Indexes
November 20th, 2009
November 19th, 2009
November 18th, 2009
November 17th, 2009
November 16th, 2009
November 14th, 2009
November 13th, 2009
The following stories have received the most reader comments during the last 7 days.
- The country's mess is our fault (161)
- Obama is not a moderate (130)
- Sarah Palin's book hits the shelves: Locals react (70)
- Despite budget cuts, some Lodi Unified School District salaries continue to rise (58)
- Lodi City Council plans to cap number of taco trucks at 22 (48)
- The haves should help the have-nots (30)
- Public health care is a Christian option (29)
- Lodi Flames slim playoff chances vanish in setback to Tracy Bulldogs (25)
- Tokay in, traveling to unbeaten No. 3 Grant for football playoffs (25)
- Nightmares about America's future (23)
ADVERTISEMENT
The document makes it legal, not the ceremony
Saturday, December 6, 2008 6:11 AM PST
I would like to respond to the various letters that have recently been published in this section regarding Proposition 8. It must be noted that nowhere in the U.S. Constitution is it written that there should be a separation between church and state.
The First Amendment specifically states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ... " In the same breath the Fourteenth Amendment states, "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State (www.usconstitution.net/glossary.html \l "DEPRIVE") deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without (www.usconstitution.net/consttop_duep.html) due process of law; nor deny to any person within its (www.usconstitution.net/glossary.html \l "JURIS") jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." What that means is that the State of California cannot pass a law that infringes on the rights of a citizen. A logical person must conclude that anyone who wishes to be married should be allowed to do so under the rights and privileges granted to all U.S. citizens by the Fourteenth Amendment.
Because our laws are inherently intertwined with religion, we cannot separate them unless we redefine the word "marriage" to mean a religious ceremony performed by a religious leader joining a man and a woman. Currently, before being married by a religious leader, a couple must obtain a marriage "license" to make the union legal. Then, the license is taken to the place of worship and signed by the religious leader. The religious ceremony of marriage in itself is meaningless in the eyes of the law. It is the document that makes the "marriage" legal, not the religious ceremony. So why not let same-sex couples have that "document?" Let them think it is a marriage, when in all actuality it is just the document.
In my eyes, and in the eyes of most Christians, a marriage is a religious ceremony establishing a covenant between God, a man and a woman. There is nothing the courts can do to force religious organizations to "marry" same-sex couples because that, ladies and gentlemen, WOULD be against the Constitution.
Kether Dooley
Lodi
Search for Ads 
Today’s Print Ads 
RSS Feeds
Reader Feedback
real facts wrote on Dec 19, 2008 11:16 PM:
(1) YOUR own homosex "relationship"?
(2) the "wealthy man/servant" lie?
(3) daniel the prophet having homosex?
ANSWER IT, if you think you are going to validate your life "
real facts wrote on Dec 19, 2008 11:15 PM:
" In the mean time I have work to get to, as you have done many times I will dismantle your deflections when I get back").
you should do a word search on the word "delusion", and then do a personal study on the fallout and ramifications of delusion, because if you think that you are going to make 6 thousand years of history suddenly "disappear", then you ARE deluded.
look, all i have to do with you is KEEP REPEATING that 6,000yr history, and sit back and watch as you attempt to FORCE (lie) homosexuality into it to make it "try" and fit.
once again, it NEVER has been "acceptable" in the ENTIRE history of the world by ANY civilization, by ANY religion, and YOU think your going to "dismantle" what?
that's a joke bobby, and your desperate heart knows it.
you know what IS a shame? that this blog is archived, and therefore is not viewed by as many people if it weren't.
not to worry though,....in-the-next-blogs-about-homosexuality,....i-WILL-"remind"-people-of-the-lies-you-told-in-this-one "
real facts wrote on Dec 19, 2008 11:04 PM:
" Real facts would you read Matthew 7 please").
can you imagine my surprise that when i read verses 15 - 20 your picture wasn't attached to it as an example thereof?
what about it, or rather, what about it that you "think" you are going to use against me, because the rightful application of Gods word vindicates that whole chapter upon me?
care to try? "
bobbyg wrote on Dec 19, 2008 9:48 PM:
real facts wrote on Dec 19, 2008 9:06 PM:
(1) YOUR own homosex "relationship"?
(2) the "wealthy man/servant" lie?
(3) daniel the prophet having homosex?
oh yeah, YOU CAN'T......all you can do is spray the blogs and run onto the next lie.
what kind of life is that labeled as in life? oh yeah, it's called LIVING a lie
good career choice bobby.
i know your game is to spray the blogs with your lies about God 'accepting' homosex, but in your imaginary world did you really think that you are going to "outlast" me in here?
NOT A CHANCE
bobby.......the guy who has homosex, who cannot even tell you why he can
preach it bobby, preach it "
real facts wrote on Dec 19, 2008 9:00 PM:
" Why is it when you are confronted with vocabulary, word break downs, translations of the greek words and their meanings, you resort to changing the subject and calling names and TOTAL DEFLECTION!?").
sorry bobby, unlike your "unwillingness" to qualify your OWN life, and in turn completely validate your position, i don't have to resort to lying and deflecting, as that's YOUR methodology.
tell us again how sex with your unbeliever "friend" is justifiable before God?
oh yeah, YOU CAN'T
now, as far as your "examples" of biblical exegesis, i already proved it was a joke by citing that there are ZERO examples of "pro homosexuality" in the bible, and only condemnation following it.
i followed that up by my history lesson where Jesus condemned it both in the old and new testament.
i followed that up by referring you to a rabbinical jew for what the old testament REALLY taught in the origianl languages about homosexual sex, so NO, your game is over.
all you are is what cults do to "legitimize" their beliefs.
they-lie-about-"meanings"-just-like-you-do
your position is a lying
joke "
real facts wrote on Dec 19, 2008 8:49 PM:
also, i want to hear your garbage lie about daniel the prophet and how your going to make that guy some "homogenital" example.
but the best "nugget" that proves you ARE a liar looking to justify his chosen perversion.....YOUR OWN LIFE.
still, you cannot qualify your life around anything homo-related,...(genital-cuddly-examples-included).
your obviously a desperate man, all i have to do is take the tedious time it takes to systematically dismantle every one of your lies, but the juciest one i want to zero in on, the one that ILLustrates your lying ILLness is your OWN LIFE
i have you over a integrity-barrel on that one, as a guy that posts "biblical homosexuality" with veracity, hoping he will believe it himself one day, but yet he CANNOT rectify his OWN sexual life
preach-it-again-bobby, and heap even more judgement upon your life, but in the meantime, throw a little bit of "why i can't" about your OWN life in there
laughing "
bobbyg wrote on Dec 19, 2008 8:49 PM:
You see the definition is true for all the texts so by your deflection and inability to argue that you are proving my point! Thanks "
bobbyg wrote on Dec 19, 2008 8:40 PM:
real facts wrote on Dec 19, 2008 8:35 PM:
Finally, in the obscure term arsenokoitai, if taken to refer to male same sex acts, 1 Corinthians and 1 Timothy would condemn abuses associated with homogenital activity in the First Century: exploitations and abuse. ").
oh, you mean like YOUR "committed" realtionship with your C-BFF???
i see what you mean (laughing)
can you tell us again why YOUR sexual realtionship IS "acceptable" before God
"abuses associated with homogenital activity".....ha ha. that's a good one bobby.
when you look into the biblical mirror, what do YOU see ???
he shoots, he posts, but he cannot score on his own position(s)
i would call it a sad and pathetic display, had it not for bobby knowing better, but doing it intentionally.
i DO NOT feel sorry for the eventual demise of willful liars about Gods standards "
real facts wrote on Dec 19, 2008 8:28 PM:
When given the opportunity when presented face to face with the old man and his young male servant Jesus had every opportunity to say something about homosexuality with the Wealthy old man, however he said nothing about it. ")>
your out of your lying perverted mind.
what are you even talking about as far as being "sexual", man on man ANYWHERE in the bible.
i can't wait for you to "expound" on this FORCED-TEXT lie
where is it ??? "
real facts wrote on Dec 19, 2008 8:23 PM:
("Wow once again when backed in a corner we see how much you lie. Where did I ever say that Sodom was destroyed because of Angels? So me! Sodom was destroyed because they refused to welcome guest, they were rude, arrogant and RAPED visitors to the city. PERIOD! You need to read up on these things before you spew your evil all over this board. ")>
you back me into a corner? that's a laugh
unlike you, i don't have to lie about my life or any aspect of it.
jude spoke out against what happened in sodom (THANK YOU AGAIN), and it wasn't the "lack of hospitality" like your lying wishes assert.
tell us again why sodom is named sodom, and why it wasn't named "inhospitable junction"?
your a joke, and tomorrow i will finish the rest of your garbage lies off as i am making my way up thru your posts of lies "
bobbyg wrote on Dec 19, 2008 8:18 PM:
in mark chapter 7, Jesus condemned every manner of sexual deviancy just as HE did in the old testament as God.
Real Facts, he condemned sexual deviancy by defining what specifically was deviant. Jesus never once mentioned homosexuality. When given the opportunity when presented face to face with the old man and his young male servant Jesus had every opportunity to say something about homosexuality with the Wealthy old man, however he said nothing about it. "
real facts wrote on Dec 19, 2008 8:17 PM:
" The concern about male-male sex is impurity, an offense against the Jewish religion, not a violation of the inherent nature of sex").
that's another lie
it IS a violation against the straight up design of God anatomically, AND the straight up defintions of sex BY God, which within it's designations ONLY condemned homosexual sex, just like it did every other kind of sex outside heterosexual sex within marriage
you can't even make an excuse that it was "jewish law related", because the new testament which was GENTILE inclusive, STILL stated homosexual sex was condemned, so this lie gets squashed as well.
i am good, huh bobby? "
bobbyg wrote on Dec 19, 2008 8:12 PM:
would you like to tell again (lie) to the reading audience that sodom was destroyed because of the behavior of angels, when the fires of sodom could not do ANYTHING to a demon?
