| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
DOC
Guest
|
 Posted: Wed Aug 20, 2008 12:02 am Post subject: Re: Jani's a rather disturbed individual who 'goes overboard |
 |
|
On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 00:51:07 +0200, " ::: good news runner :::"
<veralein@lycos.com> wrote:
| Quote: | :
You really need to take a long break from Usenet |
|
|
| |
|
 Back to top |
DOC
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 20, 2008 12:02 am Post subject: Re: Will John D Weatherly apologise to "Satan" for lying???? |
|
|
On Fri, 01 Aug 2008 12:32:52 -0700, john w <j<no>@yahoo.com> wrote:
| Quote: | x-no-archive: nope
|
| Quote: | On Fri, 01 Aug 2008 13:43:13 -0400, NOSPAM <nospam@nospam> wrote:
© 2008 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
On Tue, 29 Jul 2008 19:00:58 -0700, john w <j<no>@yahoo.com> wrote:
But I
personally know "Christians" who consider any bare skin on a woman
"offensive." (they apparently make love to their wives [if they do]
with the lights off.
Elaine is one such.
Poor liar-johnnie- such an idiot!
Poor Insane Elaine! such a f*in psycho!
Like I said: |
Poor liar-johnnie- such an idiot! |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
ujb
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 20, 2008 12:02 am Post subject: Re: but I've lost contact |
|
|
john w <j wrote:
| Quote: | x-no-archive: yes
On Mon, 18 Aug 2008 18:29:29 -0700 (PDT), roymock@gmail.com wrote:
© 2008 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
On Aug 19, 10:25 am, john w <j<no>@yahoo.com> wrote:
x-no-archive: yesOn Mon, 18 Aug 2008 15:15:00 -0700 (PDT), roym...@gmail.com wrote:
© 2008 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
On Aug 19, 5:19 am, john w <j<no>@yahoo.com> wrote:
x-no-archive: yesOn Sun, 17 Aug 2008 15:54:23 -0700 (PDT), roym...@gmail.com wrote:
© 2008 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
snip]
I've never been a sign seeker.
^ ^ ^ ^^ smirk. You claim you don't "seek signs", yet you argue
for them in all the wrong places!
I've never argued for them at all.
You, Roy, are a liar and an instigator.
I haven't mentioned them nor
introduced them in the thread (except for reporting prophesy and
tongues in light of discernment).
^ ^ ^ ^ ^ And you DISCONNECT. What you just said ^ ^ ^is PRECISELY
the "interest" I am talking about.
Discernment, as is practiced TODAY, has NOTHING to do with signs,
OTHER than to tell us "they're not real."
Then you go off, talking about the churches you'd see signs in. You
won't see them in the churches discussed.
And we're right back to,
you don't know what the HELL you are talking about, but you'll
"express your opinion."
Which is worthless in light of SCRIPTURE.
The AoG, the Foursquare, the WoF! Where the phonies and lunatics
hang out.
And I didn't "seek signs", dummy! I was minding my own business when
the signs appeared.
I've said before, I haven't seen these things for about 20 years.
I've said before, from what you've said, you have never seen signs.
Period.
I
could safely say it's not my scene. And certainly would not say I go
out of my way to find them.
I was surprised, but I noted the signs. (it helps a GREAT deal if
you know the Bible)
I then mentioned those signs to other, thinking they may have missed
it.
They thanked me.
The FACT that you didn't bother to THANK me for mentioning that, or
that you didn't ask me "when?" and "where?"
My apologies. I wasn't thinking of going down the route about the
Sun and Moon.
"Oh good grief!" Why am I bothering? You aren't even giving me
appropriate responses or comments.
SNIP
But when you did mention them, I was reminded of the tribulation Jesus
spoke in Mat 24:29ff "Immediately after the tribulation of those days
the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and
the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be
shaken. Then will appear in heaven the sign of the Son of Man, and
then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son
of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory".
Which means we are somewhere between the tribulation and the
appearance of our Lord.
Tells me what I've long suspected.
1 you're insincere
2 you're shallow
3 you're a phony
A REAL, SINCERE Christian would be beside himself with EXCITEMENT
that End Times prophesies were being fulfilled before our very eyes.
On prophesy and end-times: I usually take Heb 1:1-2 as my text;
prefering to focus on our Lord than the unfolding sequence of events.
We were TOLD to WATCH for the REAL signs.
I told you about several real signs, hoping you'd ask for more
detail.
In light of Mat 12:39, I wonder if that is a worthwhile endeavour.
Jesus said " ... an evil and adulterous generation seeks for a sign,
but no sign will be given to it except the sign of the prophet Jonah.
"
And Paul wrote " ... Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom, but we
preach Christ crucified' (1Co 1:22-23).
Cheers.
Thanks. I have now established publicly that you're a liar and a
manipulator.
Neither brings glory to our Lord.
And I didn't say, " I went looking for signs."
I said, I saw them. I was "out and around in the world", minding my
own business, when I saw a sign.
I have since told people about it.
|
just because you are known as liar johnnie on all the net is no reason
to doubt you now!
--
I'm sweet sweet, and I approve this post... |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
john w
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 20, 2008 12:02 am Post subject: Re: @Matt |
|
|
x-no-archive: yes
On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 13:58:03 -0700 (PDT), "<Kelly>"
<316kcbk@gmail.com> wrote:
© 2008 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
| Quote: | On Aug 19, 1:07 pm, john w <j<no>@yahoo.com> wrote:
Says you, oh John-god Weatherly, man of the size 7 shoe? (or is it one
is size 7 and the other size 6?)
He added the 6 to the 7 to come up with his claim of wearing a size 13 LOL.
And I haven't had anyone (particularly not FEMALE) talk about my
penis size since ... high school?
If someone was talking about your (I can't even bring myself to write
about it) ".....", I sure didn't see it here. Why would your mind
even go there, John?
|
smirk. "my mistake."
"Says you, oh John-god Weatherly, man of the size 7 shoe? (or is it
one is size 7 and the other size 6."
| Quote: |
As I have said to others, "it gets the job done." And my "size 7
feet " get me where I need to go.
Yeah...well...we really don't care.
|
#1 You're speaking for others AGAIN.
