| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Bill Baker
Guest
|
 Posted: Thu Aug 28, 2008 9:55 pm Post subject: Re: First "contradiction" explained, showing how it's not a |
 |
|
On Thursday 28 August 2008 03:47 am H.E. Eickleberry, Jr.
<xeickleberrybooks@msn.com> wrote in message
news:<g95l6l$278$1@registered.motzarella.org>...
| Quote: | "Bill Baker" <wbaker@postini.spamcon.org> wrote in message
news:BrqdnWnW79NZEyjVnZ2dnUVZ_vjinZ2d@earthlink.com...
On Wednesday 27 August 2008 09:29 am H.E. Eickleberry, Jr.
xeickleberrybooks@msn.com> wrote in message
news:<g93ksr$n5l$1@registered.motzarella.org>...
[snip]
In conclusion, HOMOSEXUALITY IS A SIN, BUT THE HOMOSEXUALS AREN'T GOING
TO
HELL BECAUSE IT'S A SIN: BY AND LARGE, THEY'RE GOING TO HELL BECAUSE
THEY DECEIVE THEMSELVES, AND WON'T CONFESS THEIR SINS, even to the point
of PERVERTING THE WORD to their own ends rather than ADMITTING THAT THEY
ARE THE PROBLEM to GOD'S end.
Nope, homosexuality is not a sin. There is not a single place in the
Bible
that says it is.
So say the APOSTATES, just as the prophets predicted...
Da 7:25a-c And he shall speak great words against the most High, and shall
wear out the saints of the most High, and think to CHANGE TIMES AND
LAWS...
|
I'm not changing a thing. The Bible has no prohibitions against
homosexuality.
| Quote: | Meanwhile, the Word clearly states...
Le 20:13a If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both
of them have committed AN ABOMINATION...
|
Free clue: homosexual males don't lie with women. And that verse says
nothing about women lying with womankind as they lie with a man, so it
can't be about homosexuality. But keep deluding yourself that God cares
more about legalism than he does about love.
| Quote: | You can try to fool others, and you are definitely fooling yourself, but
GOD ISN'T FOOLED, fool.
|
The only fool here is you. You've created a completely legalistic God who
is devoid of any love for those he created.
--
Bushism 5-2:
"The United States and Russia are in the midst of a transformationed
relationship that will yield peace and progress."
--Washington, D.C.; November 13, 2001 |
|
| |
|
 Back to top |
Ray Fischer
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 28, 2008 10:05 pm Post subject: Re: First "contradiction" explained, showing how it's not a |
|
|
H.E. Eickleberry, Jr. <xeickleberrybooks@msn.com> wrote:
| Quote: | "(¯`·.¸Craig Chilton¸.·´¯) -- Rx for RRR Cult's Loathsome Agendas:
Extinction!" <xanadu222_@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:ic1ua4t17ocjvh080f1g0jerb7b8dkcucp@4ax.com...
On Fri, 22 Aug 2008 11:11:03 -0500,
"H.E. Eickleberry, Jr." <xeickleberrybooks@msn.com> wrote:
"(¯`·.¸Craig Chilton¸.·´¯) -- Rx for RRR Cult's Loathsome
Agendas: Extinction!" <xanadu222_@mchsi.com> wrote:
"H.E. Eickleberry, Jr." <xeickleberrybooks@msn.com> wrote...
... a massive conglomeration of immature and
unsubstantiated insults, and childish "shouts."
Get back to me if you ever decide to grow up.
Until then, you'd be just a waste of time.
Translation: "Ike told the truth about me, and I don't
want to hear it."
Considering your lunacy, I'll take that as a COMPLIMENT.
Do let us all know if you ever manage to shed your immaturity,
AND come up with any relevant and worthwhile facts.
Already did.
1) Homosexuality IS A SIN.
|
Says who?
| Quote: | 2) The Gospel is one OF CONFESSION, NOT RATIONALIZATION.
|
When did God appoint YOU as His spokesman?
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Ray Fischer
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 28, 2008 10:06 pm Post subject: Re: First "contradiction" explained, showing how it's not a |
|
|
H.E. Eickleberry, Jr. <xeickleberrybooks@msn.com> wrote:
| Quote: | "Bill Baker" <wbaker@postini.spamcon.org> wrote in message
Nope, homosexuality is not a sin. There is not a single place in the
Bible
that says it is.
So say the APOSTATES, just as the prophets predicted...
|
People like you.
| Quote: | Da 7:25a-c And he shall speak great words against the most High, and shall
wear out the saints of the most High, and think to CHANGE TIMES AND LAWS...
Meanwhile, the Word clearly states...
Le 20:13a If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of
them have committed AN ABOMINATION...
|
If you weren't such a halfwitted heretic you'd have read enough of the
Bible to know what that doesn't apply.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Bill Baker
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 28, 2008 10:21 pm Post subject: Re: First "contradiction" explained, showing how it's not a |
|
|
On Thursday 28 August 2008 07:20 am (¯`·.¸Craig Chilton¸.·´¯) -- NO
FACTS Support the RRR Cult's Agendas! <xanadu222_@mchsi.com> wrote in
message news:<692db4puf2q4vgv2pi3n25kimr5peip1s8@4ax.com>...
| Quote: | On Thu, 28 Aug 2008 02:47:30 -0500,
"H.E. Eickleberry, Jr." <xeickleberrybooks@msn.com> wrote:
1) Homosexuality IS A SIN.
No MORE so than is LYING, which *is* prohibited in the Ten
Commandments, whereas there is no mention in there of homosexuality.
|
Homosexuality is only arguably a "sin" when done outside the context of a
loving relationship, the same as heterosexuality. In many cases, it is the
absolute complete OPPOSITE of sin. Because if you stop to think about it,
how could God be against love?
--
Bushism 9-20:
"See, without the tax relief package, there would have been a deficit, but
there wouldn't have been the commiserate--not 'commiserate'--the kick to
our economy that occurred as a result of the tax relief."