Wow once again when backed in a corner we see how much you lie. Where did I ever say that Sodom was destroyed because of Angels? So me! Sodom was destroyed because they refused to welcome guest, they were rude, arrogant and RAPED visitors to the city. PERIOD! You need to read up on these things before you spew your evil all over this board. "
real facts wrote on Dec 19, 2008 8:10 PM:
" First, Leviticus forbids homogenitality as a violation of the ancient Jewish aversion to the mixing of kinds, a confusion of the idealized roles of penetrating males and penetrated females").
what a twisted world you live in, a man that has to spend your whole life attempting to justify the unjustifiable.
like a dog returning to it's own vomit the bible calls it, so it is with your life.
"idealized roles of penetrating males"
i about lost my dinner on the keyboard when i read that lie.
tell us WHERE again there are ANY scriptures that entail "good" homo sex
better yet, remember when i "suggested" you contact a rabbinical jew and ask him about what the bible says about homosexual sex IN THE ORIGINAL, and again you ran out of the room?
"the rightful aspects of penetrating a male"....... biblical-style.
oh no, your not ever going to be in trouble before God about lying about homosexuality "
real facts wrote on Dec 19, 2008 7:59 PM:
Only five texts in the Bible surely express an opinion about male-male sex, Lev 18:22 and 20:13, Romans 1:27 and 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10. All these texts are concerned with something other than homogenital activity itself").
like what, bad decorating skills?
laughing
nope bobby, "opinions" WERE sexual in nature/reference, and they ARE aimed at ANY aspect of homosexual sex.
if you were right, that certain aspects of homosexual sex WAS "acceptable", then the bible would have included examples, definitions, examples of homosex marriage, homosex love, etc.
*************************************
there is ZERO positive referrences found on homosexual sex, and ONLY condemnation following it's reference
************************************
go ahead, find us JUST ONE EXAMPLE where there is "good" homosex
YOU CAN'T......not without your wishful thinking FORCEFUL methodolgy (see roman centurion reference when referencing bobby's "abilities")
JUST ONE BOBBY
laughing "
real facts wrote on Dec 19, 2008 7:46 PM:
And Jesus himself said nothing at all about homosexuality, not even when confronted face to face with a man in a gay relationship Matthew 8:5-13, Luke 7:1-10").
that's a lie
in mark chapter 7, Jesus condemned every manner of sexual deviancy just as HE did in the old testament as God.
Jesus Christ as God didn't condemn it in the old testament, then turn around and "ok it" in the new.
HE condemned ANY SEX outside of HIS design PERIOD, which ONLY includes sex between a man and a woman in a marriage.
any other sex is either fornication or adultery, and is rightfully referred to biblically as "sexual immorality"
sexual immorality is an all-inclusive biblical term used to describe any sex outside of HIS design, and Jesus used that term in bobby's favorite translation, the king james.
and bobby made a most sickening lie about the centurion in matthew 8
there isn't a stitch of homosexuality mentioned, but bobby's depravity driven perversion perverts the text and once again tries to insert homosexuality into something that isn't there
what a liar. but hey, i-told-you-i-never-met-a-homosexual-that-doesn't-lie,....and-bobby-is-proof-positive-i-am-right "
real facts wrote on Dec 19, 2008 7:36 PM:
Biblical figures such as Jonathon and David, Ruth and Naomi, and Daniel may well have been involved in homogenital relationships, seen as part of Gods plan").
that's another straight up lie, the "maybe it could have" force fed lie.
when challenged, you were shown to be a liar on both the david/jonathon lie, AND the ruth/naomi lie, because you couldn't come up with one conclusive passage that had ANYTHING remotely sexual to it.
i pointed out that naomi and ruth were BOTH married to men, and you ran for the hills after that one.
now your back attempting to slide your desperation lying attempt back under the door
there is ZERO sexual content in the ruth/naomi story, and even if there was, it would be ADULTERY, and adultery is a sin before God
same with david/jonathon
all you do in your despearate life is spray the blogs now with your lies, wishing you could believe it if you repeat it enough.
repeating your lies makes you MORE guilty before God bobby
i can't wait for you to us how "daniel" had homosexual sex
laughing "
real facts wrote on Dec 19, 2008 7:25 PM:
" The sin of Sodom was inhospitality, not homosexuality. Jude condemns sex with angels, not sex between two men").
i almost missed this, and THANK GOD (literally) you reminded me of this passage in jude i had completely forgot about.
it's another nail in your lying coffin, because the boob of jude (chapter 1 verse 7) CONFIRMS the sin of homosexuality WAS one of the sins for which God destroyed sodom, and not because of some lie you pulled out of your wishful thinking bag-o-tricks because guess what bobby, God CANNOT destroy "angels" thru a fire on earth.....because angels are IMPERVERVIOUS to human elements because they are spiritual beings
God destroyed sodom because of HUMAN BEHAVIOR, and jude confirms that sodom was aptly named via it's mention of your particular brand of sexual deviancy that jude noted.
would you like to tell again (lie) to the reading audience that sodom was destroyed because of the behavior of angels, when the fires of sodom could not do ANYTHING to a demon?
laughing "
real facts wrote on Dec 19, 2008 7:15 PM:
Not a single Bible text indisputably refers to lesbian sex as bad").
you know what IS disgusting about your act, is that you don't even hide your lies couched in a "maybe" anymore.
you know, those areas of life that really ARE a "maybe" biblically.
romans 1 straight up condemns woman on woman homo sex in it's passage in verse 26, where it states that women gave up the natural use of thier bodies sexually (having sex with each other).
"natural use" while referring to sex (which the passage referred to sex in the previous verse as well concerning homo man sex), means sex as God designed it, between a man and a woman, as the "natural use" was both designed to fit anatomically, and for marital sexual love as per the song of solomon (and everywhere else sex is mentioned in the bible where it is referred to "heterosexually"
this is where i remind bobby that the bible ONLY condemns homosexual sex when it IS mentioned
verse 26 of romans chapter 1 calls you a liar bobby, because you ARE "
real facts wrote on Dec 19, 2008 7:02 PM:
" The sin of Sodom was inhospitality, not homosexuality. Jude condemns sex with angels, not sex between two men").
that's a lie
God didn't destroy sodom because angels wanted to rape some men, as God doesn't destroy pockets of earthly evil that have been perpetrated by "angels".
whenever God has judged mankind, it's because of mankinds behvior, NOT "angels"
men were having sex with men. period
although homosexuality wasn't the "only" sin for which the judgement of God was leveled on sodom and gomorrah, it certainly was one of them, as referenced elsewhere in the new testament, that rampant illicit sex outside Gods design was but one of the reasons it was "blacktopped"
but bobby knows this, and willfully lies by willful exclusion.
tell us again how we get the word "sodomy" bobby?
what's that word derived from, drunkeness, or sex in the "place" where it wasn't designed for?
but before i continue my systematic dismantling of your lies, i do want to THANK YOU for being a fool enough to continue so i can "teach"
sodom(Y) had "nothing to do with homosex"........laughing "
real facts wrote on Dec 19, 2008 6:51 PM:
The Bible does not condemn gay sex as we understand it today. ")>
"as we understand it today", that's code for "my name is bobby, and even I can't tell you how my sexual life is justifiable, because i reside in biblical sexual no mans land", but i am going to try (lie) anyway
yeah bobby, preach it. tell us where YOUR life in the bible "fits" homosexually?
point us to all the passages that say YOUR LIFE is right on track?
cat-got-your-tongue?
for extra points, point us to ONE biblical "homosexual marriage".
for EXTRA points, tell us why in the song of soloman, the "go to" book on sexual love, there is ZERO (let me repeat that ZERO) homosexual references, and ONLY heterosexual ones?
i used to laugh at you when you attempted the "we are committed" angle to justify homosex with your C-BFF, until you revealed you weren't COMMITTED at all.
with leviticus saying straight up man on man sex is an abomination, and romans 1 saying man on man sex is condemned by God , and your "we are committed" joke.....your-game-is-OVER-in-here "
real facts wrote on Dec 19, 2008 6:40 PM:
Understood on its own terms, the Bible was not addressing our current questions about sexual ethics. The Bible does not condemn gay sex as we understand it today. ")>
the sytematic dismantling of lie #459.
the-bible-NEVER-BECAME-"homosexual-sex-"friendly"-for-ANY-cultural-understanding/reason.....that's-a-complete-attempt-at-justification-lie
even outside the biblical record, ALL OF HISTORY has straight up condemned homosexual sex of ANY kind as an abherrant human BEHAVIOR, completely outside the design and function of the human body for the SOLE PURPOSE of perverted pleasure, and that's COMPLETELY OUTSIDE Gods word.
inside Gods recorded word, FOR THE LAST 6,OOO YEARS, homosexual sex of ANY kind has been a sin, and that's just SINCE it's been "recorded".
only until the last few deacades have the "bobby's" of the world PURPOSEFULLY bastardized Gods word for self justification purposes, by PURPOSEFULLY lying about contextual content in order to FORCE homosexuality into the biblical text.