#2 If you "really don't care," why are you even discussing me? |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
john w
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 20, 2008 12:02 am Post subject: Re: @Matt |
|
|
x-no-archive: yes
On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 06:21:29 -0700 (PDT), roymock@gmail.com wrote:
© 2008 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
| Quote: | On Aug 19, 10:24 pm, john w <j<no>@yahoo.com> wrote:
x-no-archive: yesOn Sun, 17 Aug 2008 14:36:51 -0700 (PDT), roym...@gmail.com wrote:
© 2008 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
On Aug 18, 2:02 am, john w <j<no>@yahoo.com> wrote:
x-no-archive: yesOn Sat, 16 Aug 2008 13:56:18 -0700 (PDT), roym...@gmail.com wrote:
© 2008 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
On Aug 17, 3:43 am, john w <j<no>@yahoo.com> wrote:
x-no-archive: yesOn Wed, 13 Aug 2008 14:51:22 -0700 (PDT), roym...@gmail.com wrote:
© 2008 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
On Aug 14, 8:36 am, Matt . <trdell1...@nospamgmail.com > wrote:
On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 14:33:04 -0700 (PDT), roym...@gmail.com wrote:
On Aug 14, 1:58 am, " ::: good news runner :::" <veral...@lycos.com
wrote:
Innews:s516a4hesinem2vsl9bpm4p2pli4vlpv6d@4ax.com,
Matt . <trdell1...@nospamgmail.com > typed:
On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 05:14:57 +0200, " ::: good news runner :::"
veral...@lycos.com> wrote:
Innews:fnm4a4ttn3q90qguk49op2jnk2ca5f4skr@4ax.com,
Matt . <trdell1...@nospamgmail.com > typed:
On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 00:54:35 GMT, psalmsmith <psalmsm...@nc.rr.com
wrote:
In article <_9qok.20524$QX3.7...@newsfe02.iad>,
"Chuck Stamford" <shell-stamf...@cox.net> wrote:
"psalmsmith" <psalmsm...@nc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:psalmsmith-2CE2F2.17594112082008@news.easynews.com...
In article <2ymok.20362$QX3.10...@newsfe02.iad>,
"Chuck Stamford" <shell-stamf...@cox.net> wrote:
He seems to want to establish himself as some sort of authority
in and of himself, for each time anyone questions his authority
to say something, he
treats them as if they have failed somehow to understand the
situation, or
have attacked him in some fashion, or have simply failed in
their faith, as
if they were supposed to believe in him. This obvious attitude,
coupled with his very casual relationship with the truth in his
factual statements,
makes me very nervous about him.
Wow, Chuck, that may well be the worse case of projection I have
ever encountered.
Would you like me to ask for a poll of the group, to ask everyone
in ACC, ACB, and ARCB; whether it is you or I who actually best
fit the description in your above paragraph? ;-)
Of course, you already know what the results of said poll will
be...
Sure I do, but then the truth isn't determined by taking polls as
to what it is. All that poll would do is show who is more
interested in denouncing me than in the truth of what I've said.
You have behaved in exactly the manner I described above, and if
need be, I can sift through your posts of the last week to
demonstrate each and every aspect of that description. If you
were not so intent on establishing yourself as I've suggested
above, perhaps you would be more interested in correcting those
flaws in yourself I've cited above, rather than foisting them on
me with some sort of Peewee Hermanesque "I know you are, but what
am I" retort.
ROFL! how ironic... :::rolleyes:::
Every one knows Chuck is a Liar.
That is not the case.
In my opinion he does not serve
Christ.
Now you are getting weird... If you do not like people, you claim
they do not serve Christ, or are of Satan and the like - the same
things that you and your funny friends say about me - while you do
them. lol
I do not claim to have the gift of discerning spirits as you do Vera.
So why are you trying it anyway?
On gift of discerning spirits: my contact within the AoG, here, said
that this gift was exercised only to appraise the spirits behind
what was uttered thru tongues or prophesy.
Without my prompting, he said that it was never used to judge a
person's standing before the Lord, nor any other purpose or occasion.
Nowadays, he says, they don't use those gifts as they disrupt their
assemblies. These gifts were common up to the 80's but have since
fallen into disuse.
Thank you Roy
No worries. That sorta explains why I don't come across it in the
churches around me.
However, it doesn't stop the Spirit blessing a congregation with it
"as it wills"; and such gifts are always "for the common good".
^ ^ ^ ^ ^^ There is no "gift of tongues" today as you describe
it.
What you are talking about is called "glossolalia." Nonsense noise
people make because they think they're supposed to, or because evil
spirits (demons) are at work.
If "tongues" are REAL today, I'd LOVE for you to take me to a church
where it's happening; I'd like to SEE it in practice for myself.
Can't help you there. I haven't seen or heard about it for a while in
my neck of the woods.
Then you need to stop talking about a very controversial topic, when
you don't have PERSONAL knowledge.
You keep on asking for evidence of tongues in practice. I keep on
saying I know not any.
You continue to either miss or side-step THE POINT. If you don't
know of any real situations in which "tongues" are in use, you should
stop claiming it's real.
You have been corrected MULTIPLE times on this, yet you still spread
ERROR.
You know, you WILL be judged for that!
AFAIK the Spirit dispenses as He wills for the common good.
I have showed you REPEATEDLY that there are no signs today.
I have said, "if there are signs, show me."
You can't, yet NOW you obviously LIE and say, "they exist."
If they exist, show me.
I don't know any in my part of the world;
|
I am done arguing about it with you. I have considerable knowledge
on the subject; you have ZERO knowledge, so there is truly no point in
you and me discussing it.
You may as well be proclaiming that you believe in pink elephants.
You have never personally seen a pink elephant, but "you know they
are real."
Ridiculous.
john w
however the Spirit dispenses
| Quote: | " as He wills" (1Cor12:7) " for the common good" (1Cor12:11) and " God
arranged the members in the body, each one of them, as he chose
" (1Cor12:1 .
If they don't exist (you can't find them) you are teaching falsely.
Is this saying that the gifts in 1Cor12 have all ceased or we have no
body or Christ?
Every member of the body has a place and none are to be despised since
all are indispensable -
" As it is, there are many parts, yet one body. The eye cannot say to
the hand, "I have no need of you," nor again the head to the feet, "I
have no need of you." On the contrary, the parts of the body that
seem to be weaker are indispensable " (1Cor12:20-22ff).
