Episcopal Church Defrocks Breakaway Bishop

Born-again Patriot »

Sun Mar 23, 2008 12:23 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

RE: REPOST of message by "Prophet" and my response

Prophet Sun Mar 16, 2008 5:01 pm

Patriot,
So you, then, cannot be saved. Because you were born into sin. And an evil tree cannot bring forth good fruit. And since you are not born again, why the name?

Proph – Re: Your Sun Mar 16, 2008 5:01 pm post

In an earlier post (Sun Mar 16, 2008 12:03 am) you accuse me of “weaving” a “web” of dissemblance. In this post, you accuse me of not being saved.

Rest assured, I am saved, and I am an American patriot; hence, my screen name.

Also, rest assured that until you make reconciliation (Matthew 18:15) for your accusatory behavior (Revelation 12:10), I will have no further communication with you (Ephesians 5:11).

By the unmerited grace of God and by the power of the blood of Jesus Christ I accepted as my personal Lord and Savior. I am first, a born again Christian; I am second, a grateful patriot of the United States. Hence, my screen name.

Episcopal Church Defrocks Breakaway Bishop

Born-again Patriot »

Sun Mar 23, 2008 11:50 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

RE: Original response to Chris333Mon Mar 17, 2008 9:10 - Which someone flagged and deleted.

In it I answer someone's question regarding my slavation. The entire message in its entirety is reposted here:

I asked two questions that you did not answer in a way that seemed clear to me.

My first question, rooted in, and dealing only with the Edenic account in Genesis 1 follows:

How could Edenic humankind have produced the “evil fruit” of sin given that:

(1) All of creation, including man and woman, as created by God, was “very good” (Gen. 1:31) and

(2) Jesus is quoted by the evangelists in Matthew 7:18 and Luke 6:43 respectively, “A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.” and: “For a good tree bringeth not forth corrupt fruit; neither doth a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit”?

I accept your notions that God created our Edenic forbears, as you say, “wholly good” and with free will. I also assent to Jesus’ principle that what is good – by its very essence – produces only good. In light of that, how is it possible that in Eden, humans who were created “wholly good,” would choose to act contrary to what is good? Such behavior is illogical to me. I am merely seeking an answer to this conundrum. Nothing more…nothing less.

I restricted my question to Genesis 1 and would like to limit my consideration of the topic to the time prior to the expulsion. My focus is SOLELY on the fall by the “first Adam” and the “mechanism” that effected it – not on redemption proffered by the “Second Adam.”

I firmly believe that apart from Divine grace, and the love of God, I would still be an evil tree bearing evil fruit, deserving eternal damnation – to use the familiar metaphor. Please understand that, as I have said before, that by the unmerited grace of God and by the power of the blood of Jesus Christ I accepted as my personal Lord and Savior. I am first, a born again Christian; I am second, a grateful patriot of the United States. Hence, my screen name.

My second question is – How could the evangelists intimately associated with Jesus and observing the same event (Matt. 7:18 and Luke 6:43) not record His words exactly in the Scriptural record?

Episcopal Church Defrocks Breakaway Bishop

Born-again Patriot »

Sun Mar 23, 2008 9:33 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

Please be advised that the following email message was sent to webmaster@christianpost.com on Saturday, March 22, 2008 10:37 pm

RE: Verbal abuse on the following thread: http://www.christianpost.com/article/20080313/31507_Episcopal_Church_Defrocks_Breakaway_Bishop.htm

Dear Webmaster:

This is regarding a post appearing on your website and made by christianpost.com member “Prophet” on Sat Mar 22, 2008 7:15 pm.

In the following quote, the individual accuses me of "telling agentorange (for those of you who know him) that he is unsaved and headed for hell.”

His accusation is patently untrue. I have NEVER suggested or accused anyone – at any time – of being unsaved. The determination of any person’s standing before God is a matter between him or her and the Lord.

I am informing you that I have flagged the cited message because of its abusive tone and false statement about me.

I am requesting that you please address this issue with this member. A return message from you regarding this matter would be most sincerely appreciated.