--Washington, D.C.; December 15, 2003 |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
(¯`·.¸Craig Chilton¸.·´¯
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 28, 2008 10:32 pm Post subject: Re: First "contradiction" explained, showing how it's not a |
|
|
On Thu, 28 Aug 2008 13:21:48 -0400,
Bill Baker <wbaker@postini.spamcon.org> wrote:
| Quote: | Craig Chilton -- NO FACTS Support the RRR Cult's Agendas!
xanadu222_@mchsi.com> wrote:
"H.E. Eickleberry, Jr." <xeickleberrybooks@msn.com> wrote:
|
| Quote: | 1) Homosexuality IS A SIN.
No MORE so than is LYING, which *is* prohibited in the Ten
Commandments, whereas there is no mention in there of homosexuality.
Homosexuality is only arguably a "sin" when done outside the context of a
loving relationship, the same as heterosexuality. In many cases, it is the
absolute complete OPPOSITE of sin. Because if you stop to think about it,
how could God be against love?
|
Excellent point. Jesus was literally God -- in person. And the RRR
Cultists TRASH Him relentlessly by making it out to to be that God is
a hateful ogre. He can't be BOTH. I'll stick with the One who rescused
the Woman at the Well.
In the Old Testament, God was acting more as a disciplinarian parent
sheparding a human race that still was in its early childhood. Jesus dealt
with humanity more as a parent would have dealt with an adolescent.
-- (¯`·.¸Craig Chilton¸.·´¯)
xanadu222@mchsi.com -- To E-Mail me.
http://www.roadrat.com -- Learn how to get PAID to TRAVEL.
http://apifar.blogspot.com -- Great TACTICS to Fight Bigotry.
http://pro-christian.blogspot.com -- Christianity *vs.* Bigotry. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
H.E. Eickleberry, Jr.
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 29, 2008 2:03 am Post subject: Re: First "contradiction" explained, showing how it's not a |
|
|
"(¯`·.¸Craig Chilton¸.·´¯) -- NO FACTS Support the RRR Cult's Agendas!"
<xanadu222_@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:40tcb4duhfa9lsi079tkj5hd550dsuggkd@4ax.com...
| Quote: | On Thu, 28 Aug 2008 02:50:11 -0500,
"H.E. Eickleberry, Jr." <xeickleberrybooks@msn.com> wrote:
"(¯`·.¸Craig Chilton¸.·´¯) -- Rx for RRR Cult's Loathsome Agendas:
Extinction!" <xanadu222_@mchsi.com> wrote:
"H.E. Eickleberry, Jr." <xeickleberrybooks@msn.com> wrote:
"(¯`·.¸Craig Chilton¸.·´¯) <xanadu222_@mchsi.com> wrote:
"H.E. Eickleberry, Jr." <xeickleberrybooks@msn.com> wrote...
... a massive conglomeration of immature and
unsubstantiated insults, and childish "shouts."
Get back to me if you ever decide to grow up.
Until then, you'd be just a waste of time.
Translation: "Ike told the truth about me, and I don't
want to hear it."
Considering your lunacy, I'll take that as a COMPLIMENT.
Do let us all know if you ever manage to shed your immaturity,
AND come up with any relevant and worthwhile facts.
Already did.
1) Homosexuality IS A SIN.
No MORE so than is LYING, which *is* prohibited in the Ten
Commandments, whereas there is no mention in there of homosexuality.
|
FIRST, LYING isn't in the Ten Commandments. BEARING FALSE WITNESSES (i.e.
FALSELY TESTIFYING AGAINST ANOTHER) IS!
When David feigned insanity to save his ass, THAT WAS "LYING," BUT IT WASN'T
"SIN."
Likewise, when Jesus told the boys He wasn't going up to the festival "at
that time," and then turned around and did, THAT WAS A "LIE," BUT IT WAS NOT
A "SIN."
SECOND, there is NO DEATH PENALTY FOR LYING, and LYING DOESN'T CORRUPT THE
TRIUNE IMAGE OF GOD.
HOMOSEXUALITY (as well as all OTHER sexually deviant behavior) DOES.
| Quote: | OTHER sins that are regarded a dismally in the Bible as homosexuality,
|
WHICH IN NO WAY SUBSTANTIATES THE LIE THAT HOMOSEXUALITY ISN'T A SIN, AND
ISN'T IN THE BIBLE.
LOL
You sound like a typical THIRD-GRADER, who, HAVING BEEN CAUGHT with his or
her HAND IN THE COOKIE JAR, immediately tries to MINIMIZE his or her bad
behavior BY POINTING OUT WHAT EVERYONE ELSE HAS BEEN DOING.
| Quote: | or more so, include fortune-telling (or consulting a seer; remember the
Witch of Endor?), and consulting a medium for the purpose of trying to
commun- icate with the dead. THUS -- anyone wacko enough to run
around WHINING about what other people may happen to do with
consenting sexpartners in private, while NOT being just as rabid about
people who lie (which is *everyone*, to varying degrees), go to palm
or tea leaf readers, or play with Tarot Cards or Ouija Boards are total
**HYPOCRITES**.
|
NOTICE how the fraud details COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT POINTS to SUBSTANTIATE
HIS SIN.
Also note that I DIDN'T BRING UP THE SUBJECT OF HOMOSEXUALITY, THE BEAST
CRAIG CHILTON did, THEN HIMSELF WHINES when someone who REALLY understands
what he is doing SLAPS HIM DOWN.
AND I NEVER SAID ANYTHING AGAINST HOMOSEXUALITY THAT WASN'T IN THE LAW.
I WASN'T ADDRESSING THE ISSUE OF HOMOSEXUALITY.
I WAS ADDRESSING THE ISSUE OF HYPOCRISY AND SELF-SUBSTANTIATION (which is
PRECISELY what you engage in ALL THE TIME!
| Quote: | If you want to understand why homophobes are very properly
becoming regarded as LUDICROUS by more and more of society at an
accelerating rate -- THERE is your answer.
|
NOTICE THE ADOPTION of the MODERNIST BUZZWORD "HOMOPHOBES," which is AN
ATTEMPT TO DEFLECT THE SIN OF THE HOMOSEXUAL BACK UPON THOSE WHO CALL IT OUT
FOR WHAT IT IS--SIN--in attempt to make THE OBSERVER THE SINNER IN THEIR
PLACE.
Again, this is ANOTHER TYPICAL TACTIC OF THE THIRD-GRADER CAUGHT WITH HIS OR
HER HAND IN THE COOKIE JAR.
| Quote: | 2) The Gospel is one OF CONFESSION, NOT RATIONALIZATION.