Cheers.
john w
Cheers. |
|
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
john w
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 20, 2008 12:02 am Post subject: Re: @Matt |
|
|
x-no-archive: yes
On Sun, 17 Aug 2008 16:31:00 -0700 (PDT), "<Kelly>"
<316kcbk@gmail.com> wrote:
© 2008 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
| Quote: | On Aug 17, 4:14 pm, john w <j<no>@yahoo.com> wrote:
Well, now that you've admitted that you're AOG (chuckle/ why am I
not surprised?)
Swaggart was an AOG minister. He was de-frocked.
He was also given a 1-year suspension, which he served some 3-6
months of, then STARTED HIS OWN ORGANIZATION "because he couldn't
afford to do the whole year."
He was too used to milking the stupid. He was too used to living too
high on the hog.
Same with Jimmy Bakker. He was AOG until he got caught with his hands
(and other body parts) where they shouldn't be.
That's not how it happened with Bakker, John.
He likely switched orgs because the AoG didn't want HIM anymore.
Nope.
Sadly, the dupe Tammy Faye, died in darkness. Swore til she breathed
her last breath that she'd be healed! It wasn't pretty.
No, cancer is a very ugly diesease, John.
|
Yes, it is.
And frankly, because you
| Quote: | are the way you are,
|
I'm the way I am. But then, you are the way you are.
Each of us the way each of us is. At least, I can thank God, I am
not a pervert. Does that ring any bells?
I'm not surprised that you would try to take
| Quote: | advantage of her dying of that horrible disease the way she did to
|
???? How am I taking advantage of a silly little, uneducated dupe?
Perhaps (did it ever -- EVER -- occur to you), that God used Tammy
Faye to send a message to the pretenders that the AoG, Word of Faith,
and similar "healing cults", aren't for real?
People who could be cured, go to these cults for "healing" and they
DIE. Whose fault is that?
It's NOT MY fault!
| Quote: | make a point about a denomination you're ticked off at because of your
experiences at Union Gospel Mission.
|
???? Oh! Is UGM AoG? I didn't know that.
You can nit pick as much as you please. I have been dealing with the
pretenders for some 30 YEARS now.
I ran into their silliness in California.
| Quote: |
The fact is that Tammy Faye, as wrong as she was about so many things,
was just as saved as you are and I am.
|
Her Christianity is not something I'll debate, though I SERIOUSLY
doubt it.
And in case you've forgotten
| Quote: | your Bible, she *was* healed, John. The moment she entered the gates
of Heaven, she was healed.
|
Oh, BROTHER!
Talk about dancing a jig around the FACTS!
| Quote: |
Shame on you for attempting to defile someone who loved the Lord and
died so horribly.
|
Prove she loved the Lord. I have seen NO evidence of that.
I love the Lord; yet you make it your daily task to skin and boil
me.
If you can skin and boil ME, I can skin and boil Tammy Faye.
| Quote: |
To be fluent in a language means that you speak and/or write a
language readily and effortlessly.
tsk tsk.
No matter what I say, you're gonna correct me, right?
When you're so very obviously wrong, yes, I will.
|
^ ^ ^ ^^ I'm "so obviously wrong" ONLY in your tiny, one-celled
brain.
You "strain at gnats (things that don't matter) and you swallow
camels.
I don't see you nit-picking Elaine or John H or crawls or CB or ujb
this way.
You make me feel SOOOOOO special.
| Quote: |
Reading those languages is not
being "fluent" in a language.
As far as I know the men I've listed are fluent.
You don't know. You're guessing.
|
^ ^ ^ ^^ I don't get why this is such a serious issue.
Except, as I have said several times, you live you life to pick
fights.
And you hate it like HELL when someone fights back.
| Quote: |
Aside from that clarification, you are
trying to speak about these men as if you know them personally and
from that knowledge are able to testify to their language abilities.
Having studied with MOST of them over several years, having sat in
their churches while they picked up Hebrew Old Testaments and Greek
New Testaments and read a chapter or two without any aids, I believe I
can speak with some authority on the subject.
In a -- we'll say-- 5-year stretch, having NEVER seen ANY of them
refer to an aid, I'd say they're all totally qualified.
Uhhh...John? The Bibles they were using were in English, with Hebrew
and Greek footnotes and references.
|
chuckle.
That's one way to deal with the issue you're faced with:. "They were
reading English translations."
One more LIE in your file!
You weren't there, but you know.
snort.
So, let's see if I have it right. Anyone I know; anyone I know OF,
can't be a scholar, because I know him.
Do you have a CLUE how pathological that is?
Probably not.
SNIP
You continue to be a total waste of time. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Matt
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 20, 2008 12:02 am Post subject: Re: Is Christianity Fair? |
|
|
"swa@ozemail.com.au" <swager@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
news:c4be7ad7-5d6c-468a-a9ce-eec21975e1b6@b38g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
| Quote: | On Sat, 9 Aug 2008 swa...@ozemail.com.au
To all who have posted in this thread.
I have wakened a short time ago. My mind was thinking of a website of
which I taken a print-out. Not sure where it is, at present. But
searching through I have found it.
Is Christianity Fair?
johansens.us/sane/faith/fair.htm
On my monitor I clicked [I'm feeling lucky].
It is the only way it will come up first go on my monitor.
Hope it works that way on yours.
Otherwise you will need to scroll down through the websites that are
offered.
We cannot work our own way into heaven.
Salvation is the free, unmerited gift of God to all who, through
faith,
put their trust in Jesus Christ for His mercy. Praise the Lord!
Gladys Swager
|
Hi
Worked for me
http://www.johansens.us/sane/faith/fair.htm
Thanks
Matt |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Robibnikoff
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 20, 2008 12:02 am Post subject: Re: @Matt |
|
|
"john w @yahoo.com>" <j<no> '
| Quote: | On Sun, 17 Aug 2008 21:22:18 -0400, "Scout Lady"
scoutlady@nospam4me.net> wrote:
"<Kelly>" <316kcbk@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:5b67a984-6300-446f-9c25-fe3551a9f46c@r15g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
Says you, oh John-god Weatherly, man of the size 7 shoe? (or is it one
is size 7 and the other size 6?)
He added the 6 to the 7 to come up with his claim of wearing a size 13
LOL.
And I haven't had anyone (particularly not FEMALE) talk about my
penis size since ... high school?
|
Hey, pervert! They were talking about your SHOE size, you moron. Read what
was written before you spew your nonsense.