i repeat, there is ZERO positive affirmational passages in Gods word on homosexual sex, and ONLY condemnational language attached to it whenever it's mentioned.
any person that actually picks truth in life KNOWS the texts condemn homosexual sex straight up, not-"aspects_of_it"-like-bobby-lies-about "
real facts wrote on Dec 19, 2008 6:28 PM:
what's the matter bobby, all of a sudden you suffer from stagefright?
all that pontification of telling the masses "the real truth" (puke) about Gods word "including" homosexual sex, and you STILL are silent about being willing to justify your OWN sexual life?
your a running joke, no matter how many times you post. if homosexuality is so "justifiable" before God, why all of a sudden does it hit a STOP SIGN when it arrives at YOUR front door?
that's because IT ISN'T biblically justifiable on ANY level, and especially your lie of a life.
and no, i don't have to be nice to willful evil. someone else can play "nice" with your evil intent of justifying sin before God
as for me, i will continue straight for the "truth jugular", that YOU can't even justify your OWN life, and your going to "teach"?
baWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA "
real facts wrote on Dec 19, 2008 6:18 PM:
" Dont forget what you have already wrote about the Bible not saying anything about homosexuals... Go ahead deny that you said that. ").
you know what bobby, i NEVER forget what a lying joke of a human being you have become via your CHOICES.
now you have elevated yourself to the disgusting level, so go ahead and try and play out your "i am only a nice guy trying to find my way in life" act.
your above post ONCE AGAIN demonstrates how pathetic you are, because that is the 8TH TIME...(in-this-blog-ALONE)...you have purposefully lied about what i said, knowing that portion you posted above was only HALF of what i said and meant.
everytime you lie, you prove to the board that homosexuality IS a perversion, because perversions DEMAND a man lie.
i NEVER said (in context) what i said above, and have in fact said MANY TIMES over and over for two years straight that the bible fully condemns homosexual sex E V E R Y T I M E it's mention
you-have-become-a-lying-trash-can-now
how is that for blunt truth? "
bobbyg wrote on Dec 19, 2008 3:16 PM:
real facts wrote on Dec 19, 2008 11:47 AM:
still, after your exhaustive lying posts TODAY, you STILL cannot sell the notion biblically that YOUR LIFE matches your claims.
your having sex with your boyfriend, and your telling the blogs that sex/homosex without marriage is "ok".
even as much of a liar as you are, even YOU can't find ANY scriptures that justify homosexual sex with your boyfriend.
go ahead, tell everyone that homosexual sex is "ok", while not being able to qualify your OWN life
your a liar AND a hypocrite
go ahead, tell the blog what makes it justifiable FOR YOU
to this date bloggers, bobby has YET to qualify his OWN life, and REFUSES to attempt it
what moron preaches something he can't live up to HIMSELF ????
welcome to the twisted world of bobbyG "
real facts wrote on Dec 19, 2008 11:39 AM:
in the meantime, this little tid bit is a clear window into your methodology of willful lying, and the twisting of Gods word to FORCE your chosen perversion to be "acceptable".
your little quote below demonstrates fully what a liar you are, as just like your CONTINUAL lying accusations of jonathon/david and ruth/naomi, you seek to FORCE sexual connotations into the text to make it "homosexual".
in NONE of those relationship scenarios is there ANYTHING remotely sexual.
your latest "example" of the centurion demonstrates FULLY what a lying desperate sick puppy you are.
a person that HAS TO LIE.........doesn't have a position to begin with.
a big fat THANK YOU for another example of what a liar you really are
***************************************
bobbyg wrote on Dec 18, 2008 7:03 PM:
And Jesus himself said nothing at all about homosexuality, not even when confronted face to face with a man in a gay relationship Matthew 8:5-13, Luke 7:1-10.
************************************** "
real facts wrote on Dec 19, 2008 11:29 AM:
excellant news for the defense of Gods word over someone like you who in their deluded mind "thinks" they can overthrow history so they can skip down justification lane unchallenged.
i literally laughed out loud when i read your rediculous attempt at telling the blogs that the bible "does not speak against homosexual sex", with all your manufactured excuses.
like i said before, you remind me of the various cults that create their own "biblical diversions" just EXACTLY like you just did. "they" also say "the bible really says" blah blah blah. what a joke
you are nothing more than a fool residing in wishful thinking dreamland, dreaming that YOU can make the biblical sin of homosexuality "magically disappear"
not while i am in here. tonight i will devote the proper amount of "attention" to your lies. "
bobbyg wrote on Dec 19, 2008 1:11 AM:
The Holy Bible (King James Version)
"Homosexuality" In The Moral Teaching of Paul, Victor Paul Furnish
Dirt, Greed and Sex: Sexual Ethics in the New Testement and their Implications for Today. William L. Countrymen
The Bible and Homosexuality: reading the Texts in Contexts. J.S. Siker (Editor), Victor Paul Furnish
Homosexuality in the Church: Both sides of the Debate. Victor Paul Furnish
The Centurion and His Slave Boy. James E Miller
The Children are Free. Rev Jeff Miner and John Tyler Connoley
What the Bible Really Says about Homosexuality. Father Daniel A. Helminiak, Ph.D.
Jesus, the Bible and Homosexuality: Explode the myths, heal the church. Jack Rogers
Those are just some of the many sources of some of the books that are at arms length away. "
bobbyg wrote on Dec 18, 2008 7:05 PM:
While the Bible makes no blanket condemnation of homogenital acts and even less of homosexuality, this does not mean the for lesbians and gay men that anything goes. If they rely on the Bible for guidance and inspiration, lesbians and gays men will certainly feel bound by the core moral teachings of the Judeo-Christian tradition: be prayerful, reverence God, respect others, be loving and kind, be forgiving and merciful, be honest and be just. Work for harmony and peace. Stand up for truth, Give of yourself for all that is good and avoid all this you know to be evil. To do that is to follow Gods way. "
bobbyg wrote on Dec 18, 2008 7:04 PM:
bobbyg wrote on Dec 18, 2008 7:03 PM:
Only five texts in the Bible surely express an opinion about male-male sex, Lev 18:22 and 20:13, Romans 1:27 and 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10. All these texts are concerned with something other than homogenital activity itself, and these five texts boil down to only three different issues. "
bobbyg wrote on Dec 18, 2008 7:03 PM:
But a historical-critical approach reads the Bible in its original historical and cultural context. This approach takes the Bible to mean, as best as can be determined, what its human authors intended today in their own time and in their own way. Understood on its own terms, the Bible was not addressing our current questions about sexual ethics. The Bible does not condemn gay sex as we understand it today. "
real facts wrote on Dec 18, 2008 12:55 PM:
look, you have conned a whole bunch of people into thinking you were the great homosexual "hope", and you were the one that actually extracted out of the bible where God gives a big ole' high five to homosexual sex.
now those same people have laid all their marbles at your feet bobby, looking for you to qualify your OWN sexual life before God by using Gods word to validate it.
you unfairly raised their expectations, and now they sit at the computer with popcorn in hand waiting for their homosexual "savior".
where are you bobby?
give the desperate masses what they want, and then i can replicate the REAL truth of Gods word.
it will be a tremendous let down for them when i demonstrate you LIED to them, but that will be on YOU for setting them up, and on them for looking to justify Gods word for sin in the first place, unless of course "they" CHOOSE to adjust to real Godly truth. (we-already-know-you-won't)
DO IT (and use your OWN LIFE) "
real facts wrote on Dec 17, 2008 7:26 PM:
First and foremost, I have not said I have had sex with my boyfriend, you assume that. " "
real facts wrote on Dec 17, 2008 7:25 PM:
I CAN'T WAIT "
real facts wrote on Dec 17, 2008 7:24 PM:
If you would like to bring them back up I would gladly teach you again on what the bible chapters mean again.
So what Chapter would you like to discuss? Leviticus? Romans? 1 Corinthians?
You pick ").
if you want to revisit your lies "about what it says" because you pretend your some justification-biblical-illusionist, please by all means bring that on.
i thrive on this kind of confrontation, because God has equipped me with the "dismantling" abilities of exposing people like you have bastardize Gods word for personal justification or gain.
the reason i am good at it, is because i don't get sucked into the "innocent act" it's cloaked under.
i see God diverting evil for what it is, and i don't have ZERO problems going to the lengths i do in here to squash it.
"evil"-doesn't-deserve-"nice"
by all means bobby, put up, or take your justification circus somewhere else
i would love nothing more in these blogs than for you to qualify YOUR OWN LIFE based around Leviticus, Romans 1 and Corinthians, revelation, etc.
YOUR-OWN-LIFE-bobby
even-your-not-that-great-of-an-justification-illusionist
YOU-WON'T, because YOU-CAN'T "
real facts wrote on Dec 17, 2008 7:11 PM:
you have given yourself over to sin, and now everyday of your life is spent in pretend-land, a "land" where you dream that someday you can overturn the tried and true historical unchanging crystal clear sexual standards of God.
standards that are so clear, it DOESN'T take a theologian to determine intent/meaning.
what man possibly thinks he can fight against God, and FORCE HIM into accepting something God has already labeled as being an abherrant CHOICE?
so bobby, do you really think you can change Gods already spoken opinion about homosexual sex?....or are you that far gone in your sin that you actually think that will EVER happen?
because since BEFORE the recorded words of God thru man, homosexual sex has ALWAYS been a sin, and always will be
revelation 21 says so, and i pick God OVER YOU "
real facts wrote on Dec 17, 2008 6:59 PM:
" Real Facts, I have proved you wrong about about every so called proof you have brought up").
laughing. that's a complete running joke. your completely out of your mind if you even remotely believe that.
delusion + perversion will rot away a mans sensiBILLYity of whats actually right and wrong in life before God, if not only left unchecked, but given over unto the desperation of a man attempting to justify the unjustfiable.
that describes YOU
hey bobby, it's your life to lose, not mine, and if you CHOOSE to go thru the rest of your life lying to yourself and everyone else that could care less about the actual standards of God, who am i to stop you?
actually when i do this "dance" with you, it really doesn't have much to do with you anyway, as i am USING YOU to demonstrate the futility of a man "thinking" he can re-write Gods standards for self justification purposes.....on-ANY-level...(not-just-about-homosexuality)
a long time past, you have demonstrated your NOT a man remotely interested in what God has to say, but about justifying your life......con't "
bobbyg wrote on Dec 17, 2008 5:17 PM:
So what Chapter would you like to discuss? Leviticus? Romans? 1 Corinthians?