Sincerely yours in Christ

christianpost.com member name: Born-again Patriot

P.S. The complete text of the message posted by “Prophet” follows:

Prophet Sat Mar 22, 2008 7:15 pm : 0 : 0 Flag

I think the correct quote from that post is:
"So you, then, cannot be saved. Because you were born into sin. And an evil tree cannot bring forth good fruit." Please keep it in context. I was merely making a conjecture using your own statement. Maybe it would have made you more comfortable if I had made it into a question.
But.......is that statement true? If it is then it is not abusive, but rather truthful. It is not anymore abusive than telling agentorange (for those of you who know him) that he is unsaved and headed for hell.
If the statement is not true, then please explain how it is wrong? And if you can explain how it is wrong, then you will have answered your own original question.

Until you inform me whether what I said is true or not, and why you claim it true or not, I cannot accept your judgement of libel.

Episcopal Church Defrocks Breakaway Bishop

Born-again Patriot »

Sun Mar 23, 2008 8:58 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

Original message posted by Born-again Patriot on Fri Mar 21, 2008 6:46 pm

RE: Teen4Christ Mon Mar 17, 2008 12:21 pm

Teen4Christ: If I read you correctly, your post mentioned two individuals claiming to be Christians. You challenged one individual who wrote the following messages to another person - each at different times on March 16.

“So you, then, cannot be saved.”
“You cannot be saved.”

Verbal abuse is defined in one study as “an attack on another’s self-concept with the intent or perceived intent to harm the other’s self-image” [Brandt and Pierce (2000)].

Healthy people can reasonably argue the points of an issue. But abuse is different from “arguments, which can be defined as verbal interchanges that ‘involve presenting and defending positions on controversial issues while attacking the positions taken by others on the issues’ (Infante & Rancer, 1982). Therefore, it is the intent to harm that defines verbal aggression [Brandt and Pierce (2000)].”

When it comes to flagging, you have every right to follow the policy of christianpost.com regarding the listed types of behavior. It states: “Please help us to monitor our message boards by flagging Abusive, Spam, Offensive, Illegal, Racist or Libellous (sic) Posts.”

You say you are a teen in school. Be assured that, regardless of your age, if you flag a message for any behaviors mentioned above, you are NOT obligated to contact the offending individual whose message you flagged.

Verbal abusers are emotionally wounded individuals.

After responding to you in my Thu Mar 20, 2008 11:44 am post, I received an email and wish to pass along a summary. In the event you feel you are verbally abused: IMMEDIATELY sever communication with the abuser, note the time then (1) notify your parents or another adult you trust, in the event your parents are not available. If necessary, they may need to (2) contact your local law enforcement agency as well as (3) notify webmaster@christianpost.com.

Be strong in the Lord and in the power of His love. Blessed Easter!

Episcopal Church Defrocks Breakaway Bishop

Born-again Patriot »

Thu Mar 20, 2008 12:44 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

RE: Teen4ChristMon Mar 17, 2008 12:21 pm

I am reluctant to respond to posts that are not addressed to me, but since your message specifically mentioned me, I felt it was okay to open a dialogue with you.

First, I am happy that you and your friends come here to keep abreast of news and current events.

Secondly, if what I write is confusing to you because the issues often addressed here are dense and complicated. When writing, I’ll keep your words in mind and try to do better :)

Thirdly, if I seem too formal, it is only because I try to maintain a cut-and-dry writing style that addresses issues – not personalities. This brings me to what follows:

You said that the purpose of your posting was to challenge the mean-spirited words, accusations and name-calling that are all-too-often hurled by people on this site. You were right to do that; I admire your maturity. Though you did not mention so, if I have done anything to offend you, please let me know – I will be happy to make amends and be reconciled.

Some suggestions I have for dealing with abusers in cyberspace or in “real life”:

First, if anyone here claims to be a Christian and is verbally abusive, accusatory or stoops to name-calling with you, rest assured they are not speaking in Christ’s love.

Allow NO ONE to be abusive to you. You have several options:
You may remain silent, flag the individual’s post, contact: info@christianpost.com, or confront the person’s behavior.

Option 1: You may remain silent. However, if you are truly offended, remaining silent offers no opportunity for reconciliation and allows the abuser’s behavior to go unchecked.

Option 2: Flagging a person’s post causes it to be deleted but also erases evidence of an individual’s abusive behavior.

Option 3: Contact the website and alert your parents. You may copy, cut and paste their posting and save it to a document as well as paste it to an email to info@christianpost.com. Keeping a record is a safety measure for you.