So you are saying that God meant for us to be automatons
|
Notice how THE FRAUD takes off on a TOTALLY IRRELEVANT, NON SEQUITUR LINE OF
REASONING.
That THE GOSPEL is ONE OF CONFESSION, not RATIONALIZATION IN NO WAY makes
people "automatons." But that's a nice, modern "buzzword" to use TO MAKE
OTHER PEOPLE the perpetuator of the crimes, RATHER THAN ACCEPTING PERSONAL
RESPONSIBILITY.
| Quote: | -- and
not people who can THINK and REASON.
|
There is NO REASONING required to know that HOMOSEXUALITY is A SIN.
There is NO REASONING required to know that ALL PEOPLE SIN.
There is NO REASONING required to know that GOD WILL FORGIVE THE REPENTANT
HEART, nor that GOD WILL NOT TOLERATE the DEFIANT HEART (as illustrated in
the story of the poor man and the Publican).
| Quote: | Sorry to disappoint you, but
it doesn't work that way.
|
Bub, you don't know WHAT WAY ANYTHING WORKS with God.
| Quote: | And when it becomes OBVIOUS that the Bible
contains a host of irrefutable contradictions,
|
Ohp, here comes another rationalized deflection: When all else fails, ATTACK
THE SOURCE.
| Quote: | then it is EQUALLY obvious
that not ALL of it could have been Divinely-inspired by a perfect God
Who is "not the author of confusion."
|
LOL
CONFUSION has nothing to with seeming contradictions in the Bible.
The source of confusion is PARADOX, in which TWO OR MORE SEEMINGLY
CONTRADICTORY STATEMENTS which can't be true according to temporal logic ARE
TRUE according to ETERNAL LOGIC.
| Quote: | HENCE -- there is a high likelihood
that in their enthusiasm, some of the writers of that which MEN later
compiled into the book that we know today as the Bible*, got carried
away in practicing literary license, and injected some of their own
personal opinions and prejudices into it.
|
No.
The "author" was RECOUNTING ALL SEXUAL BEHAVIORS that VIOLATE THE TRIUNE
IMAGE OF GOD, i.e. FATHER of RIGHTEOUSNESS and MOTHER of COMPASSION rearing
CHILDREN with SOUND JUDGMENT (as opposed to the OPPOSING force, THE
ANTITRINITY).
| Quote: | Which could very WELL explain
how homosexuality was dealt with harshly in a FEW places, but was
NOT even mentioned in the Ten Commandments.
|
LOL
Homosexuality wasn't mentioned BECAUSE IT WAS SUCH AN ABOMINATION NO ONE
EVEN THOUGHT TO INCLUDE IT.
| Quote: | -- which probably WERE
Divinely-inspired. God DID endow people with varying levels of intellect,
and there is nothing wrong with our USING it to SEE these aspects, and
apply reasoning to them, as I just pointed out.
|
Now comes the self-promoting part, wherein the sinner actually has the
audacity to ELEVATE his stature ABOVE THAT OF HIS ACCUSER (assuming that's
the case), and PRESENT HIMSELF as THE RIGHTEOUS ONE in the situation.
This is a truly amazing exploration of the DEVIANT HUMAN CHARACTER.
Please do go on...
| Quote: | Especially when the
alternative would be to allow a collection of hateful and bigoted loons
to deprive people of reasonable rights and make their lives miserable.
By the millions.
|
Oop. Here we go.
Now the assumably (but errantly so) HEALTHY persons are the SICK PEOPLE and
the SICK PEOPLE are the HEALTHY ONES.
You are truly a clinic waiting for a place to happen.
* See SIG, below.
| Quote: |
3) YOU SHOOT YOURSELF IN YOUR OWN FOOT by attempting to
GO AROUND THE GOSPEL instead of THROUGH IT...
See above. And -- you're getting RABID again.
|
LOL
Bub, the only rabid here IS YOU.
You are a RABIDLY DISEASED PERSON with a RAPIDLY DISEASED MIND following a
horrifically illogical series of arguments TO RABIDLY ATTACK THOSE WHO
AREN'T DUMB ENOUGH TO ASSUME YOUR LIES.
| Quote: | ... which 4) makes you A WORSE APOSTATE than any Catholic
EVER WAS.
Ah. So now you're bigoted toward Catholics, too?
|
Notice how the ill-affected AGAIN turns the tables.
I DIDN'T SAY ANYTHING AGAINST CATHOLICS.
HE DID.
In fact, HE DOES IT ALL THE TIME, in an attempt to SUBSTANTIATE HIS DEVIANT
LIFESTYLE.
Now, I COULD say something against Catholics, as well as Orthodoxy, and
Reformationists, and Dispensationalists (yuck), and, the worst of all
worlds, THE MODERN HIGHER CRITICS, but I would frame that discussion WITHIN
THE TAKE SOME/LEAVE SOME parameters of JESUS' OUTLINE in the SEVEN LETTERS.
However, I NEVER INTENDED ANY SUCH THING in my statement.
I WAS REFLECTING the DISEASE of CRAIG'S STATEMENT, wherein he CONSTANTLY
ATTACKS THE CATHOLIC CHURCH as apostate, when HE HIMSELF IS MORE APOSTATE
THAN ANY CATHOLIC EVER WAS (which might be a GENERALITY, but is NOT INTENDED
TO BE A CONDEMNATION OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH AT-LARGE.
| Quote: | Nothing like
being a *diversified* fool. I'm not Catholic, but I am sensible and fair
enough to recognize that even when people have beliefs that differ
from my own -- whether they be Catholic, Muslim, Taoist or atheist --
it is their RIGHT to believe as they choose. Especially in THIS country,
where that right is Constitutionally-GUARANTEED.
|
CONSTITUTIONS and RIGHT have NOTHING TO DO WITH GOD.
THEY'LL ALL PERISH.
God and HIS "CONSTITUTION" won't, AND THAT WILL BE THE ONE EVERYONE WILL BE
JUDGED BY.
| Quote: | Intelligent people
value that right, and protect & defend it.
|
If anything, you have clearly demonstrated that YOU ARE NO "INTELLIGENT"
PERSON.
| Quote: | Just as the Founding Fathers
valued it enough to do their best to ensure that we will always have it.
|
Who gives a shit what the "founding fathers" valued.