You pick "
real facts wrote on Dec 17, 2008 1:10 PM:
you do realize bobby that you will be standing before God one day being judged against God designed truth......ALONE.
(alone = that means apart from the influence of others) "
real facts wrote on Dec 17, 2008 1:04 PM:
First and foremost, I have not said I have had sex with my boyfriend, you assume that. "
real facts wrote on Dec 17, 2008 1:03 PM:
bobby comes in here, guns a blazing wanting to spread his "gospel" that God thinks homosexual sex is just fine and dandy, and that God specifically noted in his word via bobby's incessant demand that Gods word have homosexuality FORCED into it.....and when the fire gets hot, bobby runs out of the room, but not before he can sell you another lie.
bobby, take all the time and posts you want listing the "expertise" of the likes of the Daniel A. Helminak Ph.D.'s of the world, because that "list" can be an arms length long bathed in fine print and YOU can still NEVER circumvent the Word of God about true sexual standards, and Gods word being black and white about ANY KIND of homosexual sex as being OFF LIMITS.
you know what i pray for you now bobby.....that you would catch a small glimps of what's in store in the future of those that attempt to circumvent Gods standards for their OWN personal pleasure.
even you know by now, your desperate, and you can't EVER qualify your OWN sexual life "
bobbyg wrote on Dec 17, 2008 12:26 AM:
For those wanting something to read on the subject, Daniel A. Helminak, Ph.D. a current Catholic Priest who has been so for over 25 years wrote a very interesting book called "What the Bible really says about Homosexuality". It available online and probably at the B&N or Borders. "
real facts wrote on Dec 16, 2008 6:24 PM:
so, quit with your excuses, and let's hear it.
you created your own heat, now it's time to see if you will melt under the refining fire of Gods word
well??? "
real facts wrote on Dec 16, 2008 6:22 PM:
what you described wasn't biblical....what you described was internal DENOMINATIONAL edicts that are completely UNbiblical.
do you think for a minute that ANYONE will stand before God as a "catholic" or a "baptist", etc?
EVERY person will be judged ONLY via the standards of God, and not via affliation directives that were UNbiblical to begin with, and this is the perfect example of knowing what Gods word actually says.
denominations are known for creating within their heirarchy, sets of internal rules that subjegate biblical standards, and you just described such a scenario.
as long as two people ARE believers, and their intent is to follow Christ, they CAN be married.
although "some" concerns can arise via different affliations, that still doesn't mean you can't as your post asserts
what you described was "man based", not biblically based "
real facts wrote on Dec 16, 2008 6:11 PM:
Now tell me, if you are indeed married were you and your "special Friend", "significant other" of the same specific religion?").
of course not. i married an ethiopian woman who was a died in the wool devil worshipper, who sacrificed the neighbors cat to her "god" (lol)
no bobby, unlike you i actually give a rip about what God thinks, and i make my CHOICES based around Gods standards ONLY.
i MADE SURE my wife was on the same page before Christ, BEFORE i committed TO marry her.....otherwise i would have been DISobedient
that's how it works bobby. you DON'T make choices, and then try and FORCE God to accept it.
in your world, THAT'S how you make your choices.
God makes the standards, and "WE" make our CHOICES built around those standards.
God is not a "clean up crew" for us
HE is to be worshipped by being obeyed, unless of course you could really care less.
your out of your mind if you think you can make God "fit" your life on ANY level.....EVER "
real facts wrote on Dec 16, 2008 6:01 PM:
" I was so hoping that you would be challenging to debate on this issue but you are just a blow hard").
laughing
listen, when was the last time someone actually gave you a run for your money and sufficiently challenged you on your OWN life's position?
give me a break (and quit the drama queen act), your responsible for debating the hardest questions your life must face given the brevity of your choices, and i was man enough to make you face them.
choices/positions in here that YOU created, not me
so on that confrontive premise, you STILL haven't qualified your OWN sexual escapades with a man, AND an UNbeliever on top of that.
with a man that "has spent years studying", why is it that even YOU can't qualify those two issues?
is it that it isn't "biblically qualifiable"?
is it that the sex your having with your C-BFF isn't qualifiable under ANY conditions to begin with?
look, the truth is that you CAN'T bobby, and after all these posts/blogs you have FAILED at your quest to make homosexuality "acceptable" before God "
real facts wrote on Dec 16, 2008 5:38 PM:
that's code for you copping out, or trying to, because now your not man enough to come clean on a challenge of your life that YOU created.
YOU created the fire under your OWN life, because YOU came on these blogs bloviating about how you were a "Christian", and that God somehow in your twisted world "accepts" homosexuality as "good", even going so far as saying that God created gays, or rather people are "born gay".
you cried and whined about the marriage thing, and i answered that (i have more in the next post about that).
you cried about me not "handling" other subject matters, and when i do, and turn it back onto you, you make your attempted deflection blame game and try and cut and run.
not so fast bobby. your NOT going to pull what you pull in here and NOT answer for your OWN claims.
the truth of your life is that you still cannot qualify your OWN sexual life, nor can you qualify homosexual sex "biblically"
a guy like you, "if" you could, you would have JUMPED all-over-that-opportunity......now-all-your-relegated-to-is-making-excuses.....and-blaiming-me "
bobbyg wrote on Dec 16, 2008 1:58 PM:
bobbyg wrote on Dec 16, 2008 1:56 PM:
bobbyg wrote on Dec 16, 2008 1:38 PM:
real facts wrote on Nov 14, 2008 7:14 PM:
"you should tell bobby that, seeing how the guy has attemted to FORCE homosexuality to "fit" the bible, when there isn't ONE INSTANCE of homsexuality mentioned (in the Bible) to begin with." " "
real facts wrote on Dec 16, 2008 12:44 PM:
First and foremost, I have not said I have had sex with my boyfriend, you assume that. We are monogamous to each other in the aspect that we are not dating anyone else. "
real facts wrote on Dec 16, 2008 12:19 PM:
If you look in the Bible there are many aspects of Mixed unions, remember that in actuallity the bible also talks that inter religious marriages are not allowed and that referes to no only believers and non believers but also Catholics, Protestants, evangelicals, Baptist and other "Christian" religions are not to inter marry").
i thought you were a "theologian"?
what happened all of a sudden?
first you inSINuHATE that the bible gives some sort of creedence TO "many aspects mixed unions", by implying some of those "aspects" make it ok.....or some weird methodolgy you scramble to make homosexuality "acceptable"......then you feloniously state "the bible says" that people of other Christian factions "cannot marry".
in fact, that's a lie you cannot confirm biblically, because all that IS required is that BOTH participants of HETEROsexual marriage be believers/follwers.
there is no scriptural chasm involved within "sects" as you asserted
two believers HAVE to be actual followers of Christ, not just people that possess "knowledge" about Christ, and that IS possible in your "inter-religious" examples
once again, you have no idea what-you-are-talking-about "
real facts wrote on Dec 16, 2008 12:05 PM:
First and foremost, I have not said I have had sex with my boyfriend, you assume that. We are monogamous to each other in the aspect that we are not dating anyone else").
ok, i will try and contain myself from laughing because as you know i am a straight up no holds barred realist in life, but are you willing to go on record and tell this blog you are NOT having sex with your C-BFF?
come on bobby, your embarrasing yourself
you know what you are inadvertantly doing right? you are vindicating me, because i have made the comment multiple times that homosexuals lie ON PURPOSE.
and no, "currently monogamous" does NOT qualify as "acceptable", it just means you aren't passing yourself around (which is obviously even more of a no no)
now, let's hear it from your own lips.....you don't have sex with your C-BFF? don't think for a minute you won't answer that question, because your whole position hangs in the balnace on that answer, and-i-will-make-sure-you-do "
real facts wrote on Dec 16, 2008 11:57 AM:
" In case you forgot, we dont choose our soul mate, God does that for us. We just have to keep our eyes and our hearts open. ").
laughing
how many "soul mates" have YOU run thru in your short lifetime?