Option 4: See Matthew 18:15-17. Scripture says to approach the offending person in private, but the format of this site renders that option impossible. Your only recourse is to broach the issue publicly. (1) Express the exact nature of your offence in specific terms. Quote the offending party’s words back to him or her. (2) Extend your desire for reconciliation in Christ’s love. (3) If the person acknowledges his or her fault in specific terms and requests your forgiveness – be reconciled – see Psalm 133.

If you elected Option 4 and the offending party refuses to acknowledge his or her actions, assume responsibility for committing the offense and does not seek your forgiveness, reconciliation is not possible. REFUSE to engage the individual in ANY dialogue unless they make amends. Engaging them, without reconciliation, only encourages their abusive behavior. They may try to “hook” you and have the last word. Stand strong in Jesus against the abuser.

Episcopal Church Defrocks Breakaway Bishop

Born-again Patriot »

Thu Mar 20, 2008 7:43 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 2

RE: wilderness Sun Mar 16, 2008 11:47 am

In speaking of creation being “good,” you say “God was talking about the good construction of everything, not moral goodness.”

True “goodness” is simply, and ultimately, the complete actualization of any being’s or thing’s purpose. If one concedes this to be true, goodness must be a universal, immutable principle. If you disagree, please let me know why.

Consider the created universe in Genesis 1:1-31. The heavens, earth, water, sky, vegetation, sun, moon, stars, vegetation, animals and humans were created. Scripture says of these creations that they were, in transliterated Hebrew, “towb me’od”, or “good exceedingly.” Why? Because they were existentially and wholly fulfilling the purpose for which they were created.

The sun, by its God-created design, completely fulfilled its purpose: being a giver of light and heat as well as a marker of the seasons.

The earth, by its God-created design, completely fulfilled its purpose: being a place upon which vegetation and animal life could be produced and humankind could live.

Humans, by their God-created design, completely fulfilled their purpose: being in relationship with God and each other and in relationship to creation.

ONLY when a thing completely fulfills it purpose, is it “exceedingly good” - (“towb me’od).” Whether inanimate, plant or animal, because of a thing’s inherent and God-created goodness, its Edenic qualities were – de rigueur – pleasant, agreeable and benign to any sentient onlooker. The same qualities were true for Edenic humanity, but not only so. Unlike the rest of creation, they were additionally spiritually, intellectually, emotionally – and by necessity – sensibly and ethically agreeable.

To contend that any thing in Genesis 1 was NOT created “exceedingly good,” is to say that:

1) God created that which is not good.
2) That created thing did not fully actualize its purpose vis-à-vis God’s creative act.

To admit the possibility of 2) concedes that any created thing could spontaneously fulfill some other purpose. This would fling wide the door of argument strongly in favor of evolution.

To admit the possibility of 1) is to assert that: a) God created evil, i.e.: a deficiency of good and b) God cannot be wholly good because complete goodness cannot logically create both good and evil.

The preceding considerations gave rise to my original question (Cf. Sun Mar 16, 2008 3:12 pm post.):

How could Edenic humankind have produced the “evil fruit” of sin given that:

(1) Man and woman with their souls, bodies, wills, affects and intellects– as created by God – were “very good” (Gen. 1:31) and

(2) Jesus is quoted by the evangelists in Matthew 7:18 and Luke 6:43 respectively, “A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.” and: “For a good tree bringeth not forth corrupt fruit; neither doth a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.”?

Episcopal Church Defrocks Breakaway Bishop

Born-again Patriot »

Wed Mar 19, 2008 10:38 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

RE: wilderness Mon Mar 17, 2008 5:23 pm

The accounts of Jesus’ “Great Sermon” supplied in Matthew and Luke are so strongly similar that it is unreasonable to conjecture they document anything but the same occurrence – not separate ones, as you suggest. The Matthean pericope (5:1-8:1) as well as the Lukan pericope (6:12-7:1) situate Jesus’ homily between two like events: The first being Jesus activity relative to a mount; the second being his entrance into Capernaum.

Consider Matthew 5:1

Because the formatting on this site does not accommodate a Greek font (BTW, I teach Greek and Latin), the transliteration of Matthew 5:1 is: “idon de tous oxhlous anebe eis to oros kai kathisantos outou pronselthon auto oi mathetai autou.” Suffice it to say that Jesus saw the crowds, “idon de tous oxhlous” and did something. The something that he did was “anebe eis to oros,” or, “walked upon the mountain.” Next, the narrative reads, “kai kathisantos outou” – “and he sat himself down.” Finally, his disciples came to him: “pronselthon auto oi mathetai autou.” The sermon begins.