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
BAAWA Knight
#1557 |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
john w
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 20, 2008 12:02 am Post subject: Re: @Matt |
|
|
x-no-archive: yes
On Sun, 17 Aug 2008 14:59:03 -0700, "Chuck Stamford"
<shell-stamford@cox.net> wrote:
© 2008 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
| Quote: |
"john w @yahoo.com>" <j<no> wrote in message
news:0plga4ppp0lq7ueat0v0hm6iu5q4iucorh@4ax.com...
x-no-archive: yes
On Sun, 17 Aug 2008 00:12:35 -0700, "Chuck Stamford"
shell-stamford@cox.net> wrote:
© 2008 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
"<Kelly>" <316kcbk@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:fbe95d6f-17cc-4742-a5ec-e1eeb2ebd0fb@v26g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
On Aug 15, 4:14 pm, john w <j<no>@yahoo.com> wrote:
snip
I don't know even ONE "pentecostal" " pastor" who reads Hebrew or
Greek.
All AoG colleges and universities require Hebrew and Greek studies for
those enrolled in theological and pastoral degree programs.
Wanna try again?
Chuck:
It just never stops with you, does it? Could you spin this any more
negative than you have?
Did John claim to know every AoG pastor? No. Are there sure to be some
AoG
ministers who, despite the requirements for graduating from an AoG
seminary,
cannot now read either Hebrew or Greek? Of course. My pastor graduated
from some seminary here in California, and was required to do a year of
Hebrew and a year of Greek, and he can't read either now.
My point was, and remains, that one can take a year or two of the
languages, and still not be able to pick up an Hebrew Old Testament
and read 10 chapters without helps. He can't pick up a Greek New
Testament and read 10 chapters-- let's say 1 John-- without helps.
Or one sentence, for that matter.
And-- again, Chuck, I'm very sorry to know that you're associated
with the AoG.
That's Jimmy Swaggart's church, right? That's Jim Bakker's church,
right?
"Not impressed."
I'm not associated with the AoG church, John.
|
Glad to hear that. Some of your comments suggested that you are
"pentecostal." I have no love, no admiration, no respect for Kenny
Copeland, Rod Parsley, Pat Robertson, Jim Bakker, Jimmy Swaggart, Fred
Price, or any of that crowd.
As I've said, anyone who is a serious student of the Bible (NOT
someone who merely memorizes a group of "proof texts"), one is not a
"pentecostal."
I was simply pointing out
| Quote: | that a year of Hebrew taken 10 or 20 years ago is no indication of any
current ability to read Hebrew today,
|
and that is exactly what Kelly's
| Quote: | treatment of what you said depended on being true.
|
^ ^ ^ I frankly didn't understand that, due to the arrangement of
the words I "broke off."
I'm going to take a stab at "you meant she truly reaches WAY beyond
the available evidence." I agree whole-heartedly.
She's a manipulator and trickster. Neither is something that pleases
God.
| Quote: |
The scholars I'm talking about, Dr Stanley, Dr Swindoll, Dr Ogilvie,
Dr Moody, Dr MacArthur, all scholars who are fluent in the languages,
and not a one of them is a pentecostal.
They know better. If you actually know the Bible, you aren't a
pretender.
So what difference does it make that, like EVERY OTHER major
denominational
seminary in the land, the AoG seminaries all require a year or two of
Hebrew
and a year or two of Greek? Does that tell us anything about the truth or
falsehood of what John claimed? Of course not! Not, in any case, to any
mind free of disease or defect. Evidently a category in which you still
don't belong.
I was ripping the AoG as being a bunch of phonies (in my opinion,
they are). Kelly is evidently AoG, which is simply one more reason I
give her NO credibility.
I didn't get the impression she was implying she is a member of AoG. In
fact, I can't imagine a church that would have her!
|
snort.
I can't imagine her being anything but "non-denominational" and
independent.
I was pointing at her pro-pentecostal sentiments.
"Balderdash!"
| Quote: |
A lesbian, Christian, pentecostal (chuckle), pastor.
If there are real sign gifts today, please take me there and show
me.
When did you quit walking by faith, John.
|
^ ^ ^ " What?" Where did you ever get that impression? I live each
day by faith. And if it hadn't been for doctors who CARED, who DONATED
their time and their resources, I'd be dead now.
(my heart condition, and the indicated therapy cost almost $1
Million.) That was money I didn't have.
I prayed, my wife (at the time) prayed, our church prayed, and the
drs at the UW Medical Center (the local research/teaching university)
agreed to do me "gratis."
Yes, I believe in faith. I and several family members have had
miraculous healings.
BUT, none of us has ever "spoken in tongues." Paul pointed out that
they ceased (with the other "sign gifts") in the 1st C
If Scripture says there are such
| Quote: | gifts given to the Church by the Holy Spirit,
|
Key word is "were." There WERE certain gifts given to the Early
Church. (if you read the right passages, it says the sign gifts were
given to the Apostles)
In other words, God gave the Leadership something He didn't give the
Membership. > sign gifts.
and further says the "gifts
| Quote: | and calling of God are without repentance", then...?
|
#1 If you read 1 Cor 12, it says that not all were given tongues.
Some were, not all.
#2 If you read 1 Cor 13, Paul says (if you study it CAREFULLY), that
the sign gifts ENDED in the 1st C.
If you believe otherwise, I invite you to show me REAL sign gifts.
I've seen hundreds "speak in tongues." But it wasn't real, and it was
inappropriate.
I've actually heard Rod Parsley DEMAND that "everyone in the
sanctuary should be praying in tongues at the same time."
^ ^ ^That's not scriptural.
And I see NO Instance whatever that anyone ever "fell down in the
Spirit."
They do today because it's EXPECTED.
I've seen the truly miraculous enough to not need to see / or do the
fake stuff.
If you are hung up in false "sign gifts", I am very sorry to hear
that.
