bible, and to claim that it is only in connection with idolatrous worship is silly.
No, only for the informed. I can see you are arguing with a completely closed mind, so further discussion is pointless. If you really want to convince someone, try not insulting them repeatedly; it's not very persuasive. Hopefully anyone else reading this "discussion" will see who is being reasonable and who is pushing an agenda and will investigate for themselves what the Bible really says on the subject.
Now, back to the Simpsons newsgroup ... which is the only one I was reading, by the way...
UsualNoise wrote:
Sorry that would be you, you do not even know the sexual practices of the fertility gods if you can think other wise.
You might find it silly in your total ignorance of the subject, but the scholars who have don the serious work on the subject know better. I will ask you one more time, since your tiny brain seems not to be able to understand the subject without your preconceived bias. Why would Jesus say one could put away a "wife" for fornication?
Mat 19:9 Until you can answer that and prove fornication is sex outside of marriage, despite Jesus himself saying that a "wife" can be put away for fornication, you have no case.
I am very closed minded to error, and factually incorrect information as you are trying to propagandize with.
It was pointless to start with, with you, you are a bigot who like all your lot are totally ignorant of the bible and the history you so misrepresent.
That would be you I am not trying to deny other's right based upon total ignorance of the bible as you are. I have little tolerance for the intolerant fools like you.
If they do so with the Ugarit tablets and the sexual rituals to Baal and Molech they will, if they listen to the fools like you they will not.
Baby brain are like that.
UsualNoise wrote:
Now tell us what Lev 18:21 and Lev 20:13 "in context" means and then I will not call you a hypocrite.
Dennis Slater wrote in news:[email]:
Uh, why would you call me a hypocrite at all? I was merely pointing out what is the most accurate translation of the verses you quoted. As far as Lev. 18:22 (I assume you mean 18:22, as 18:21 refers to passing one's children through the fire in worship of a false god Molech) and Lev. 20:13, context really doesn't come into play. These verses simply state that homosexual acts are detestable to God (although not any more detestable than adultery as Lev. 20:10 points out; any sexual act outside of the marriage bond, whether homosexual, heterosexual, or bestial is detestable from God's viewpoint). I'm not sure what your point is.
UsualNoise wrote:
And that is the point of why you "are a hypocrite". You feel the need with a verse as:
Philippians 1: 8 For God is my record, how greatly I long after you all in the bowels of Jesus Christ.
to take that verse in historical context of the time and the meaning of the words in that verse. Yet with Lev 18:22 I feel no need to do so, and take it as face value, that indeed makes you a hypocrite. The putting of Lev 18:21 was a Freudian slip, but is indeed the context of Lev 18:22, of which I am sure you did not get being a hypocrite. The context of Lev 18:22 and Lev 20:13 is Lev 18:21-24, Lev 2-5, 13. Which is the sexual practices to the fertility gods as Baal and Molech. Why in your little hypocritical mind is Molech in Lev 18 or 20? The laundry list reads as sex no no, sex no no, Molech, sex no no, sex no no, to your lot. You never even stop to consider why Molech is even there. Indeed that make you a hypocrite.
And here is a clue, it is not passing one's children to Molech it is passing ones seed, which is both semen and your children. The fire is added and is not in the original language. It is devoting your seed to Molech, both semen in the fertility ritual and the upbringing of your children in the worship to Molech. Which is idolatry not homosexuality, they were not homosexuals, they were religious folks.
Dennis Slater wrote in news:[email]:
This verse has nothing to do with "historical context". It has to do with translating a Greek word properly as "tender affection" instead of bowels. I encourage you to look this fact up in any number of Bible dictionaries.
I didn't really follow this rambling argument, but there is no reason to assume that the "laundry list" of prohibitions are connected in Leviticus 18. They are simply a list of things viewed as detestable by God. It's fine if you choose not to accept it, but the clear statement condemning same-sex intercourse in Leviticus and elsewhere can not be explained away by grasping at straws as you are attempting to do here.
In addition, you seem pretty generous in the use of the word "hypocrite". Even if I was mistakenly ignoring the context in one place and not another it would be more accurate to call me "inconsistent", not a hypocrite. In this case, however, I did in fact consider the context of Leviticus 18 and determined it was not relevant to verse 22. It is good to always consider the context (and I do), but that doesn't mean that the context always adds meaning to a verse in question.