The phrase “anebe eis” is better understood in terms of its component elements. The verb “anabes” is in the third person, second aorist, active, indicative and merely conveys the image that Jesus, himself, walked. Where did he walk? He walked “upon the mountain” – “eis to oros.” Not in the sense that he hiked up to it then made an ascent, but that he was already there and walking on it. From this point, the narrative states that Jesus took a seat and began to deliver the sermon.

Now consider Luke 6:12-17

In vs. 12, we read that Jesus “exelthen eis to oros proseuxasthai kai en dianuktereuon en te proseuchn tou theou.” He went out upon the mountain. The verb “exelthen” – in the third person second aorist, active, indicative – shows that he went from one location so that he could be “upon the mountain”… “eis to oros”.. the same phrase, used in Matt 5:1.

After spending the night in prayer, and calling the twelve unto him, vs 17 reads, “kai katabas met auton este epi topou pedinou.” The verb “katabas” is in the third person second aorist active participle and means “he went down.” His descent was “upon a level place” – “epi topou pedinou.” From this elevated position of authority, as well as acoustic advantage – and not in a plain – he delivered his Great Sermon.

The closing of the sermon narrative in both Gospels is nearly identical.

In Matthew 7:28 – 8:5, Jesus finished the sermon, came down from the mountainside, healed a leper and entered Capernaum.

In Luke 7:1, Jesus completed the sermon and entered Capernaum.

That these two accounts record anything but the same sermon is not reasonable.

Considering these things, how could these two evangelists intimately associated with Jesus and documenting the same event (Matt. 7:18 and Luke 6:43) not record His words exactly in the Scriptural record? I am speaking specifically of Matt. 7:18 and Luke 6:43.

Episcopal Church Defrocks Breakaway Bishop

Born-again Patriot »

Wed Mar 19, 2008 10:37 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Sorry, I flagged myself because of a typo.

Episcopal Church Defrocks Breakaway Bishop

Born-again Patriot »

Mon Mar 17, 2008 4:16 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

RE: Chris333Mon Mar 17, 2008 9:10

I asked two questions that you did not answer in a way that seemed clear to me.

My first question, rooted in, and dealing only with the Edenic account in Genesis 1 follows:

How could Edenic humankind have produced the “evil fruit” of sin given that:

(1) All of creation, including man and woman, as created by God, was “very good” (Gen. 1:31) and

(2) Jesus is quoted by the evangelists in Matthew 7:18 and Luke 6:43 respectively, “A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.” and: “For a good tree bringeth not forth corrupt fruit; neither doth a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit”?

I accept your notions that God created our Edenic forbears, as you say, “wholly good” and with free will. I also assent to Jesus’ principle that what is good – by its very essence – produces only good. In light of that, how is it possible that in Eden, humans who were created “wholly good,” would choose to act contrary to what is good? Such behavior is illogical to me. I am merely seeking an answer to this conundrum. Nothing more…nothing less.

I restricted my question to Genesis 1 and would like to limit my consideration of the topic to the time prior to the expulsion. My focus is SOLELY on the fall by the “first Adam” and the “mechanism” that effected it – not on redemption proferred by the “Second Adam.”

I frimly believe that apart from Divine grace, and the love of God, I would still be an evil tree bearing evil fruit, deserving eternal damnation – to use the familiar metaphor. Please understand that, as I have said before, that by the unmerited grace of God and by the power of the blood of Jesus Christ I accepted as my personal Lord and Savior. I am first, a born again Christian; I am second, a grateful patriot of the United States. Hence, my screen name.

My second question is – How could the evangelists intimately associated with Jesus and observing the same event (Matt. 7:18 and Luke 6:43) not record His words exactly in the Scriptural record?

Episcopal Church Defrocks Breakaway Bishop

Born-again Patriot »

Sun Mar 16, 2008 7:43 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Proph – Re: Your Sun Mar 16, 2008 5:01 pm post

In an earlier post (Sun Mar 16, 2008 12:03 am) you accuse me of “weaving” a “web” of dissemblance. In this post, you accuse me of not being saved.

Rest assured, I am saved, and I am an American patriot; hence, my screen name.

Also, rest assurred that until you make reconciliation (Matthew 18:15) for your accusatory behavior (Revelation 12:10), I will have no further communication with you (Ephesians 5:11).