> |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
john w
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 20, 2008 12:02 am Post subject: Re: @Matt |
|
|
x-no-archive: yes
On Sun, 17 Aug 2008 23:26:41 -0700, "Chuck Stamford"
<shell-stamford@cox.net> wrote:
© 2008 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
| Quote: |
"john w @yahoo.com>" <j<no> wrote in message
news:s0jga49iij5oppo14999ejfqs1q6dmr381@4ax.com...
x-no-archive: yes
On Sun, 17 Aug 2008 00:53:08 -0700, "Chuck Stamford"
shell-stamford@cox.net> wrote:
© 2008 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
"john w @yahoo.com>" <j<no> wrote in message
news:ei4da4tvl52kud2lidbcbeprb8qn34h2q2@4ax.com...
x-no-archive: yes
On Sat, 16 Aug 2008 00:25:30 -0700 (PDT), roymock@gmail.com wrote:
© 2008 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
On Aug 16, 12:53 pm, john w <j<no>@yahoo.com> wrote:
x-no-archive: yesOn Fri, 15 Aug 2008 18:07:53 -0700 (PDT),
roym...@gmail.com wrote:
© 2008 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
On Aug 16, 9:51 am, john w <j<no>@yahoo.com> wrote:
x-no-archive: yesOn Thu, 14 Aug 2008 18:45:59 -0700 (PDT),
roym...@gmail.com wrote:
© 2008 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this
post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
On Aug 15, 11:09 am, john w <j<no>@yahoo.com> wrote:
x-no-archive: yesOn Thu, 14 Aug 2008 14:06:11 -0700 (PDT),
roym...@gmail.com wrote:
© 2008 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this
post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the
author.
On Aug 15, 2:12 am, john w <j<no>@yahoo.com> wrote:
x-no-archive: yesOn Wed, 13 Aug 2008 18:57:13 -0700 (PDT),
roym...@gmail.com wrote:
© 2008 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of
this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the
author.
On Aug 14, 10:29 am, "Chuck Stamford"
shell-stamf...@cox.net
wrote:
roym...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:81b4d8c3-920b-491b-90b9-d21708e06f10@b2g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On Aug 14, 8:22 am, "Chuck Stamford"
shell-stamf...@cox.net> wrote:
roym...@gmail.com> wrote in message
[snip]
And it makes sense to you that God would give a gift of
discerning what
spirit is prompting speech uttered in tongues or as
prophecy (actually
both
are, biblically speaking and uttered in an assembly,
forms of "prophecy",
but with "tongues" needed the companion gift of
"interpretation") to
protect
His flock, ...
I'm not sure if it's said "to protect". 1Cor12:7 says
these gifts are
for "for the common good" in the sense that we "... care
for one
another. If one member suffers, all suffer together; if
one member is
honored, all rejoice together." (1Cor12:25-26).
Surely you're not unaware that there are "diverse spirits"
and that the
devil "walks about as a roaring lion seeking whom he may
devour". I think
we can safely include "protection" in the reason the gift
of
discerning
Satan's presence and influence is given to the Church.
...
The churches I've attended over the years don't seem to have
issues
with utterances from diverse spirits simply because no-one
ever comes
up to say to the effect "I have this special word from the
Lord".
If you actually understood what is being said in Acts 2,
you
are
completely mis-understanding and misinterpreting "tongues."
If you go back and re-read Acts 2, the Apostles didn't
speak
in
tongues during a SERVICE, or to each other.
No one was discussing what happened at Pentecost.
Excuse me! I was discussing Pentecost!
My apologies. 1Cor12 has been the principal text to date.
And now that I'm narrowing down the cause of so much of your
CONFUSION, you are growing ever more hostile.
They spoke in tongues to non-believers (the un-Christian
Jews who
were from "out of town" who had come to Jerusalem for the
Pentecost
festivities.
There is ALSO NO indication WHATEVER that ANY of the "new
believers" that day spoke in tongues. Not one single word is
said that
they did.
I usually take the Pentecost event as unique from the
Corinthian
experience and any current experience
The "Corinthian experience" was one that indicated (by the
text)
that the Christians were already (even in the 1st Century, even
during
Paul's time) falling into false teaching.
, so I wouldn't bring Pentecost
into this discussion.
Well, you don't need to; I did.
Nor will I apologize for it.
And if you aren't open to other points of view, I won't
bother.
So, even in Paul's and Peter's day, speaking in tongues was
NOT a
universal phenomenon.
Thanks for that. I'm not up to speed on that. AFAIK it was
found
in
other pagan religions of the day
You're confusing "glossolalia" (the uttering of nonsense
NOISE)
with
real Tongues.
Tongues as given by God are the giving of a language unknown by
the
speaker for the purpose of ministering to someone in their
native
tongue.
For example: I've never studied Russian. I don't know a single
Russian word. But if I find myself on a trans-continental
flight,
and
I'm sitting next to a Russian businessman, God may give me the
gift of
speaking Russian so that I can minister to the businessman in
his
native language.
Good one!
That is the "gift of tongues" as taught in Acts 2. The
Apostles
were
given the languages of the foreign-born Jews who were in
Jerusalem
for
Pentecost.
In those days, you were known/could be identified as
"Galilean",
or
"Palestinian" or "Spaniard" or "German" by the clothes you had
on.
The foreign-born Jews saw the Apostles speaking their native
languages, and they wondered, "how is it that these men who are
OBVIOUSLY local (from Jerusalem), know our native languages?"
It was a miracle of God that isn't matched by people making
noises
with their mouths in "pentecostal" services today.
And if those "Christians" are lying about THAT, what else are
they
lying about?
I got castigated last month for using 'universal' with the
respondent
calling me a Universalist.
And 1 Cor 13 says that tongues CEASED in Paul's lifetime.
Maybe; maybe not AFAIK. It reads it "will cease" but doesn't
say
when.
Not true. Paul said, (read it CAREFULLY)
"When I was a child (new Christian), I SPOKE as a child
(tongues).
WHEN I BECAME A MAN (mature Christian), I put away the
childish
things (tongues).
And since the sign gifts are a package deal, if ONE ceased
(tongues),
all ceased.
And since there is not one single solitary church today that
practices REAL tongues, then there are no real "prophesies"
either.
I've had MANY "sincere pentecostal" "Christians" INSIST that I
go to
this church or that church, and "see the REAL thing!"
I went, and I saw nothing but demonic activity.
I have seen tongues and prophesy displayed in some churches
I've stayed in for a while in the 80's
No, you haven't. You were tricked. You have OPENLY stated,
you
have NO discernment. (you CAN pray for it)
If you have no discernment (your words), then don't tell me
"it
was
real."
Don't you think that if there was a church anywhere on the
PLANET
where withered arms and legs, and blind eyes and limbs that have
been
BLOWN off were HEALED, there would be weekly TV broadcasts from
there?