For example, if I make these two statements: 1. I am going to the store 2. I have red hair
I could consider #1 part of the context of #2; however, I would come to the correct conclusion that they are unrelated. I would not try to come up with an argument about how I must have bought red dye at the store. Proximity does not always imply a relationship, as borne out by Leviticus 18.
It seems that further discussion would be fruitless, as you and I fundamentally diverge on our interpretation of scripture. I do thank you for the discussion, though, as I always enjoy questioning my beliefs.
UsualNoise wrote:
Why is it hypocrite, you do not take this verse at face value, and ask me to look up the word spalagchnon, but with Lev 18:22 and Lev 20:13, it is to be taken at face value, out of its context?
Nor would you hypocrite, after all it is taking the bible in context far above your ability.
If those who wrote the bible are that inept, why study or believe they got anything right in the bible? If you take the chapter in context it is indeed not dis connected it is your lot who has disconnected the verses and taken them out of the original context.
The entire bible taken in context proves the context of Leviticus is one of stating the sexual rituals of Baal and Molech, it is your lot who are have an inability to take the body as a whole, instead of single verses out of context. There is nothing in the bible on homosexual intercourse being condemned, only idolatry in the sexual rituals to Baal, Molech and Venus. Your lot have to grasp at contextual subterfuge to make homosexuality a sin where none exists. The idolatrous sexual rituals are also condemned in Romans 1:26 context Rom 1:23.
So why the hell is it there in your tiny mind, just thrown in there for the hell of it? Ezekiel 16 tells what is going on in Lev 18 and 20, in your tiny mind what does Eze 16:21-26, if you can't get it here is a clue. (Not that I am going to hold my breath for you to get it.)
Ezek 16: 21 That thou hast slain my children, and delivered them to cause them to pass through the fire for them? (Molech) ... 24 That thou hast also built unto thee an eminent place, and hast made thee an high place in every street.
Adam Clarke's Commentary Ezek 16: Verse 24. Thou hast also built unto thee an eminent place a stew or brothel, a bordel house. "Thou hast builded thy stewes and bordell houses in every place."- Coverdale's Bible, 1636. Bordel is an Italian word: how it got so early into our language I know not. Our modern word brothel is a corruption of it. Diodati translates, Tu hai edificato un bordello, "Thou hast built a brothel." Houses of this kind were of a very ancient date.
This is saying the houses of worship to Molech were Bordellos, Lev 18:21-24 and Lev 20:2-5 are related and this shows that the sex assigned to homosexuality is in fact a heterosexual act of giving the seed to Molech with Chemarim priests as their duty as a representatives of their god. No different than giving the body of Christ by priests today. It is not a homosexual act, it was heterosexuals giving the seed to Molech with heterosexual Chemarim priests doing their duty.
CLARKE'S COMMENTARY - DEUTERONOMY 23 Verse 17. There shall be no whore] See on Gen. 38:15-21. Verse 18. The hire of a whore, or the price of a dog] Many public prostitutes dedicated to their gods a part of their impure earnings; and some of these prostitutes were publicly kept in the temple of Venus Melytta, whose gains were applied to the support of her abominable worship.
So in your bible studies they say you can take verses out of context, no wonder you are a hypocrite.
Only if you have an agenda of a sin of homosexuality, the chapter is (and this is going to be far beyond you ability to understand) about property rights, to not do these acts because they will violate someone's property rights, sex not with the husband is a violation of the property rights of the husband or father, everyone is the property of God, so to give seed (semen or children) to another god as Molech is a property right violation of God. They gave their seed in the sexual rituals of giving the seed to Chemarim priests Lev 18:22, this involved cows Lev 18:23, because Molech was a calf faced god. I'm not going to hold my breath on you understanding this.
Yeah because you are stupid or something.
Hypocrites always run when the cannot fight the subject.
Well, I guess it was pointless to try to reason with you as your response is filled with hate and insults. You addressed none of my points to any degree of satisfaction. Good day.
UsualNoise wrote:
Run and hide from the truth little man, the truth is trying to hunt you down, and you flee from it with all your might, why, bigots are like that.
My 6 year old nephew knows more about the bible than you.
He knows you do not take verses out of context.
UsualNoise wrote:
In other words, I believe what I believe and don't intend to change, or even consider reexamining the beliefs, in my mind.
Fritz wrote in news:wzCDa.515$[email]:
No, I regularly reexamine my beliefs. I am happy to discuss thoughts and ideas with an open mind if there is genuine interest. Based on the numerous insults peppered throughout Dennis' response, though, he is not. I've found that usenet is generally a poor place for religious debate as it can easily degenerate into petty insults and name calling. I will likely confine this type of activity to real life, as the atmosphere is generally much more enjoyable. I do wish you all well, though.