God DOESN'T point people toward sin (like homosexuality), and he certainly DOESN'T point us in the direction of a relationship on that level with an UNbeliever.
if you think for a minute God "pointed you" in the sexual direction of your C-BFF, you are living out a lie
God DOES choose our soulmate, that IS biblically correct.
however, they CANNOT be of the same sex, and they MUST be a like-minded believer.
two strikes and your out
now, tell me you repented of your acting out on your homosexual feelings, you found a woman who is a like minded believer in Jesus Christ, and THEN you will have a sound biblical life before Christ.
until then, your living a lie
not that parents opinions trump Gods, but what do your parents think of your homosexual "choices"? "
real facts wrote on Dec 16, 2008 11:48 AM:
look at what i INCLUDED at the end of my joke.....an "LOL".
your completely deluded if you think for a moment that what goes on in here is based around me, or that i believe i am something that i am not, so go ahead and get over yourself before that overtakes you and tells you (lies to you) that now all of a sudden you don't have to handle your business in here.
now man up and own what you "think" you came to do in here by magically making homosexual sex biblically "acceptable"
you still haven't done it, because it's just like i asserted......YOU CAN'T.
gee, for all those blog clogging bloviations about God thinking homosexual sex is "good", you would have thought i just handed you the golden calf
what's the holdup? stagefright?
listen, my "bluntness" about defending against evil (against those that "think" they can redefine Gods word in favor of personal pleasure/justification) isn't running ANYBODY off.....what it IS doing is dividing the room.
truth does that.
it confronts people into making a descision-once-and-for-all.....it's-what-i-do-in-here "
bobbyg wrote on Dec 16, 2008 11:40 AM:
bobbyg wrote on Dec 16, 2008 11:39 AM:
First and foremost, I have not said I have had sex with my boyfriend, you assume that. We are monogamous to each other in the aspect that we are not dating anyone else. You are correct in saying that he is not Christian. If you look in the Bible there are many aspects of Mixed unions, remember that in actuallity the bible also talks that inter religious marriages are not allowed and that referes to no only believers and non believers but also Catholics, Protestants, evangelicals, Baptist and other "Christian" religions are not to inter marry. Oh but wait you will say that those rules no longer apply anymore either, right? "
bobbyg wrote on Dec 16, 2008 11:31 AM:
Wow real facts, didnt know you were the home maker here. Did I miss something? Do you own these blogs? This is the house that real facts built? WRONG WRONG WRONG. This is a place where we are all allowed to have our own thoughts and oppinions. This is a place designed for people to comment and learn of others. This is not your place to own and tell who can or can not be here, which you have become pretty good at scarring people off and away from these blogs, the same way you keep them away from church and God! "
real facts wrote on Dec 16, 2008 10:53 AM:
time to pony up bobby.....let's see you "biblically" qualify you having sex with another male who you DON'T even live with, who isn't even a "Christian"
shoot, going back to our original base in here, even WTF is "committed", in that atleast he LIVES WITH his woman for i think he said some 25years
well??? "
real facts wrote on Dec 16, 2008 10:48 AM:
just a suggestion "
real facts wrote on Dec 16, 2008 10:44 AM:
you came in here, i didn't invite you (lol), and you "thought" you were going to be the homosexual "savior" in these blogs by making everyone believe thru your "enlightenment" of the scriptures you say you have been "studying" all these years, that homosexual sex is perfectly acceptable before God.
well bobby, where IS "biblical homosexuality"?
let's see YOU make your case for your own/current sexual choices?
should be a walk in the park considering you pass yourself off as one with great "knowledge" about scripture as it pertains to homosexual sex
the truth of the matter is your game is over in here. you can bloviate to the moon with your wishful thinking but the facts remain, you STILL can't make homosexual sex of ANY kind "biblically acceptable", and you sure can't even qualify your OWN sexual life.
all you can do now is embarrass yourself by continuing to try
well,...let's-hear-it? "
real facts wrote on Dec 16, 2008 10:34 AM:
i accuretly replicated (told the truth) about what you have said in here over time. if you don't own your own dizzying roller coaster of a position in the various statements you made in here than that's on you.
i like how you eventually pull your "innocent act" on unsuspecting people when you eventually say to the board while attempting to slip your lies under the back door...."look people, i know it's not what you are used to hearing".....blah blah blah.
no duh it's not what ANYBODYS "used to hearing" because it's a total falicious fabrication (lie) about the true historical rendering against homosexual sex.
either in the original, OR any of the "new translations", one things FOR SURE....homosexual sex is CONTEXTUALLY condemned as sin EVERYTIME.....PERIOD "
bobbyg wrote on Dec 15, 2008 11:51 PM:
Wow I guess when you are painted in a corner you try to lie your way out...
I said that the newer translations have been corrupted, there are over 60,000 "changes" to the NIV from the next previous Bible. I said I believe the King James Version to be the most accurate English language Bible. I never said I "AGREE".
Just another example of your lies and deception. "
real facts wrote on Dec 15, 2008 9:01 PM:
the onus is actually ON YOU bobby, for demonstrating BIBLICALLY where homosexual sex OF ANY KIND is biblically acceptable.
with ONLY examples of heterosexual sex as being Good and acceptable within a marital bond, and ONLY examples of sexual impropriety mentioned regarding ANY sex outside marriage, and ZERO "pro" homosexual sex "examples".....the onus is on YOU to make a biblical case "for" homosexuality.
the truth is, even you can't do it
it's not on us "heterosexuals" to make the case for heterosexual sex inside marriage, as that is the ONLY biblically acceptable sex
go ahead bobby, give it your best shot
make sure you include how you PERSONALLY can justify your OWN life....especially with your recent admission of involving yourself sexually with an unbeliever
don't you find it exhausting trying to justify something that is UNjustifiable?
you are used to experiencing "some" success with your methodology of slipping your biblical lies past indefensible Christians, BUT-NOT-IN-HERE "
real facts wrote on Dec 15, 2008 8:49 PM:
bobbyg wrote on Nov 11, 2008 9:41 PM: " RF wrote: "... because i can show you were alot of times homosexual sex is condemned."
OKay so show us, show us where else you claim?").
i did this as well,........ but you keep thinking you can FORCE homosexuality into the biblical texts by lying that (a) the authors weren't specifically referring to man on man sex, but some bizarre amalgamation of lying deflective "explanations" based around your attempted justification in your lying imaginative mind.....(b) we already proved last night once and for all even the great wanna-be-bobby, the theologian-self-justification-illusionist can't even qualify his OWN sexual relationship on ANY biblical level.
i know your desperation to justify your life DEMANDS it of you, but in here, your wasting your time, because i can easily demonstrate how your lying about "biblical homosexuality".
first you AGREE, the original condemns it, then you say it doesnt. then you say it "became acceptable" AFTER it was translated "correctly".....then you say the newer translations are corrupted.
which-is-it, because-i-am-dizzy?
scripture condemns same sex specfically, then-in-the-all-inclusive-fornication/sexual-immorality-clauses "
real facts wrote on Dec 15, 2008 8:30 PM:
bobbyg wrote on Nov 9, 2008 7:33 PM: If God didnt know that Adam and Eve would sin then why did he enable them to procreate?").
well, you aren't the first to lie and tell the board "you didn't", and you certainly won't be the last. it's the deflective game you people play, because you can't handle your own business after you met a person that actually possessed the tools that COULD make you own it, so you reguriHATE these things so you can skate (or so you think)
be that as it may, i will be glad to take the opportunity again to "teach" and run with it...
i DID answer the question, and i told you that God defintely knew beforehand that adam and eve would fall, and created them in spite of that fact
for God to "not know" as you assert, that stat alone would strip him of his title
the foreknowledge of man sinning would never be a replacement for Gods devine will.
so, what part of this scenario do you "hope" to use to "justify" YOUR life? "
real facts wrote on Dec 15, 2008 8:22 PM:
A TON
Gods word is clear, you don't find yourself in these types of scenarios in life "UNequally yoked", as 2corinthians 14-18 (and i think isaiah 52) points out where God specifically warns us about what you portend is "acceptable behavior".
either way bobby, you can't make a case for yourself biblically on ANY premise sexually with your C-BFF, because...
(a) your not married, and there is no "homosexual marriage" in Gods word anyway
(b) it's fornication
(c) homosexual sex is biblically condemned everytime it's mentioned
(d) he is an unbeliever, and you couldn't "go there" on any of your wishful thinking scenarios.
biblically, there is ZERO hope for you making a case of anything sexual with another man, even IF the guy did believe that Jesus Christ was God.
2corinthians alone condemns your choices, and as you well know by now, the condemnation(s) of your choices are piling up in here by your own hand of admission "
real facts wrote on Dec 15, 2008 8:08 PM:
moses asked her to give up her "hometown" before he WOULD marry her, making it a conditional arrangement where the ethiopian woman would CONVERT over to moses' authority under God.
conversion made it "acceptable", but apart from this specific example, in most every case of the patriarchs/prophets, most everyone failed before God in alot of the choices they made.
solomon comes to mind, and so does david. both men committed sin before God and payed the price FOR their disobedience, yet God STILL used them.
you cannot make a statement that God "accepts" something because someone made a bad choice, and God ended up using that situation and making good out of it.
in your world, this how you premise your CHOICES upon, and you can't
over-----------> "
bobbyg wrote on Dec 15, 2008 6:16 PM:
I didnt think you would answer so here is the answer to your question, this is what God says about mixed religions marriage. "
bobbyg wrote on Dec 15, 2008 4:07 PM:
bobbyg wrote on Nov 9, 2008 7:33 PM: If God didnt know that Adam and Eve would sin then why did he enable them to procreate?
bobbyg wrote on Nov 11, 2008 9:41 PM: " RF wrote: "... because i can show you were alot of times homosexual sex is condemned."