Episcopal Church Defrocks Breakaway Bishop

Born-again Patriot »

Sun Mar 16, 2008 4:12 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

wild – Re: Your Sun Mar 16, 2008 11:47 am post

I asked two questions and your responses failed to provide a satisfactory answer to them.

My first question is based upon two premises:

Premise 1: All of creation, including man and woman, as created by God, was “very good” (Gen. 1:31).

Premise 2: Recording the same event, Matthew 7:18 and Luke 6:43 respectively quote Jesus to say: “A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.” and: “For a good tree bringeth not forth corrupt fruit; neither doth a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.”

Question 1: Given that Premise 1 and Premise 2 are true, how could Edenic humankind have produced the “evil fruit” of sin?

Your first response to my first question was that “There may be various explanations.”

My reply is that your response is a non-response because you do not propose even one explanation to my question. Your non-response is an invalid answer.

Your second response to my first question was that Genesis 1:31 refers to all of creation, animate and inanimate. You say that “God was talking about the good construction of everything, not moral goodness.”

My six-part response to you follows:

Part 1: You assert that God, upon surveying the universe, remarked that whole of creation was “good” from a physical, not moral perspective.

Part 2: First, God, the Creator, created all things. Second, God created all things so they would comprised of all their constituent elements – without which, they would not be what they are. Third, these elements, when assembled correctly, comprise the thing and not some other thing. Finally, each thing must fulfill the purpose for which it was created.

Part 3: As you say, humans, like “trees, bees, grass, dust, gold, silver, coal, bugs, plants, herbs, stars, etc.” fulfill the physical requirements and purposes of their existence.

Part 4: However, you fail to consider that humans, unlike all other animate or inanimate terrestrial entities were – because of their physical, intellectual and spiritual components – designed not only to exist with physical integrity in order to fulfill their respective purposes, but to live in right relationship with God and each other.

Part 5: Right relationship could have occurred between God and the Edenic forebears only if humankind was morally “very good” (Genesis 1:31).

Part 6: Your unsubstantiated assertion, that Genesis 1:31 refers only to the physically constituted universe to the exclusion of humankind’s moral constitution, in view of my preceding argument, is in categorical error.

You wholly failed to respond to my second question, which relates to question 1 – How could the evangelists intimately associated with Jesus and observing the same event (Matt. 7:18 and Luke 6:43) not record His words exactly in the Scriptural record?

I would be sincerely appreciative of a response to this question, as well.

Episcopal Church Defrocks Breakaway Bishop

Born-again Patriot »

Sun Mar 16, 2008 10:46 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

proph – Why do you accuse me of “weaving” a “web” simply for asking two questions? Scripture states that Satan is the untiring accuser of believers: “the accuser of our brethren, who accused them before our God day and night, has been cast down…” (Revelation 12:10). My intentions and questions are earnest and sincere; your accusation is unwarranted and offensive (Matthew 18:15).

In an earlier post, wbmoore said, “God wrote the Bible, both the Old and New Testaments, using men as instruments.” Kindly allow me to reiterate my response a third time:

The Bible claims that man and women, as created by God, were “very good” (Gen. 1:31).

We read “A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.” Scripture also proclaims “For a good tree bringeth not forth corrupt fruit; neither doth a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit” Jesus, himself, is quoted to say these words in two separate accounts of the same event in Matthew 7:18 and Luke 6:43.

My first question is – How could man and woman, who were created by God and proclaimed by Scripture to be “very good” have produced the “evil fruit” of sin – especially in view of the fact that the Lord Jesus Christ said that “good” only comes from a “good” source and “evil” comes only from an “evil” source?

You, yourself, state that “Adam and Eve were created good.” Then you claim “Not everything that is good, remains good.” Jesus’ very words contradict what you assert. He never stated or suggested that a “good” tree could, at some future time, possibly produce “bad” fruit – nor the converse – as you claim. In fact, He points out the logical impossibility for anything “good” to generate anything but what is “good.”

You still have not demonstrated how our Edenic forebears, being “very good” could choose to produce the “evil fruit” of sin – even with the faculty of free will – unless, of course (and God forbid!), you are suggesting that Jesus is at best, inaccurate or at worst, a liar.

My second question is – How could the evangelists intimately associated with Jesus and observing the same event (Matt. 7:18 and Luke 6:43) not record His words exactly in the Scriptural record?