UsualNoise wrote:
So if they are not within your interest (you agenda) you will not discuss thoughts with an open mind. Hypocrite.
Let's see you are saying an entire group of humans are an abomination and their behaviors must be controlled because of your and those like you misinterpretation of biblical verses taken out of context, and you feel ofended that I called you a hypocrite, poor baby. You feel the need to take verses that say Jesus had men in his bowel in historical and exegesis analysis of the words when it pleases you, but take Lev 18:22 out of context of the history and exegesis analysis of the words as well as the gods of the day, at face value of as an out of context verse. That is indeed a hypocrite, if that offends you then poor baby, tell that to the entire groups of homosexuals, transsexuals, bisexuals, and intersexuals born that way from God, that you are offended by being called a hypocrite, while calling them abominations and denying their rights.
Poor Baby
In our last episode, , the lovely and talented Dennis Slater broadcast on alt.politics.homosexuality:
Well, yes, that rather goes to the common flaw of the religions that Abraham spawned. The essential message is that one must discard his common sense and the concepts of right and wrong and take directions from the hallucination Jehovah.
Abraham's delusion commanded him to kill his son. And what does Abraham do?
Years and years in the mythical future, Captain Kirk has the sense to ask "Why does god need a starship?"
Abraham, however, being much more stupid than Captain Kirk, doesn't ask "Howcome god, lord of the universe, needs my son dead?" Abraham doesn't reflect that if an omnipotent being wants a boy dead, that being could zot the kid in the blink of an eye, and certainly doesn't need Abraham as a hit man. Abraham doesn't have the ethical sense of a five-year-old. He doesn't say to himself "Hey, killing a child is *wrong*, so something that is asking me to kill a kid -- whether it is a deity of some kind or an illusion -- is evil." He doesn't say to the illusion or whatever it is "You're are asking me to do something wicked, therefore you are wicked if you exist at all. You aren't a god worthy of worship, and I won't do *wrong* just because you tell me to."
No. Abraham is willing to do it. And that is the story of the the three big evil religions that worship the god of Abraham: they are all willing to do evil if they are told that god wants them to do evil. Pretty obviously Jews, Christians, and Muslims are moral morons and don't have between them the ethical sense of a carrot. They do evil willingly, they do evil happily, there is no degree of wickedness into which they will refuse to descend -- so long as the evilness they worship seems to them to want evil performed.
If the god of Abraham exists, it is thoroughly wicked, and the only ethical response to it is: "I defy you. I defy your evil orders. I defy your wicked ways. I know the difference between right and wrong, and I choose right - whatever you may do to me or threaten me with."
About half of what is wrong with the world today is caused by mewling lickspittles who love their god more than they love right.
Lars Eighner wrote:
LOL "mewling lickspittles"? I wouldn't even know where to look that one up. {;^)
Jessy Scholl wrote:
If he doesn't care, then why do we need to be saved?
Jessy Scholl wrote:
John 13: 23 Now there was leaning on Jesus' bosom one of his disciples, whom Jesus loved.
Philippians 1: 8 For God is my record, how greatly I long after you all in the bowels of Jesus Christ.
Philemon 1: 20 Yea, brother, let me have joy of thee in the Lord: refresh my bowels in the Lord.
Gen 43: 30 And Joseph made haste; for his bowels did yearn upon his brother: and he sought where to weep; and he entered into his chamber, and wept there.
Philemon 1: 16 Not now as a servant, but above a servant, a brother beloved, specially to me, but how much more unto thee, both in the flesh, and in the Lord?
Dennis Slater wrote in message news:...
And after you've refreshed your bowels in the Lord, you can use Rob Wade's messages as toilet paper.
Beeb E. Rebozo wrote:
Or Dana's face.
Jessy Scholl wrote:
The only possible reason for reading Rob Wade's inane babbling is to have a good laugh at his backwards ideals.
The only sadness conveyed in any of his posts is his utter intolerance for independent though and anything that doesn't fit his myopic view of the world.
I'll mock Rob Wade all I want until he shuts up and keeps his lies to himself. Jebus is irrelevant.
"Exatron" wrote in message news:...
Use of the name "Jebus" never fails to crack me up. Hilarious!
ff
Fritz Foetzl wrote:
You mean... High-larious?
no,,Homer rocks
(turning all rob wade posts into simpsons refs)