OKay so show us, show us where else you claim?
bobbyg wrote on Nov 11, 2008 9:47 PM:" RF wrote: "from beginning to end, EVERY TIME homosexuality is mentioned straight up, or lumped together under the "sexual immorality" banner, homosexuality is CONDEMNED"
please, show me where you claim Homosexuality is in the Bible? Where can I find your definition of Sexual Immorality? Why in the original translations did it give specific types of sexual sin, yet now YOU are lumping several together rather than using Gods exact wording? Is it becuase you enjoy twisting facts so they suit you? "
real facts wrote on Dec 15, 2008 1:42 PM:
remember how things work in here.....don't purposefully skip over questions asked of you while demanding answers to YOUR questions
you neglected answering this question and made 3 posts after
so ???? "
real facts wrote on Dec 15, 2008 1:40 PM:
" According to the Bible, sex not ceremony or legal recognition creates and solidifies a marriage. For example, in Genesis Abraham took Hagar as a wife, not by ceremony or regard to any government license, but by having sex with her. Because sex instantly creates a marriage covenant ").
i wouldn't necessarily disagree with that description, in that sex is STRICTLY intended ONLY for marriage.
however, as you know from past your "past relationships", that sex alone would not straight across the board constitue a marriage before God because it seems like every biblical example of marriage had some sort of "public" attachment to it, in that as the bible describes "before men", which leads me to believe it involes a public confession OF that committment....."like" a ceremony.
God also calls us to obey the govt laws until they ditch HIS laws, and current "law" states it must include a legal document.
you and i both know sex, a ceremony and a legal document doesn't necessarily constitute a marriage BLESSED by God.
"biblical marriage" is ONLY one-where-two-people-CHOOSE-to-serve-Christ-by-giving-up-their-"singleness"-in-order-to-SERVE-the-other "
real facts wrote on Dec 15, 2008 1:30 PM:
" If Jesus were to say something, he would just say it...
Jesus was not one to imply or beat around the bush, you have said so yourself in the past. Did he tell her to marry the man? Did he tell her to stop sinning?").
Jesus Christ is not like you and me.....he is supremely sufficient in HIS word usage, and made the two points he intended to make with her (1) not to make the same mistakes she made in her past, (2) to make her current situation right (which YOU need to do.
when God speaks to the heart of man, that person "knows" God is calling them TO repent, and the text reveals that thru the confrontive language Christ used.
in the context HE said it, she understood it and you don't have to be a biblical scholar to know what he meant.
whether or not she repented is irrelevant to YOUR life or mine, in that WHEN God confronts us, it doesn't what other people do or don't do
her "repentance" isn't what's significant.......it-is-a-story-about-confrontive-grace-so-man-can-see-he-CAN-repent-before-God-no-matter-what-he-has-done-and-be-"right"-before-HIM "
real facts wrote on Dec 15, 2008 1:22 PM:
" Real facts, you only pick on me and the others (which is okay if it helps to teach people) because you dont talk at all about yourself. We live our lives openly and allow your comments. What about you? We really know nothing about you and your life, like you know about us. Are you ashamed or embarassed of something?").
at times i will use certain aspects of my personal life to "teach", but i am smart enough to know by now in this town you don't give out personal info because you never know what these "integrity giants" will do.
i was previously inadvertantly threatened by sam in a blog with her stating that her brothers were "tech savy", and that she was having them "track my blog activity" in order to find out who i am, and send them after me, all because she didn't like my "bluntness" about her life.
you know PERSONALLY about lodian posting half my email address to threaten me.
i don't have anything to hide integrity wise....as-i-am-known-in-this-town-FOR-my-integrity "
bobbyg wrote on Dec 15, 2008 10:35 AM:
bobbyg wrote on Dec 15, 2008 10:05 AM:
Jesus was not one to imply or beat around the bush, you have said so yourself in the past. Did he tell her to marry the man? Did he tell her to stop sinning? And this comes back to the question I asked you before about marriage, what does the Bible say is considered Marriage unto God? "
bobbyg wrote on Dec 15, 2008 10:01 AM:
real facts wrote on Dec 15, 2008 9:58 AM:
real facts wrote on Dec 15, 2008 9:56 AM:
you don't have to be a biblical scholar to figure out that Jesus was pointing out to her that she was living with, and having sex with, a man without a marital committment, and this displeased HIM.
God doesn't "point things out" without a specific reason in mind.
HE would not have said a thing if the person she "now hast" was just a platonic type friend or aquaintance.
it involved the sexual element
you would think he would zero in on the fact she has divorced 5 times, yet within the grace framework of God, you could tell what mattered most to Christ was NOT what was in the rear view mirror of this womans life, but what she would do from that moment on to NOT repeat past sins, and "fix" her current disobedience by making her current situation right.
two-fer-one-deal......and that's why God mentioned both facts about her....the 5 previous husbands AND the fact that she was only living with another man.
as we should always do, where does YOUR life "fit" within that story bobby? "
Audi 5000 wrote on Dec 15, 2008 9:41 AM:
bobbyg wrote on Dec 14, 2008 10:00 PM:
16 Jesus saith unto her, Go, call thy husband, and come hither.
17 The woman answered and said, I have no husband. Jesus said unto her, Thou hast well said, I have no husband:
18 For thou hast had five husbands; and he whom thou now hast is not thy husband: in that saidst thou truly.
what is your point about these verses? That there is examples of divorce? That the person which she was living was not her husband? It does not say she was having sex with him. "
danielH wrote on Dec 14, 2008 3:51 PM:
danielH wrote on Dec 14, 2008 3:50 PM:
If you look closely at federal statutes, where they refer to states, you have to trace down their definition. If you attempt to do this, the closest you will ever come is into a sentence that refers to the District of Columbia, outlying possessions.
If you automatically assume that the continental 48 are going to be defined as states, nope. They are not. The closest you will come is to find the word "state" is used to define "state." "
real facts wrote on Dec 14, 2008 3:41 PM:
cracks me up how you people look completely the other way on all things integrity related, but that's the river you people swim in, while attempting to sell to others your holders of truth. it's a joke in here
btw, C-BFF stands for "current" best friends forever. i think you know why i added the word "current"
being an "open book" is an awesome thing bobby.....if you lead a life WORTH being an open book about
after todays revelations, you have ALOT to think about as far as your choices go, and being "nice" isn't an automatic ticket into Gods presence "
real facts wrote on Dec 14, 2008 3:36 PM:
Leonard, how do I find that ignore button you found? lol ").
why not? that's what you do when you see something in Gods word that doesn't "fit" your homosexual choice....you hit the "ignore button"
don't blame me for your fall in here bobby, your the one that came on her extolling the precepts of God honored homosexuality, and yet like i have been stating for multiple blogs that you cannot even qualify your OWN sexual realtionship.
how is that my fault?
voter will come off as a "loving/understanding" human being, but that guy has demonstrated everything "hatred" about God and his word, and so everything that rolls off of voters tongue is anti-christ inspired. if you as a claimed "Christian" think you are going to take your cues in life from those who vehetemly fight against God, go ahead, that will only become another "nail" in your coffin.
voter cracks me up, by calling it "hatred" when that guy bullies Christians like it's nothing.
that guy calls billy rubin a good guy
laughing "
bobbyg wrote on Dec 14, 2008 2:49 PM:
voter wrote on Dec 14, 2008 2:32 PM:
bobbyg wrote on Dec 14, 2008 2:20 PM:
BFF (C-BFF)? "
bobbyg wrote on Dec 14, 2008 2:18 PM:
Leonard, how do I find that ignore button you found? lol "
real facts wrote on Dec 14, 2008 2:17 PM:
" Real Facts my partner and I do not live together. "
real facts wrote on Dec 14, 2008 2:16 PM:
" I cant comment on other things that I wasnt personal witness to. " " "
real facts wrote on Dec 14, 2008 2:14 PM:
I do not need to create my own Bible, like those that use the NIV, I use the Bible as it was written. I study it and learn from it. I ask God questions and he answers").
well, that would be the next logical step for you because you have uncomitted sex with an unbeliever, and there is ZERO CHANCE you can rectify that before God.
you can lie all you want to yourself on others, but the fact about you is that you USE Gods words to try and justify your choice of acting on homosexuality.
you don't read Gods word and adjust on so many levels it's dizzying.
your latest personal revelation about not even living together apart from your biblical pounding of your position reveals once again you have ZERO intent on placing yourself under Gods authority, you ONLY seek to create your OWN "do's and don'ts".
maybe you can expound on the biblical principles of having sex with an unbeliever.
maybe you can "school us" on that one
your game is over "
real facts wrote on Dec 14, 2008 2:07 PM:
" Real Facts my partner and I do not live together. We both believe in a higher power, and i say it that way because he is of a different religion as we have already discussed. We know we are responsible for each other and will always be").
so how do you qualify yourself before God when your are having sex with your current BFF (C-BFF)?
before, you said you were "committed", and that qualified as "ok sex" before God.
shoot bobby, you aren't even comitted enough to even live together, and that alone constitutes fornication.
scorecard bobby-style.
(1) no marriage for bobby. check
(2) no living together. check
(3) sex with another male. check
(4) NO PRO homosexual passages. check
(5) sex with previous males. check
(6) NO "homosexual marriages" biblically. check
(7) sex with an NON BELIEVER. check
(8) sex outside of marriage=fornication. check
(9) i am tired of listing the "against's" on bobby. check
look bobby, your game is over in here on your thinking you can sell the notion that God "accepts" homosexuality
even-the-great-bobby,....the-homosexauls-last-great-"hope"-can't-even-rectify-his-OWN-life-after-his-blathering-posts-about-it-"biblically"
sad day for you huh bobby? "
real facts wrote on Dec 14, 2008 1:53 PM:
Now again, I wasnt in the Blog where you claim that Lodian gave out a some of your email address").
thanks for the gift of allowing us all to have a glimps into the world of homosexuality, where in their twisted view of things, they HAVE to come up with imaginative ways in order to sell themselves the notion that they are "normal".
as we see here, bobby tried to squeeze the lie past the reading audience that bobby wasn't "present" when lodian FIRST pulled her garbage on the blogs the very FIRST time.
what's your new descriptive bobby ....."lying semantics-tist".
is that even a word? laughing
i dunno. all i DO know is that your still a liar (9 times today and counting) as YOU commented in the last blog that just got shut down about lodian pulling her garbage.
you commented ON IT,..........and now you lied about that for the 6th time today
dude, your life is one unraveling lie after another.
is there anything else you want to lie about today?......must-be-homosexual-"cathartic_day" "
bobbyg wrote on Dec 14, 2008 1:52 PM:
While the religions are differnt for both of us we do talk about them together so we can both understand them.
unlike you, we are not scared to discuss and try to understand what is similar and what is different.