THEY WERE MEN INSTITUTING AN INSTITUTION OF MEN, and that INSTITUTION WILL
BE BURNED DOWN ALONG WITH ALL THE OTHERS in the Day of the Lord.
| Quote: | Now THAT'S immaturity.
I'm GLAD you said that, and I'm happy to leave that comment in. so
that it can stand on record to INDICT you, It adds an explanation point
to your utter loony intolerance.
|
LOL
YOU CAN'T INDICT ME.
SATAN ALREADY DID.
AND I PLEAD GUILTY.
AND BY PLEADING GUILTY JESUS SAVED ME FROM MY GUILT.
See, THAT'S HOW THE GOSPEL WORKS, oh, clueless one: WE DON'T PRESENT
PRETENSE, WE REPENT (even if it is only of the Spirit, and not of the BODY,
which CAN'T repent).
Maybe someday YOU'LL ACTUALLY LEARN SOMETHING ABOUT THE GOSPEL, and how
you're MAKING IT WORK AGAINST YOU INSTEAD OF FOR YOU, oh, clueless one.
Ike |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Bill Baker
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 29, 2008 2:27 am Post subject: Re: First "contradiction" explained, showing how it's not a |
|
|
On Thursday 28 August 2008 01:32 pm (¯`·.¸Craig Chilton¸.·´¯) -- NO
FACTS Support the RRR Cult's Agendas! <xanadu222_@mchsi.com> wrote in
message news:<r9odb4df9fbffhjf5siplg1p7t74b1o1dh@4ax.com>...
| Quote: | On Thu, 28 Aug 2008 13:21:48 -0400,
Bill Baker <wbaker@postini.spamcon.org> wrote:
Craig Chilton -- NO FACTS Support the RRR Cult's Agendas!
xanadu222_@mchsi.com> wrote:
"H.E. Eickleberry, Jr." <xeickleberrybooks@msn.com> wrote:
1) Homosexuality IS A SIN.
No MORE so than is LYING, which *is* prohibited in the Ten
Commandments, whereas there is no mention in there of homosexuality.
Homosexuality is only arguably a "sin" when done outside the context
of a loving relationship, the same as heterosexuality. In many cases, it
is the absolute complete OPPOSITE of sin. Because if you stop to think
about it, how could God be against love?
Excellent point.
|
Thank you.
| Quote: | Jesus was literally God -- in person.
|
No more than any of the rest of us. We are all a part of God. Jesus said
in John 10:34 "Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?"
| Quote: | And the RRR Cultists TRASH Him relentlessly by making it out to to be that
God is a hateful ogre. He can't be BOTH. I'll stick with the One who
rescused the Woman at the Well.
|
Exactly. The Bible says that God is love and that love is patient, kind,
not envious, not rude, not self-seeking, not easily angered -- and here's
the clincher -- keeps NO records of wrongs (1 Cor 13:4-5).
| Quote: | In the Old Testament, God was acting more as a disciplinarian parent
sheparding a human race that still was in its early childhood. Jesus
dealt with humanity more as a parent would have dealt with an adolescent.
|
I think that in the Old Testament, people's understanding of God was
primitive and they had to think of him that way. It's still that way for
many people today who think God is some legalistic judge who throws people
in hell for doing things they think is wrong. They don't realize that if
they're looking for a heaven where they can gloat at all the "sinners"
burning in hell they tried to warn while they float around happy for all
eternity, they're going to be sorely disappointed.
I think we're coming to an age where we think of God differently. Not as a
parent at all, but as the ultimate source of love. Where we can be just
like Jesus was.
An excellent story came up in my sig this time:
--
When I was a boy I heard tell of an old farmer in Vermont. He was dying. The
minister was at his bedside -- asked him if he was a Christian, if he was
prepared to die. The old man answered that he had made no preparation, that
he was not a Christian, that he had never done anything but work. The
preacher said that he could give him no hope unless he had faith in Christ,
and that if he had no faith his soul would certainly be lost. The old man
was not frightened. He was perfectly calm. In a weak and broken voice he
said, "Mr. Preacher, I suppose you noticed my farm. My wife and I came here
more than fifty years ago. We were just married. It was a forest then and
the land was covered with stones. I cut down the trees, burned the logs,
picked up the stones, and laid the walls. My wife spun and wove and worked
every moment. We raised and educated our children -- denied ourselves.
During all these years my wife never had a good dress, or a decent bonnet.
I never had a good suit of clothes. We lived on the plainest food. Our
hands, our bodies are deformed by toil. We never had a vacation. We loved
each other and the children. That is the only luxury we ever had. Now I am
about to die and you ask me if I am prepared. Mr. Preacher, I have no fear
of the future, no terror of any other world. There may be such a place as
hell -- but if there is, you never can make me believe that it's any worse
than old Vermont." - Robert Ingersoll, "Why I Am An Agnostic" |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Bill Baker
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 29, 2008 2:32 am Post subject: Re: First "contradiction" explained, showing how it's not a |
|
|
On Thursday 28 August 2008 05:03 pm H.E. Eickleberry, Jr.
<xeickleberrybooks@msn.com> wrote in message
news:<g973ru$102$1@registered.motzarella.org>...
| Quote: | "(¯`·.¸Craig Chilton¸.·´¯) -- NO FACTS Support the RRR Cult's
Agendas!" <xanadu222_@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:40tcb4duhfa9lsi079tkj5hd550dsuggkd@4ax.com...
On Thu, 28 Aug 2008 02:50:11 -0500,
"H.E. Eickleberry, Jr." <xeickleberrybooks@msn.com> wrote:
"(¯`·.¸Craig Chilton¸.·´¯) -- Rx for RRR Cult's Loathsome
Agendas: Extinction!" <xanadu222_@mchsi.com> wrote:
"H.E. Eickleberry, Jr." <xeickleberrybooks@msn.com> wrote:
"(¯`·.¸Craig Chilton¸.·´¯) <xanadu222_@mchsi.com> wrote:
"H.E. Eickleberry, Jr." <xeickleberrybooks@msn.com> wrote...
... a massive conglomeration of immature and
unsubstantiated insults, and childish "shouts."
Get back to me if you ever decide to grow up.
Until then, you'd be just a waste of time.
Translation: "Ike told the truth about me, and I don't
want to hear it."