And--- if you actually DID hear "prophesy", what was the
prophesy
you heard?
Yes, it was exercised,
Not true.
That would be hard to say that without being there to experience the
gift. A-piori is a weak form of argument.
All you have now proved / established is that you don't know what
you're talking about, but you're OPINIONATED enough (a point of view
with ZERO basis in FACT) that you don't take kindly to anyone rocking
your boat (presenting contrary FACT)
Which leaves me one conclusion. You're already WAY Far gone down
the road to silliness and silly religion.
But, let me address your point. Scripture-- not me-- says that
tongues have stopped. They are no longer a "regular part of worship",
and there never was a REAL "prayer tongue."
Didn't Paul pray in a tongue? " For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit
prays but my mind is unfruitful." (1Co 14:14) .
One last attempt, and then, we're done. I don't see you remotely
asking SINCERE questions. I see that your mind is made up. PERIOD.
You are simply (with ZERO scripture knowledge/ your "knowledge" is
patchwork [a verse here, a verse there])
deciding what you are going to believe, based on hear/say. And any
other view-- complete with scripture-- meets only with mindless
rebuttal of "what you heard some guy say."
"No. Paul did not "pray in tongues." And it's pathetic when some
(you and your loony friends) use that ONE EXAMPLE Paul used
(allegorical) to prove FACT by "example."
IF Paul truly "prayed in tongues,"
* explain the purpose of such activity. (we are to believe and act
with PURPOSE; Gal 1)
John, Paul did say he prayed in tongues "more than you all" (1 Cor. 14:18)
Not correct. You are mis-quoting from memory.
I am not misquoting, and I'm not quoting from memory, having had the passage
right in front of me when I referred to it. And although I quote the whole
passage below, I'll put it here again so that you can see I haven't
misquoted it:
|
You ARE MISQUOTING. The word in context is SPEAK.
You are substituting the word PRAY.
They are entirely separate activities.
And now that you've revealed yourself as "pentecostal," we're done
with this, and perhaps with other stuff, too.
I know enough after 30 YEARS of studying this issue that anyone as
deeply into the "pentecostal/ pretender" movement isn't open to
1 correction
2 other points of view.
| Quote: |
"For you indeed give thanks well, but the other is not edified. 18 I thank
my God I _ speak_ (not "pray") with tongues more than you all; 19 yet in the church I would
rather _speak_ (not "pray") five words with my understanding, that I may teach others also,
than ten thousand words in a tongue." 1 Cor 14:17-19
You can see in verse 17 Paul is congratulating the Corinthians for giving
thanks to God "well" when they pray in tongues,
|
the passage you quoted does not contain the word "pray".
and then goes on to say that
| Quote: | while it is true he (Paul) speaks "with tongues" often, yet he would rather
speak much less in a language his hearers could understand than in hours
worth of speech they couldn't understand.
|
^ ^ So even you-- at this point-- understand Paul saying that there
(in the 1st Century even ) was MUCH more point (value) to speaking in
a known language than running off with noises no one understood.
| Quote: |
Bottom line: There is no plausible way to understand this passage, or
indeed all of 1 Corinthians 12 & 14, than to understand Paul is teaching on
the proper use of the gift of praying and speaking in tongues, and claiming
that he, himself, prays in tongues often. To deny either is simply to deny
Scripture.
|
He didn't mention "praying in tongues." That's YOU pulling that
phrase in from somewhere else.
And its not me "denyig scripture." I am VERY aware of what scripture
says. It is now YOU PLAYING with scripture, manipulating it to make
it say things it does not say.
And he also says, in 1 Cor 13, that "tongues will cease," and he goes
on to say (by the writing of THAT VERY CHAPTER, that tongues had
ALREADY ceased, with the other SIGN GIFTS.
| Quote: |
You really should go back and re-read the passage BEFORE you quote
it. If you are pentecostal/pretender, then you've been misled and you
bought into it, rather than using discernment.
I've never said I was a Pentecostal, and the fact is that I'm not, nor have
I ever been. The churches I've attended most often in my Christian
experience have been Calvary Chapel branches, and if you know anything about
them, then you know they are not Pentecostal.
|
That's not my understanding. I had been led to believe that Calvary
Chapel is pentecostal. My mistkae.
But you defend a religion that is without defense. You're going to
get bumped and bruised for that. And one of those who will bump and
bruise you for defending "false Christianity" will be ME.
| Quote: |
Let me illustrate your error. If you are spiritually sound and open,
you'll see it. If you aren't, you won't.
John, I've made no error.
|
And I notice that you didn't even give me a chance to elaborate!
I truly don't appreciate that. Your mind just snapped closed like a
bank vault.
Very well.
When you can pry it open again, and when you're open to being
corrected about "sign gifts" that don't exist today,
"get back to me."
I sincerely waste NO time on those who defend "sign gifts" that
aren't even around anymore.
And-- as Ive said to others-- if you can find REAL signs (tongues,
healing, folks walking on water) please let me know.
Don't TELL me signs are for today; SHOW me.
SNIP
john w |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Al Smith
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 20, 2008 12:02 am Post subject: Re: * ARE HOMOSEXUAL ACTS WRONG IF THEY'RE IN LOVE? * |
|
|
| Quote: | On Aug 19, 11:44 am, Al Smith <inva...@address.com> wrote:
On Sat, 16 Aug 2008 14:21:32 GMT, "BRUCE" <blimeyTE...@StruthNO.com
wrote:
"Pastor Dave" <ananias917_@_gmail.com> wrote in message
news:peo8a4h3i8uulb5e7ingp8hgabk9dauqio@4ax.com...
***SNIP***
Dude
Homosexuals are the new hate of the relgious right now that their past hates
of blacks and Asians are not acceptable. They now appeal to the predigous of
some to fire up against homosexuals
That is not accurate; homosexuals have been percecuted by Christianity
for centuries. Of course, then non-christians also strongly opposed
homosexuality. Aside from a relitively short time when Plato's insane
ideas festered in Greco-Roman culture, homosexuality has been hated by
most human cultures. Even many people who do not support percecuting
homosexuals are repulsed by the sight of two men kissing. many who
would never think of persecuting homosexuals know that it is
ridiculous for homosexuals to pretend to get married since marriage is
a religious institution and God forbids homosexual sex. Homosexuals
may be an easy target for hate mongers, but that does not mean that
homosexual sex is not wrong/evil. Homosexual sex is forbidden by God.