I do not need to create my own Bible, like those that use the NIV, I use the Bible as it was written. I study it and learn from it. I ask God questions and he answers.
7 Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you:
8 For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened. "
real facts wrote on Dec 14, 2008 1:43 PM:
" Real facts, we dont need to lie as we tell more truth than you could ever do").
ummmm nope, you obviously do NEED to lie, because you keep doing it.
this is an anoymous blog (that is until someone is dumb enough to post personal info about themselves), and NO ONE is holding the proverbial "gun" to your head and making you do it bobby.
your all too willing, and that PROVES on an ongoing basis who you really aren't.
i lost count, but just TODAY you lied on this blog at least 8 times with your "i don't have personal knowledge of the lodian thingy", and 3 times re-posting my post about the bible "not" containing anti-homosexual references.
you posted that lying twist of my words and intent at least 3 times
yeah, you "never lie"
your better at it than most, but your just like i stated accuraetly, that homosexuals HAVE to lie
it's what their definition of a life is based on
pssst, your "C-BFF" is awaiting your "fight" for him in here. where is it? "
bobbyg wrote on Dec 14, 2008 1:38 PM:
Nope, never said I was married, not once, nope, never. There you go again making up things and lying to try to make you seem like a bigger person.
Now again, I wasnt in the Blog where you claim that Lodian gave out a some of your email address. I only know what you keep sayin over and over again. I know that you have given out her street name, described her hair and color, talked about things in her home yard and when they move to another location in her yard or a removed from her yard. I seen the words you personally typed. "
danielH wrote on Dec 14, 2008 1:37 PM:
danielH wrote on Dec 14, 2008 1:36 PM:
The land is not claimed. If one chooses and if they know what they are doing, they could "post" a 4x4 wooden post into their front yard and become the postmaster of the land for this post.
If anyone wants to deliver mail onto this land, they could nail the message onto the stake.
The US Constitution recognizes the importance of the post office, and it is protected in a separate article, thus giving it authority that equals the executive, legislative and judicial branches. "
real facts wrote on Dec 14, 2008 1:34 PM:
" Real facts, I am not unraveling,").
dude you "unraveled" the day you stepped over the line in your heart and told yourself (believed the lie) that you are going to FORCE God/yourself/others to accept homosexuality.
you just haven't realized (yet) the fullness OF that "unraveling"
you will though. Gods word promises that too
you don't even want to do a "bible study" on that one.
trust me, because you don't care about what WILL happen to you as a result of giving yourself over to it, you don't want me to remind you what that eventually means
business as usual bobby. just keep telling yourself that you are right, and see where that takes you
you know that "partner" of yours? you do realize you ARE responsible before God about him, and perpetuating to him the lies you cling to.
whatever happens to you as a result of making these choices is on you, but you had better think of HIS future before God, not just your selfish-just-for-the-moment-pleasure for you now
you will NEVER justify it "
danielH wrote on Dec 14, 2008 1:30 PM:
Literally, state tax code states that the State of California does not tax foreigners.
However, we unknowingly consent to being under their jurisdiction when we use an address and a zip code, which are federal benefit privileges. "
danielH wrote on Dec 14, 2008 1:25 PM:
In the worst case, in court, the defendant is expected to understand everything, and when the court asks, "Do you understand?" and the defendant acknowledges "Yes! Of course!" the defendant just informed the court that they are an expert attorney, and nothing needs to be explained. The wisest answer is "No. I don't understand. I need everything explained to me."
Basically, statutory code established in sacramento is entirely fraud. "
real facts wrote on Dec 14, 2008 1:24 PM:
that just because you have spent a little bit longer time than your previous sexual conquests, that all of a sudden now your "comitted" and "married" in the eyes of God.
without any PRO homosexual references in Gods word, and only condemnation following same-sex references biblically.....and ONLY a man and a woman mentioned in scripture when referencing marriage, let's see you pull a biblical david blaine and create your own homosexual cult by "proving" me wrong
well mr biblical illusionist, i don't have all day
just remember, your current sexual "partner" might be reading this and is depending on you to "save him"
which one of you is the "damsel" in the damsel-in-distress story of your life?
and NO..... i don't have to show respect for people that lie without conscience. "
real facts wrote on Dec 14, 2008 1:14 PM:
" Real facts, we dont need to lie as we tell more truth than you could ever do. We understand that we each stand for ourselves in these blogs, you bring up people and things that go so far back that no one even knows the bloggers for which you speak").
well, that makes the 6th time you lied about it.
going for a blog personal best are you?
wanna try and say it again that you don't lie (blah blah blah), and that the thing with lodian you have "no personal knowledge of"?
for some reason, you don't get the point....when i zero in on something, it's as good as locked on, and there is nothing you can do to shake it.
if you HADN'T lied about "not knowing", i wouldn't have had to expend the energy it took to make sure you payed fully for it.
now, because your deluded mind keeps lying to you and telling youre going to get away with it by explaining it "differently", it STILL won't happen, and your an ONGOING liar
go ahead, tell us again. be creative "
real facts wrote on Dec 14, 2008 1:06 PM:
" Besides that you are trying to change the subject of marriage in here and you think no one will notice. We were talking about WTF and the fact that they have not had a religious marriage ceremony. The question posed was not about gay marriage but about marriage in general as it was relating to you once again telling people they were sinners.. shocking we are all sinners").
you seem to be chomping at the bit to enlighten us with your vast "homosexual-inclusion biblical scholarship", so let-er-rip......go ahead and let's see you equate YOUR latest sexual "realtionship" and turn THAT into a Godly acceptance mode.
how about trumping what Jesus said to the woman at the well about "living together". i bet in your twisted world you can make that one magically disappear also.
why don't you just re-write your OWN homosexual "translated" bible so you can get it over with.
you can do what the mormons/jehovah witnesses did can't you? when they didn't like the original, they just manufactured their own
go ahead, where does biblical marriage "include" homosexuals?
how about living together?
laughing "
bobbyg wrote on Dec 14, 2008 1:04 PM:
Due to your avoidance of the subject, your purposeful misdirection, your deflection it is obvious that you are the one that is "unraveling". "
bobbyg wrote on Dec 14, 2008 12:59 PM:
Notice again how this blog has become about you and what can might have happened to you and how You are doing your things when you want and how you want.
Why dont you get back on subject and talk about the subject matter or are you affraid to be proven wrong again? "
real facts wrote on Dec 14, 2008 12:58 PM:
real facts wrote on Nov 14, 2008 7:14 PM:
"you should tell bobby that, seeing how the guy has attemted to FORCE homosexuality to "fit" the bible, when there isn't ONE INSTANCE of homsexuality mentioned to begin with."
**************************************
i think this is the 5th time you have purposefully lied and twisted my words and intent, but i am losing count. unluckily for bobby, God does "keep count". that reminder won't even slow bobby's perversion of all things Godly/truth down though
three words come to mind now...
(1) liar
(2) desperation
(3) moron
now, before anyone gets excited, moron is the perfect descriptive word because ONLY a "moron" would PURPOSEFULLY keep lying when busted for it.
maybe we should do a blog bible study on what the bible calls a "strong delusion", and the effects thereof AFTER God gives a person over to it, once said person REFUSES Gods intervening spirit time and time again.
the unraveling of bobby. a classic case of biblically defined "delusion"
tell us again how you "have no personal knowledge" of the lodian debacle
laughing "
bobbyg wrote on Dec 14, 2008 12:55 PM:
Now stop deflecting and answer some questions that were posed to you. You seem to be more of a biblical fraud than to actually have any real facts on the matter. "
real facts wrote on Dec 14, 2008 12:49 PM:
" RF: When you ask me a sincere question and are interested in a sincere discussion, with respect and character, I'll answer. It hasn't happened in years so I doubt it will happen any time soon").
and you can attempt your PR move all you want, but the time has passed for anything "reasonable" between you and me.
you had that opportunity lodian in the last go-around that YOU created.
even after our last "heated" exchange, i offered to eventually be civil toward each other, who knows maybe even friends,to which YOU responded favorably, even demonstrating a somewhat contrite attitude.
and what do YOU do? you come right back out lying about me again shortly thereafter after your 'abbreviHATED' break.
there have been PLENTY of times in the past where i have tried to ask you debative questions respectfully, and all you do is end up lying about me.
you people deserve my "attention", because your behavior dictates it
what? your not going to lie FOR bobby to cover for him? this is a new shocking developement "
bobbyg wrote on Dec 14, 2008 12:48 PM:
well no legally that cant happen, Straight couples can not have a domestic partnership, with the exception of those over 65. "
real facts wrote on Dec 14, 2008 12:39 PM:
So now we are going on a week of you avoiding the questions about marriage, why would you do that? What alterior motive would you have to not answer a simple question about the Bible? What are you acared of? ").
i answered it.