Considering your lunacy, I'll take that as a COMPLIMENT.
Do let us all know if you ever manage to shed your immaturity,
AND come up with any relevant and worthwhile facts.
Already did.
1) Homosexuality IS A SIN.
No MORE so than is LYING, which *is* prohibited in the Ten
Commandments, whereas there is no mention in there of homosexuality.
FIRST, LYING isn't in the Ten Commandments. BEARING FALSE WITNESSES (i.e.
FALSELY TESTIFYING AGAINST ANOTHER) IS!
When David feigned insanity to save his ass, THAT WAS "LYING," BUT IT
WASN'T "SIN."
Likewise, when Jesus told the boys He wasn't going up to the festival "at
that time," and then turned around and did, THAT WAS A "LIE," BUT IT WAS
NOT A "SIN."
SECOND, there is NO DEATH PENALTY FOR LYING, and LYING DOESN'T CORRUPT THE
TRIUNE IMAGE OF GOD.
HOMOSEXUALITY (as well as all OTHER sexually deviant behavior) DOES.
|
Wrong. The only thing that "corrupts" God is people like you making him out
to be some legalistic, loveless judging machine.
| Quote: | OTHER sins that are regarded a dismally in the Bible as homosexuality,
WHICH IN NO WAY SUBSTANTIATES THE LIE THAT HOMOSEXUALITY ISN'T A SIN, AND
ISN'T IN THE BIBLE.
|
Homosexuality is not a sin and it's not in the Bible.
<snip>
--
Funny Lurlean quote #55:
"Some sinners get so much radiation on them that they just blow up and leave
a little pile of ashes behind. If you're a standing too close, you might
get burnt up too!" |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
RamRod Sword of Baal
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 29, 2008 3:06 am Post subject: Re: First "contradiction" explained, showing how it's not a |
|
|
"H.E. Eickleberry, Jr." <xeickleberrybooks@msn.com> wrote in message
news:g973ru$102$1@registered.motzarella.org...
| Quote: | WHICH IN NO WAY SUBSTANTIATES THE LIE THAT HOMOSEXUALITY ISN'T A SIN, AND
ISN'T IN THE BIBLE.
|
---------------------------
You go on like that your religion is the only one and it is the final word,
but in truth it, worldwide has only around 33% of the worlds people who
follow it.
That means around 66% of the worlds people do not believe in your faith.
I for one (of the 66%) do not follow your faith and I do not believe in your
opinion of sin
http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html
Incidentally that 66% equals around 4.4 billion persons
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population
IMHO as far as I am concerned you are not welcome here in
alt.politics.homosexuality sprouting your opinions.
BTW it is quite a different number of people who attend church on a regular
basis and those that say they are Christian. In fact very few of those who
say they are Christian actually go to church on a regular basis.
Here are a few URLs
http://www.religioustolerance.org/rel_rate.htm
For example, a poll by Barna Research showed that 17% of American adults say
that they tithe -- i.e. they give 10 to 13% of their income to their church.
Only 3% actually do.
Hadaway, Marler, and Mark Chaves counted the number of people attending four
Protestant churches in Ashtabula County, OH, and in 18 Roman Catholic
dioceses throughout the U.S. In their 1993 report they stated that actual
attendance was only about half of the level reported in public opinion
surveys: 20% vs. 40% for Protestants, and 28% vs. 50% for Roman Catholics.
-------------------------
In Australia
http://www.ncls.org.au/default.aspx?docid=2250
It is noted that less than 2 million attend church weekly.
At the time there was around 19 million in Australia
http://goaustralia.about.com/cs/people/a/austpopulation_2.htm
----------------------
In the USA
http://jmm.aaa.net.au/articles/15909.htm
"At those 331,000 congregations, on average there were 161.9 in attendance,
or 20.4 percent of their constituencies"
To me that seems only one in five go to church in the USA.
According to the CIA world fact book the US has a population of almost 304
million, and it goes on to say that 76.8 are Christian (combination of all
Christian denominations)
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/
So it would seem that the majority of so called Christians do not attend
services, giving a highly inflated number of "Christians". |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
(¯`·.¸Craig Chilton¸.·´¯
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 29, 2008 5:27 am Post subject: Re: First "contradiction" explained, showing how it's not a |
|
|
On Thu, 28 Aug 2008 16:03:54 -0500,
"H.E. Eickleberry, Jr." <xeickleberrybooks@msn.com> wrote:
| Quote: | "(¯`·.¸Craig Chilton¸.·´¯) -- NO FACTS Support the
RRR Cult's Agendas!" <xanadu222_@mchsi.com> wrote:
"H.E. Eickleberry, Jr." <xeickleberrybooks@msn.com> wrote:
"(¯`·.¸Craig Chilton¸.·´¯) <xanadu222_@mchsi.com> wrote:
"H.E. Eickleberry, Jr." <xeickleberrybooks@msn.com> wrote:
"(¯`·.¸Craig Chilton¸.·´¯) <xanadu222_@mchsi.com> wrote:
"H.E. Eickleberry, Jr." <xeickleberrybooks@msn.com> wrote...
|
[[[ READERS: There's a huge difference between capitalizing
a word of phrase to denote the inflection that the writer
would give it if speaking the words -- and "shouting" whole
sentences. The latter is childish, and makes the writer
appear immature or rabidly desperate.
"Ike" may actually BE one or the other of those, or both,
but responding to such idiocy is degrading to the person
doing the responding. (As in -- "WHY am I bothering to
respond to such an *idiot*?!?")
So I had a choice -- let the mindless swill he wrote in this
post go unchallenged, or grit my teeth and put up with
the above idiocy. I settled on a compromise: I've changed
the obvious "shouts" to normal-case lettering, so that I
can at least feel as though I'm dealing with a person
having SOME modicum of intelligence or maturity. If he
objects to that, too bad. The alternative would have been
for me to declare each of his statements "garbage" (when
they were) without going into greater detail. Wherever
any of his words appear to be capitalized for inflective
emphasis, I've tried to let those words remain in caps. ]]]
| Quote: | ... a massive conglomeration of immature and
unsubstantiated insults, and childish "shouts."
Get back to me if you ever decide to grow up.
Until then, you'd be just a waste of time.
Translation: "Ike told the truth about me, and I don't
want to hear it."