I would very much appreciate a response to this question, as well.

Episcopal Church Defrocks Breakaway Bishop

Born-again Patriot »

Sun Mar 16, 2008 12:23 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

Proph – I’m sorry. I do not believe you answered either of the two questions I posed earlier to wbmoore. Please allow me to rephrase:

The Bible claims that man and women, as created by God, were “very good” (Gen. 1:31).

Jesus himself is said to have claimed that “A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit” (Matt. 7:18). In another account of the same event, Jesus was quoted to say “For a good tree bringeth not forth corrupt fruit; neither doth a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit” (Luke 6:43).

My first question is – How can man and woman, who were created by God and proclaimed by Scripture to be “very good” have produced the “evil fruit” of sin – especially in view of the fact that Jesus said that good only comes from a “good” source and evil comes only from an evil source?

My second question is – How could the evangelists intimately associated with Jesus and observing the same event (Matt. 7:18 and Luke 6:43) not record His words exactly in the Scriptural record?

Episcopal Church Defrocks Breakaway Bishop

Born-again Patriot »

Sat Mar 15, 2008 6:47 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

wbmoore: you said, “God wrote the Bible, both the Old and New Testaments, using men as instruments.” Okay, men wrote in Genesis 1:31 “And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.”

Therefore, according to the men who wrote Genesis, all of creation, including humankind, “was very good.”

Some time later, men quote Jesus to say in Matthew 7:18, “A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.” Also, men – being used by God as instruments – quote Jesus to say in Luke 6:43, “For a good tree bringeth not forth corrupt fruit; neither doth a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.”

Help me resolve two questions.

First, how could humanity which was created “very good” by God choose to bring forth “evil fruit” or “corrupt fruit” and disobey God?

Second, how could men closely associated to Jesus and observing the same event (Matt. 7:18 and Luke 6:43) not record that event exactly?

Calif. Supreme Court Takes Up Same-Sex 'Marriage'

Born-again Patriot »

Tue Mar 04, 2008 5:14 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 0

Whoa, Tom!

You can’t be putting words in my mouth. I never said a jack-rabbit could – in a million years – ever choose to be a crow any more than a gay guy could choose to be a straight guy. I might be country, but I’m not stupid.

By the way you never did prove how exactly a person becomes straight. Were you gay and decide to make the flip? If so, how’d it happen for you? If you know of any gay folks, personally, who switched to the, have ‘em post here. I’d love to chat ‘em up and know it’d be a grand time of fellowship.

Calif. Supreme Court Takes Up Same-Sex 'Marriage'

Born-again Patriot »

Tue Mar 04, 2008 4:45 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

Gee, Tom

I widh you'd have re-posted your original message to me. Your posting really seemed to change A BUNCH since the first time I read it (and someone had the God-given sense to flag it)...

I guess you decided it was better to back-pedal on all the profanity masked with just startin' letters, endin' letters and a whole lot of ********* in between

Shiucks, when I first read your piece, it made me think of Romans 3:13-15 (King James Version - It's what my Momma and Pappa) raised me on): 13Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips: 14Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness: 15Their feet are swift to shed blood."

But than again, that's just my little ol' take on things.

Calif. Supreme Court Takes Up Same-Sex 'Marriage'

Born-again Patriot »

Tue Mar 04, 2008 4:06 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Darn it! I was just getting ready to reply to Tom when someone flagged his posting. Tom would you mind re-submitting.

Calif. Supreme Court Takes Up Same-Sex 'Marriage'

Born-again Patriot »

Tue Mar 04, 2008 3:08 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 0

Howdy, Tom!

Whew, you sure are saying a lot of stuff here. I wish to goodness that I could muster up all the fancy ideas and words you and other folks here have been tossin’ into the ring. I’m just a country boy sittin’ next to the fire, lookin’ out the window and takin’ in some of this pretty white snow.

You said gay boys choose to be that way. Pardon my sayin’ so, but that don’t make too much sense. Like they’d really want to get their fannies whooped by puttin’ the moves on the wrong guy, families disownin’ them and everyone starin’ at ‘em at the local store, cafe or gas station, or facin’ folks like you at church? Nope – it just don’t add up. Heck, it’s almost like sayin’ a jack-rabbit can choose to turn into a crow if he flaps his big-ole bunny ears hard enough. Nope. You just don’t make good sense, friend…