You really can't get around that just by pointing out the fact that
some christians don't seem to care about their own sins like adultery,
murder, idolatry, et cetera. I don't know if Dave was just hate
mongering. I honestly saw no reason to read his entire post when the
answer to the subject question is so simple: homosexual sex is always
an evil action.
All of human history indicates that homosexuality is not only a
perversion, but a perversion that has been almost universally
condemned. The tolerance of homosexuality in the modern West is a
very disturbing indicator of the quickening decline and decadence of
Western society.
-Al-
Biology argues against homosexuality as well, as it serves no purpose
whereas heterosexuality perpetuates the species. I don't hate
homosexuals though, and physical attacks on them should be labeled
'hate crimes' with the attendant harsher penalties, and discrimination
against them in matters of work, health, housing, etc. should be
illegal - criminally and civilly.
I just saw on the TV news how a doctor (pediatrician) had just lost a
lawsuit brought against him because he refused to treat a child who
had two 'moms' i.e. two homosexual women who acted as the child's
parents. Maybe 60 days in the county jail would be more persuasive
than just a lawsuit initiated at the expense of the people he
victimized.
|
Yes, you're right, biology is against the perpetuation of
homosexuality. Strangely enough, it has not died out, but seems to
have remained relatively constant as a percentage of the population
(although people squabble as to just what that percentage may be).
It is a puzzle how what is obviously counterproductive in a real
sense would continue to be perpetuated. The answer may be that
something else -- something useful -- is tied to homosexuality, and
when we get that useful thing, whatever it may be, we are forced,
genetically, to take homosexuality along with it.
I'm against any malice towards any homosexual, purely on the basis
of his or her homosexuality. Not only physical abuse and violence,
but also verbal abuse and intimidation of any kind, are to be
deplored. It's not the way good people behave. It is not Christian.
It's not polite to give someone a hard time over their sexuality.
On the other hand, I see no reason why homosexuality should be
actively supported by governments, the media, schools, or any other
official or semi-official institution or group.
-Al- |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
john w
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 20, 2008 12:02 am Post subject: Re: @Matt |
|
|
x-no-archive: yes
On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 08:01:56 -0800, Matt . <trdell1234@nospamgmail.com
| Quote: | wrote:
© 2008 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post |
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
| Quote: | On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 03:31:03 -0700, john w <j<no>@yahoo.com> wrote:
x-no-archive: yes
On Mon, 18 Aug 2008 08:43:51 -0800, Matt . <trdell1234@nospamgmail.com
wrote:
© 2008 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
On Mon, 18 Aug 2008 02:07:30 -0700, john w <j<no>@yahoo.com> wrote:
x-no-archive: yes
On Sun, 17 Aug 2008 14:52:37 -0700, "Chuck Stamford"
shell-stamford@cox.net> wrote:
© 2008 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
"Matt ." <trdell1234@nospamgmail.com > wrote in message
news:9apga4t5qi7s8toed31dfn0on32lin1bb6@4ax.com...
On Sat, 16 Aug 2008 23:44:50 -0700, "Chuck Stamford"
shell-stamford@cox.net> wrote:
Nothing important. Called a few names, babbled a little.
I give you a detailed answer to your question, and this is your response?
And you have the nerve to wonder why it is you're treated the way that you
are.
Have you not figured out that Matt is a self-important antagonist?
That and he simply isn't bright enough to wade through your
rhetoric.
You are right I find this s good definition of Chucks writings
rhetoric
2 a: skill in the effective use of speech b: a type or mode of
language or speech; also : insincere or grandiloquent language
I believe the also covers it. insincere or grandiloquent language.
insincere
not sincere : hypocritical
grandiloquent
a lofty, extravagantly colorful, pompous, or bombastic style, manner,
or quality especially in language
Give him more than 20 words or so, and he's looooooooooost.
John you are showing me why they call you "Liar Johnnie".
Ohhhhhh! ^ ^ ^ ^ That's what I call "Hurtful."
You evidently aren't tuned in to "biting sarcasm."
And I wasn't "lying."
You are evidently so self-important that you consider any opinion
but yours a lie.
I gave my honest opinion. You are a buffoon. In my opinion.
I have
never said I had the Gift of Discernment or that I was the right hand
of God as Vera has
Like the rest of us, Vera is entitled to her point of view. Unlike
many, she actually expresses it.
She may be as you call it a ""self-important
antagonist""
I think Vera-- like many (me, you, Chuck, Elaine, John H, CB,
"ujie")-- Vera has issues.
She still calls the Lord "Her Lord." I can't fault that.
Possibly, just possibly, you MIGHT consider turning this criticism
INWARD and asking yourself ("hmmmmm... is ANYTHING John has said, is
anything Vera has said, is anything Chuck has said .. ANYTHING like
reality?"
Of course, you're so busy pointing fingers, it's unlikely you ever
look inside.
And I don't have time or energy for your childish foolishness.
What you consider "being clever", I consider being foolish and
childish.
Like me or hate me, you know where I stand. Like Vera or hater her--
or Chuck-- you know where they stand.
I have no CLUE where you have planted your feet!
We have had our disagreements but for the most part I have been fair
to you.
smirk.
In your opinion, perhaps. Speaking of "opinions," you are about as
opinionated (many views, few FACTS) as it gets.
Now that you have joined Vera's Crew you just follow the
lead. Aren't you better than that?
^ ^ ^ ^ Who says I have "joined Vera's Crew? I have almost as many
issues with Vera as I have with you.
At LEAST, I know Vera is a Christian. YOu, I'm not at all sure of!
Now please go back and read what I originally said.
No.
It wasn't clear then; it's not clear now.
Did I say I don't
remember being Baptized or saved NO. I said I don't remember not
believing in Christ.
I don't recall you saying ANYTHING about "being saved" or when.
You ASSUME that people (take me, for example) read your every word.
I find you such a LOON that I actually read VERY LITTLE of what you
write, and I can assure you, I'll be reading even less of your
rhetoric now.
john w
OK You seem to know so much about me even if you don't read my
post.
Well I guess much of what they say in ARCB is correct.
|
I have read enough of your rhetoric to know to not waste my time
reading all of it.
I commented where I felt lead on what I read.
No, I didn't read all of it; knowing YOU, what's the point?