Considering your lunacy, I'll take that as a COMPLIMENT.
Do let us all know if you ever manage to shed your immaturity,
AND come up with any relevant and worthwhile facts.
Already did.
1) Homosexuality is a SIN.
No MORE so than is LYING, which *is* prohibited in the Ten
Commandments, whereas there is no mention in there of homo-
sexuality.
FIRST, LYING isn't in the Ten Commandments. Bearing false witnesses (i.e.
falsely testifying against another) IS!
When David feigned insanity to save his ass, that was "LYING," but it
*wasn't* "SIN."
Likewise, when Jesus told the boys He wasn't going up to the festival "at
that time," and then turned around and did, that was a "LIE," but it was NOT
a "SIN."
|
Changing one's mind after stating an intention isn't a lie, unless the
person had stated the alternative intention with purposeful deception in
mind. So no, Jesus almost certainly didn't lie.
Because the commandment in question can be interpreted either
broadly (to include lying in general) or narrowly (to limit its meaning to
false testimonies against a person), I will allow for the *possibility*
that' there may not be a Commandment against lying in general.
However, that being said -- UNLESS John of Patmos was venting his
personal opinion at that point, he makes lying appear to be pretty
serious in THIS passage: Rev. 21:8. (You can read its text in the
link below. Take not of the words, "all liars.")
| Quote: | SECOND, there is NO death penalty for lying, and lying doesn't corrupt
the Triune Image of God.
|
Rev. makes it pretty clear that there is an ULTIMATE death penalty
for lying. See also this, which deals specifically with that passage:
http://pro-christian.blogspot.com/2007/12/well-fellow-christians-if-bible-is-to.html
(If any URL I provide gets attenuated in the posting, I've provide
component parts of it underneath that can be reassembled.) --
http://
pro-christian.blogspot.com/
2007/12/well-fellow-christians-if-bible-is-to.html
| Quote: | HOMOSEXUALITY (as well as all OTHER sexually deviant behavior) DOES.
|
In your OPINION. Which, combined with a nickel, would often be
worth the value of five pieces of penny candy -- total.
| Quote: | OTHER sins that are regarded a dismally in the Bible as homosexuality,
or more so, include fortune-telling (or consulting a seer; remember the
Witch of Endor?), and consulting a medium for the purpose of trying to
commun- icate with the dead. THUS -- anyone wacko enough to run
around WHINING about what other people may happen to do with
consenting sexpartners in private, while NOT being just as rabid about
people who lie (which is *everyone*, to varying degrees), go to palm
or tea leaf readers, or play with Tarot Cards or Ouija Boards are total
**HYPOCRITES**.
Which in no way substaniates the lie that homosexuality isn't a sin, and
isn't in the Bible.
|
What PART of "other sins that are regarded as dismally as
homosexuality," above, led you to think that I'd claimed EITHER of those
things? In my own opinion, some of the writers WERE condemnatory of
homosexuality... and those passages ARE in the Bible.
The manner by which they happened to get in there -- in all likelihood
-- is covered farther down.
| Quote: | You sound like a typical THIRD-GRADER, who, HAVING BEEN CAUGHT
with his or her HAND IN THE COOKIE JAR, immediately tries to MINIMIZE
his or her bad behavior BY POINTING OUT WHAT EVERYONE ELSE HAS
BEEN DOING.
|
Pretty insecure, aren't you? And -- do you realize just how INANE
that comment was? I've been "caught" in nothing. I deal strictly with
clear-cut facts, and highly-likely facts.
| Quote: | Notice hoe [Craig] details completely irrelevant points to substantiate
his sin.
|
(1) I snipped your LIE about me.
(2) The FACT that the other actions I described above are JUST as
highly condemned by the Bible as homosexuality (if not even
more so, in some cases), is totally relevant, and makes my
point VERY well: RRR Cultists *ignore* all of those offenses/
"sins," in their desperation to make the lives of 15 million or
so people miserable by denying EQUAL (not "special") rights
to them -- over the TRIVIALITY of how people happen to have
sex in private -- are **hypocrites.**
(3) This discussion isn't about "my" sin. Since I am a "straight"
ALLY of the Gay Community in its quest for full access to
across-the-board EQUAL rights -- that makes me an egalit-
tarian: a fair-minded and sensible person who opposes all
forms of hatefulness and bigotry.
| Quote: | Also note that I didn't bring up the subject of homosexuality; Craig
Chilton did.
|
Really???? Then, per the attributes, just WHO was it that said THIS,
and thereby turned this post TO that topic? ---
| Quote: | 1) Homosexuality is a SIN.
Then whines when someone who REALLY understands
what he is doing slaps him down.
|
<Lie about me again snipped; I think this guy just may have the
second-most profound inferiority complex of all whom I've seen
make that so obvious, in Usenet.>
(1) What I have been doing is stating FACTS. Do you
have something against facts?
(2) People who have been FAR better at debating than
you are have failed repeatedly to "slap me down."
YOU have been missing that mark by a light-year.
| Quote: | And I never said anything against homosexuality that wasn't in
the law.
|
What law? Current civil laws? There are NO more such prohibitions,
since a very SENSIBLE U.S. Supreme Court ruled all such moronic laws
invalid in "Lawrence vs. Texas," in 2003. And if you're referring to
the Ten Commandments -- you haven't a leg to stand on there, either.
| Quote: | I WASN'T ADDRESSING THE ISSUE OF HOMOSEXUALITY.
|
YOU are the one who initiated this by saying:
| Quote: | 1) Homosexuality is a SIN.
|
Is lying your long suit?
| Quote: | I was addressing the issue of hypocrisy and self-substantiation
(which is precisely what you engage in all the time!)
|
In case you haven't figured this out yet, I am a vigorous OPPONENT
of hypocrisy. (As for self-substantiation." you'll have to explain what
you mean by that.)
| Quote: | If you want to understand why homophobes are very properly
becoming regarded as LUDICROUS by more and more of society at an
accelerating rate -- THERE is your answer.
Notice the adoption of the modernist buzzwod "homophobes," which
is an attempt to deflect the sin of the homosexual back upon those
who call it out for what it is -- sin -- in attempt to make the observer
the sinner in their place.
|
ROTFL!!! That's funnier than hell -- considering the ACTUALITY.
Which is the fact that no one seems to have been able to come up
yet with a single-word term that MEANS: "person who seeks to deny
full access to across-the-board equal rights to homosexuals."
The word, "homophobe." taken literally, would denote "a person who
would fear homosexuals, or homosexuality." Since hardly anyone would
be a fit for that meaning, we really NEED a one-word term to replace it,
which could denote the actual meaning as I described one paragraph
above.
YOUR notion of the way "homophobe" is meant is ludicrous. And
probably gave a LOT of people, including me, a good chuckle just now!
And IF homosexual behavior (not homosexuality, since people are
born with their sexual orientations) WERE to be "sinful," then on a
scale where stealing a candy bar would be "1" and first-degree murder
could be "10" 00 it would probably rank somewhere around 0.3.
| Quote: | Again, this is ANOTHER TYPICAL TACTIC OF THE THIRD-GRADER
CAUGHT WITH HIS OR HER HAND IN THE COOKIE JAR.
|
Again, Ike's display of immaturity. (I left the statement in the form
of his original "shout" so that those of you who are reading this can see
just HOW immature.)
| Quote: | 2) The Gospel is one of confession, not rationalization.
So you are saying that God meant for us to be automatons -- and
not people who can THINK and REASON.
Notice how [Craig] takes off on a totally irrelevant, non sequitur line of
of reasoning. That the Gospel is one of confession, not rationalization in
NO way makes people "automatons." But that's a nice, modern "buzzword"
to use to make OTHER people the perpetuator of the crimes, rather than
accepting personal responsibility.
|
First of all, there's a one-word term (not buzzword -- a factual term)
for who expect OTHER people to "accept responsibility" for matters
which are NO business of theirs whatsoever: "Busybody." Another
good one is "Buttinsky." And yet another accurate and factual term for
them is: "Control-freak."
Then, going back to the earlier portion of your comment, my response
to your point was *totally* relevant.
| Quote: | There is no reasoning required to know that homosexuality is a sin.
|
Of course there is. Because there is a very HIGH probability that
the FEW passages in the Bible that give any indication of that could
very WELL have been injections of their writers' own personal prejudices
and venting. It's a FACT that the Bible was only *partially* Divinely-
inspired, as evidenced by the many irrefutable contradictions that it
contains (a perfect "God is not the author of confusion."). And it's a
FACT that *men* sat in very human councils and compiled the writings
into the anthology we call "The Bible."
By the way, the way people other than yourself happen to have
sex in private, and with whom (as long as partner(s) is/are of-age
and consenting) is NONE or your, or anyone else's business. (See
the words for that intrusive and obnoxious behavior above, staring
with "Busybody.")
| Quote: | There is no reasoning required to know that all people sin.
|
This is true, so SENSIBLE people don't go around whining about it.
And *really* sensible and knowledgeable people know that control-
freakism is *prohibited* in 1 Cor. 5:12-13. God neither appointed nor
authorized ANY person or group to act as *enforcers* of ANY Biblical
precepts. He appointed NO Gestapo! The ONLY discipline authorized
for so-called "sinning" in the Bible is CHURCH discipline -- within congre-
gations, by fellow parishioners -- as that passage makes clear. GOD
will deal with all other situations, Himself.
| Quote: | There is no reasoning required to know that God will forgive the
repentant heart, nor that God will not tolerate the defiant heart.
(as illustrated in the story of the poor man and the Publican).
|
Fine. GOD's business. Not yours.
| Quote: | Sorry to disappoint you, but it doesn't work that way.
Bub, you don't know what way anything works with God.
|
I can *read.*
| Quote: | And when it becomes OBVIOUS that the Bible contains a host
of irrefutable contradictions...
Oh, here comes another rationalized deflection: When all else fails,
attack the source.
|
Nice try, but NOTHING had failed, and the point I am making is
totally relevant to the subject at hand.
| Quote: | ...then it is EQUALLY obvious that not ALL of it could have
been Divinely-inspired by a perfect God Who is "not the author of
confusion."
LOL
CONFUSION has nothing to with seeming contradictions in the Bible.
|
There are *some* seeming contradictions in the Bible -- and there
*also* are a LOT of *actual* and irrefutable ones.
| Quote: | The source of confusion is PARADOX, in which TWO OR MORE
SEEMINGLY CONTRADICTORY STATEMENTS which can't be true
according to temporal logic ARE TRUE according to ETERNAL LOGIC.
|
IOW -- you are saying that the Bible LIED when it stated that "God
is not the author of confusion" -- since no one but God comprehends
"eternal" logic.
The Bible has MANY very real and irrefutable contradictions.
| Quote: | HENCE -- there is a high likelihood that in their enthusiasm, some
of the writers of that which MEN later compiled into the book that
we know today as the Bible*, got carried away in practicing literary
license, and injected some of their own personal opinions and
prejudices into it.
No.
|
You desperation to live in denial of the obvious is duly noted.
| Quote: | The "author" was recounting all sexual behaviors that violate
the Triune Image of God; i.e., father of righteousness and mother of
compassion rearing children with sound judgment (as opposed to the
OPPOSING force, the Anti-Trinity).
|
You really ARE delusional. Thousands of compassionate gay singles,
couples, and married couples currently are raining children compassion-
ately to have sound judgment. If you don't happen to like that, tough.
because that is a FACT.
| Quote: | Which could very WELL explain how homosexuality was dealt with
harshly in a FEW places, but was NOT even mentioned in the Ten
Commandments.
LOL
|
For someone who is losing this argument as egregiously as you
are, you certainly laugh a lot. Delirium?
| Quote: | Homosexuality wasn't mentioned because it was such an abomination
no one even though to include it.
|
INTERESTING!! You seem to be admitting that the Ten Command-
ments were *not* authored by God. Even though it is pretty apparent
that *that* part of the Bible WAS Divinely-inspired! "No one" though
to include it, huh?
Then do you also deny the *omniscience* of God? Because IN His
omniscience, He certainly would have KNOWN that around 5% of the
population at any given time is homosexual. So if it HAD been of
concern to him, then He probably *would* have included it. And he
did NOT.
As debate points go, you just lost about a dozen of 'em in one fell
swoop!
| Quote: | -- which probably WERE Divinely-inspired. God DID endow people
with varying levels of intellect, and there is nothing wrong with our
USING it to SEE these aspects, and apply reasoning to them, as I
just pointed out.