As for "what they say in ARCB ", you continue to be a silly little
MANIPULATOR.
john w
| Quote: |
Matt
Vera twisted the meaning to suit her purpose.
God Bless
Matt
"My brothers, if one of you should wander from
the truth and someone should bring him back,
remember this: Whoever turns a sinner from the
error of his way will save him from death and
cover over a multitude of sins." |
|
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Matt .
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 20, 2008 12:02 am Post subject: Re: @Matt |
|
|
On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 15:09:55 -0700, john w <j<no>@yahoo.com> wrote:
| Quote: | x-no-archive: yes
On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 08:01:56 -0800, Matt . <trdell1234@nospamgmail.com
wrote:
© 2008 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 03:31:03 -0700, john w <j<no>@yahoo.com> wrote:
x-no-archive: yes
On Mon, 18 Aug 2008 08:43:51 -0800, Matt . <trdell1234@nospamgmail.com
wrote:
© 2008 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
On Mon, 18 Aug 2008 02:07:30 -0700, john w <j<no>@yahoo.com> wrote:
x-no-archive: yes
On Sun, 17 Aug 2008 14:52:37 -0700, "Chuck Stamford"
shell-stamford@cox.net> wrote:
© 2008 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
"Matt ." <trdell1234@nospamgmail.com > wrote in message
news:9apga4t5qi7s8toed31dfn0on32lin1bb6@4ax.com...
On Sat, 16 Aug 2008 23:44:50 -0700, "Chuck Stamford"
shell-stamford@cox.net> wrote:
Nothing important. Called a few names, babbled a little.
I give you a detailed answer to your question, and this is your response?
And you have the nerve to wonder why it is you're treated the way that you
are.
Have you not figured out that Matt is a self-important antagonist?
That and he simply isn't bright enough to wade through your
rhetoric.
You are right I find this s good definition of Chucks writings
rhetoric
2 a: skill in the effective use of speech b: a type or mode of
language or speech; also : insincere or grandiloquent language
I believe the also covers it. insincere or grandiloquent language.
insincere
not sincere : hypocritical
grandiloquent
a lofty, extravagantly colorful, pompous, or bombastic style, manner,
or quality especially in language
Give him more than 20 words or so, and he's looooooooooost.
John you are showing me why they call you "Liar Johnnie".
Ohhhhhh! ^ ^ ^ ^ That's what I call "Hurtful."
You evidently aren't tuned in to "biting sarcasm."
And I wasn't "lying."
You are evidently so self-important that you consider any opinion
but yours a lie.
I gave my honest opinion. You are a buffoon. In my opinion.
I have
never said I had the Gift of Discernment or that I was the right hand
of God as Vera has
Like the rest of us, Vera is entitled to her point of view. Unlike
many, she actually expresses it.
She may be as you call it a ""self-important
antagonist""
I think Vera-- like many (me, you, Chuck, Elaine, John H, CB,
"ujie")-- Vera has issues.
She still calls the Lord "Her Lord." I can't fault that.
Possibly, just possibly, you MIGHT consider turning this criticism
INWARD and asking yourself ("hmmmmm... is ANYTHING John has said, is
anything Vera has said, is anything Chuck has said .. ANYTHING like
reality?"
Of course, you're so busy pointing fingers, it's unlikely you ever
look inside.
And I don't have time or energy for your childish foolishness.
What you consider "being clever", I consider being foolish and
childish.
Like me or hate me, you know where I stand. Like Vera or hater her--
or Chuck-- you know where they stand.
I have no CLUE where you have planted your feet!
We have had our disagreements but for the most part I have been fair
to you.
smirk.
In your opinion, perhaps. Speaking of "opinions," you are about as
opinionated (many views, few FACTS) as it gets.
Now that you have joined Vera's Crew you just follow the
lead. Aren't you better than that?
^ ^ ^ ^ Who says I have "joined Vera's Crew? I have almost as many
issues with Vera as I have with you.
At LEAST, I know Vera is a Christian. YOu, I'm not at all sure of!
Now please go back and read what I originally said.
No.
It wasn't clear then; it's not clear now.
Did I say I don't
remember being Baptized or saved NO. I said I don't remember not
believing in Christ.
I don't recall you saying ANYTHING about "being saved" or when.
You ASSUME that people (take me, for example) read your every word.
I find you such a LOON that I actually read VERY LITTLE of what you
write, and I can assure you, I'll be reading even less of your
rhetoric now.
john w
OK You seem to know so much about me even if you don't read my
post.
Well I guess much of what they say in ARCB is correct.
I have read enough of your rhetoric to know to not waste my time
reading all of it.
I commented where I felt lead on what I read.
No, I didn't read all of it; knowing YOU, what's the point?
As for "what they say in ARCB ", you continue to be a silly little
MANIPULATOR.
john w
|
John I have read enough of your post to know most are about making the
thread about you.
Please calm down. You know why I don't jump in on you in ARCB often.
Because I don't know all the facts and/or History between all of you.
Here you jump in and admit you don't know all the facts. You don't
know the history of ACC and Vera. Yet you know enough to call me a
loon and worst in other post.
Guess that is OK you are John w. At least to you.
Be Well
Matt
| Quote: |
Matt
Vera twisted the meaning to suit her purpose.
God Bless
Matt
"My brothers, if one of you should wander from
the truth and someone should bring him back,
remember this: Whoever turns a sinner from the
error of his way will save him from death and
cover over a multitude of sins." |
|
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
DOC
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 20, 2008 12:02 am Post subject: Re: @Matt |
|
|
On Sun, 17 Aug 2008 16:20:39 -0700, john w <j<no>@yahoo.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
Not true. If you are absolutely positive about that, prove it. And
put it in a form suitable for court.
|
another utile, worthless, retarded IDLE THREAT... |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
DOC
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 20, 2008 12:02 am Post subject: Re: @Matt |
|
|
On Sun, 17 Aug 2008 21:22:18 -0400, "Scout Lady"
<scoutlady@nospam4me.net> wrote:
| Quote: |
"<Kelly>" <316kcbk@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:5b67a984-6300-446f-9c25-fe3551a9f46c@r15g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
Says you, oh John-god Weatherly, man of the size 7 shoe? (or is it one
is size 7 and the other size 6?)
He added the 6 to the 7 to come up with his claim of wearing a size 13 LOL.
I never knew he could add, let alone count that high! |
|
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
|