Now comes the self-promoting part, wherein the sinner actually
has the audacity to ELEVATE his stature ABOVE THAT OF HIS ACCUSER
(assuming that's the case), and present himself as the righteous
one in the situation.
|
Nope. I'm just stating the OBVIOUS.
| Quote: | This is a truly amazing exploration of the deviant human character.
|
The only thing "deviant" in this discussion is your high-handed
intolerance and bigotry.
| Quote: | Please do go on...
Especially when the alternative would be to allow a collection of
hateful and bigoted loons to deprive people of reasonable rights
and make their lives miserable. By the millions.
Oop. Here we go.
Now the assumably (but errantly so) HEALTHY persons are the
SICK PEOPLE and the SICK PEOPLE are the HEALTHY ONES.
|
The ONLY *sick** people being discussed herein are ones that
are bone-stupid enough to be control-freakish busybodies.
| Quote: | You are truly a clinic waiting for a place to happen.
|
There you go with that immaturity again.
| Quote: | * See SIG, below.
3) You shoot yourself in your own foot by attempting to
go around the Gospel instead of through it.....
See above. And -- you're getting RABID again.
|
<redundant stupidity flushed>
| Quote: | You are a rabidly diseased person with a rabidly diseased mind
following a horrifically illogical series of arguments to rabidly attack
those who aren't dumb enough to assume your lies.
|
Hmmm. Since you just told those idiotic lies about me, HERE
is the TRUTH:
I am a reasonable and sensible person who has the common
sense to look at what the Bible SAYS, contradictions and all, and
draw very reasonable conclusions from the implications. And if
were intelligent/not brainwashed -- you'd see all of that for
yourself.
| Quote: | ... which 4) makes you a worse apostate than any Catholic
EVER was..
Ah. So now you're bigoted toward Catholics, too?
Notice how the ill-affected AGAIN turns the tables.
|
YOU are the one who brought up such bigoted nonsense.
(Not to mention being the ONLY one here who is "ill-affected.")
| Quote: | I didn't say anything against Catholics. He did.
|
The only ones having this discussion are the tow of us, so
you must be referring to *yourself.* YOU are the one who
directly implied that Catholics are "apostates."
| Quote: | In fact, he does it all the time, in an attempt to substatiate his
deviant lifestyle.
|
WHO is this "he" you're referring to? This conversation is in
the first person, and there's no one in it but US.
| Quote: | Now, I COULD say something against Catholics, as well as Orthodoxy,
and Reformationists, and Dispensationalists (yuck), and, the worst of all
worlds, the modern higher critics, ...
|
... and thereby make an even BIGGER intolerant fool of yourself...
| Quote: | ... but I would frame that discussion within the take some/leave some
parameters of Jesus' outline in the seven letters.
However, I never intended any such thing in my statement.
I was reflecting the disease of Craig's statement, wherein he
constantly attacks the Catholic Church as apostate, when he himself
is more apostate than any Catholic ever was (which might be a generality,
but is not intended to be a condemnation of the Catholic Church at large.
|
What "Craig" are you talking about? If you're referring to him in the
third person, it must be someone other than me. Especially since I have
NEVER referred to the Catholic Church as "apostate." I leave that sort
of lying to intolerant losers like you. I *have* referred to it as "the
world's largest cult," though, since it IS. But just having a host of
wacky *additional* dogmas (such as its hangup over deifying the
Virgin Mary) doesn't make it "apostate."
| Quote: | Nothing like being a *diversified* fool. I'm not Catholic, but I am
sensible and fair enough to recognize that even when people have
beliefs that differ from my own -- whether they be Catholic, Muslim,
Taoist or atheist -- it is their RIGHT to believe as they choose.
Especially in THIS country, where that right is Constitutionally-
GUARANTEED.
CONSTITUTIONS and RIGHT have nothing to do with God.
|
Really? That would come as a surprise to the Founding Fathers,
who wrote, in the Declaration of Independence, giving full credit
to God: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created
equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable
Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
Who do you suppose "the Creator" was, in that key introductory
statement?
| Quote: | They'll all perish.
|
NOT if God *actually* did what the Founding Fathers said He did.
| Quote: | God and His "constitution" won't, and that will be the one everyone
is judged by.
|
Fine! Then let GOD handle it.
| Quote: | Intelligent people value that right, and protect & defend it.
If anything, you have clearly demonstrated that you are no
"intelligent" person.
|
Sorry to disappoint you, but YOU have proven that to be true
of *yourself* -- in spades!
| Quote: | Just as the Founding Fathers valued it enough to do their
best to ensure that we will always have it.
Who gives a shit what the "founding fathers" valued.
|
You obviously don't, in your abject stupidity. (Recall what they
said about "the Creator" in the Declaration.)
| Quote: | They were MEN instituting an institution of MEN, and that
institution will be burned down slong with all the others in the
Day of the Lord.
|
Since Bible prophecy has been 100% accurate, that's probably
true. But in the MEANTIME, I'll keep right on obeying Jesus and keep
showing love and compassion to my neighbors, as He commanded His
followers to.
| Quote: | Now THAT'S immaturity.
I'm GLAD you said that, and I'm happy to leave that comment in. so
that it can stand on record to INDICT you, It adds an explanation point
to your utter loony intolerance.
LOL
You can'r indict me.
|
Of course not. You do that to YOURSELF. As you just did, above.
| Quote: | Satan already did. And I plead guilty.
|
You are a complete loon.
| Quote: | And by pleading guilty. Jesus saved me from my guilt.
|
Circular "reasoning."
| Quote: | See, that's how the Gospel works ... : we don't present pretense,
we REPENT (even if it is only of the Spirit, and not of the BODY,
which CAN'T repent).
|
Repentance is fine, but SO is using one's head for something
better than a hat rack.
<stupidity-flush>
-- (¯`·.¸Craig Chilton¸.·´¯)
xanadu222@mchsi.com -- To E-Mail me.
http://www.roadrat.com -- Learn how to get PAID to TRAVEL.
http://apifar.blogspot.com -- Great TACTICS to Fight Bigotry.
http://pro-christian.blogspot.com -- Christianity *vs.* Bigotry. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
|