i didn't go into great depth/research about biblical examples FOR a ceremony or legal document angles, but i did address the basic premise OF God designed/ordained comittment by demonstrating that the bible ONLY gives marital examples that include MALE and FEMALE, and i challenged YOU to prove YOUR lying assertion that having a longer sexual realtionship than usual (your "version" of comittment) with your BFF somehow constitues "biblical homo acceptance before God"
you ran away from that challenge faster than clay aiken at an all female fan fest
face it bobby, your spiritual ego is trying to write checks in here your life can't cash.
you should move onto other blogs and play your "innocent act" to an audience that can't demonstrate who you really are
your WAY out of your league in here "
Lodian wrote on Dec 14, 2008 12:36 PM:
Play on... "
real facts wrote on Dec 14, 2008 12:31 PM:
your a laughingstock of a man
your a desperate man now bobby, and lying about me has now become your "go to".
not to worry, your behavior is right in line with all the other "ain't's" who can't defend against me either. that must be incredibly frustrating to you when you are so used to pulling your garbage biblical lies pretty much without opposition.
you don't expect me to apologize to you for calling you a LIAR do you? YOU ARE
your lucky i haven't called you a "dog" like the apostle paul did in phillipians 3:2 when paul was referring to those who bastardized Gods word for personal justification purposes.
cry foul all you want i "personally attack" you and the others. you lie without conscience, i am going to call you a liar
your "defense" of yourself and homosexuality is pathetic, because now all you are relegated to IS lying about me
people-who-maintain-a-strong-position-in-life-DON'T-have-to-lie-about-others.....but-people-that-have-NO-POSITION....always-do "
real facts wrote on Dec 14, 2008 12:18 PM:
your good at lying, maybe you can lie FOR him?
i knew once i reminded the bloggers what you did that it would only be a matter of time before you surfaced in here and made like statements in your Dec 14, 2008 9:27 AM post
if you guys would stop your lying, i wouldn't have the "need" to remind you
while we are at it, can we discuss "why" the blogs got shut down the last time, or would you rather not me having to remind the bloggers of your uncontrollable behavior? "
Lodian wrote on Dec 14, 2008 11:17 AM:
danielH wrote on Dec 14, 2008 10:58 AM:
When one enters into court, and crosses the bar, court rituals are designed to transform spoken words into fictional writing by the recorder.
When one gets a document notarized, it causes tangible statements from a living breathing being, being transformed into fiction.
BEWARE: When someone speaks in court, the court of fiction cannot hear what the living being is saying, unless the victim (defendant) understands how to be entered into the evidence file.
In regards to all of the emotional pleading that unknowing victims (defendants), well, they are falling onto deaf ears and a deaf court, and their words are not being entered or considered into the evidence file. "
danielH wrote on Dec 14, 2008 10:52 AM:
danielH wrote on Dec 14, 2008 10:51 AM:
If one finds an old code referring to alaska and hawaii as states, this was before these holdings were incorporated into the United States corporation. "
danielH wrote on Dec 14, 2008 10:48 AM:
I use quotations to refer to "marriage" in fiction.
Marriage under god (lowercase respecting our creator as explained below) is separate from "marriage."
If a couple has a marriage, they are married, no ifs and or buts about it.
Prop 8 can only apply to "marriage" in the books.
"Marriage" is a 3-party contract, pledging the proceeds of the "marriage" over to the state. Most importantly, the "married" couple is giving away ownership of their children as chattel, to the state, who takes possession and control, by trickery. "
danielH wrote on Dec 14, 2008 10:42 AM:
danielH wrote on Dec 14, 2008 10:39 AM:
danielH wrote on Dec 14, 2008 10:38 AM:
* The original aramaic and hebrew languages did not use capitalization, hence capitalization is not of biblical origin and only a result of translation and corruption.
That sheet of paper you referrred to was born during the FDR administration, planned by president wilson's closest advisor colonel mendell house, who advised the president that registration of the citizens would be used to subjugate (spelling?) the (14th amendment) citizens. "
bobbyg wrote on Dec 14, 2008 10:32 AM:
danielH wrote on Dec 14, 2008 10:30 AM:
The ramifications are immense. For example, grant deeds do not apply to the soil on which we think in our minds that we hold claim to occupy. Literally, the soil under our feet is not claimed. Anyone could post a claim to it. Foreclosures and mortgages are frauds and use trickery. "
danielH wrote on Dec 14, 2008 10:26 AM:
The 14th amendment was put in place by the victorious federal government, who had just defeated the states, and the 14th amendment was the culmination of their claim to victory, taking control of the states.
In the same breath as the 14th amendment was established, all the state governments were exiled to establish corporate subsidiaries of the district of columbia, which was registered under the corporate name "UNITED STATES." "
Lodian wrote on Dec 14, 2008 9:27 AM:
bobbyg wrote on Dec 14, 2008 9:13 AM:
So now we are going on a week of you avoiding the questions about marriage, why would you do that? What alterior motive would you have to not answer a simple question about the Bible? What are you acared of? "
bobbyg wrote on Dec 14, 2008 9:08 AM:
Answer the questions about marriage! Heck, answer any question in here that anyone has asked you on this subject. These blogs are for discussion on the subject, not persecution of the bloggers discussing the subjects.
oh and in case you forgot what you wrote..
real facts wrote on Nov 14, 2008 7:14 PM:
"you should tell bobby that, seeing how the guy has attemted to FORCE homosexuality to "fit" the bible, when there isn't ONE INSTANCE of homsexuality mentioned to begin with." "
real facts wrote on Dec 14, 2008 8:29 AM:
" I cant comment on other things that I wasnt personal witness to. " "
real facts wrote on Dec 14, 2008 8:28 AM:
" And besides that would be between you and Lodian").
that's a crock and a nasty cop out.
you people think you can "get me" on situations in here that you dream up, when on every occasion all i have to do is demonstrate where your full of it by pointing out where someone else did something BEFORE i ever did.
hypocrites
i can't count the times people have come at me, only to see me "remind them" about how they have said SQUAT to billy rubin's sewer garbage, and their lying replies mirrored yours......"oh i have no personal knowledge of that" blah blah blah
your just another integrity ain't in here among the busloads of integrity ain'ts that can't pick truth over people if your life depended on it (which it does).
the FACTS ARE.....lodian did it first and you didn't say squat to her AFTER i pointed that out, and even AFTER we have been discussing it in these last few posts, you still turn a blind eye to truth about lodian and lie about YOURSELF
bobby, you keep dreaming you can best me-in-here,.....and-sell-these-blogs-the-lie-that-homosexuality-is-"acceptable"-to-God
it's-NOT-going-to-happen "
real facts wrote on Dec 14, 2008 8:16 AM:
" As per you real facts, it was before my time in here which was about the last week of October. So I had no personal knowledge of Lodian doing any such thing").
this makes the 4th time you lied about it, as it was on the last blog that got deleted that YOU commented on right around the goings on of me and lodian.
you not only read it, you commented on it and your a blatant liar
like i said, your a liar with no basis for a position in life, who at the end of the day will resort to this behavior because you have to.
the rest of the blog knows now your a liar because of this, because they too witnessed YOU "defending" lodian during away.
you do realize that it is impossible for you to cover your lies up with more lying, or is that the fallout OF delusion? ---------> laughing "
real facts wrote on Dec 14, 2008 8:10 AM:
you can't commit adultery, because homosexuals can't get married in the first place, because biblical marriage ONLY includes a man and a woman.
but as usual, you lie and atempt to fit homosexuality into "biblical acceptance" by ignoring the true meaning of fornication, which is ANY sex outside marriage......before OR after as well
your in sexual no mans land without an excuse
you can lie to yourself all you want, but there is absolutely nothing you can do to re-define Gods standards for sexual acceptability
i included the marriage angle ONLY because you kept lying to the board you were "married in essence" to your "current" BFF, while attempting to use the "it's ok because i am comitted angle", when in biblical reality, fornication is the one YOUR guilty of that Jesus Christ HIMSELF spoke out against in mark 7
even Christ's own words reject your position "
bobbyg wrote on Dec 13, 2008 10:42 PM:
Real facts wrote: (you CAN'T commit adultery, because adultery ONLY comes into effect when there is a MAN AND A WOMAN involved, and since there is no such thing as "gay marriage" recognized by God, you-escape-that-one.) "
bobbyg wrote on Dec 13, 2008 10:39 PM:
bobbyg wrote on Dec 13, 2008 10:32 PM:
As per your argument that the Bible says something about homosexuality here is the verses
Mark
21 For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders,
22 Thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness:
Now we have already defined the words and none of those equal homosexuality. So sorry you are still wrong. "
real facts wrote on Dec 13, 2008 9:45 PM:
" As I stated before, I only comment on things that I am personally knowledgeable of. "
real facts wrote on Dec 13, 2008 9:43 PM:
" I cant comment on other things that I wasnt personal witness to. "
real facts wrote on Dec 13, 2008 9:42 PM:
" As I stated before, I only comment on things that I am personally knowledgeable of. To do otherwise is just not being accurate. I cant comment on other things that I wasnt personal witness to").
gheesh, smart people don't continue to lie, but i guess you want to choke on this one tonight.
fine by me
tell the blog for the 3RD TIME you "didn't know" lodian stole my password and posted my personal info on this blog you liar
you commented all around it and you DO HAVE PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE of what lodian did because YOU commented ON it.
this little lie will be your undoing in here, and i will make sure you choke on it for the rest of your history in these blogs.
you picked the wrong person to lie about bobby, and now i am going to make sure i "remind" everyone of this lie everytime you attempt your innocent act "
real facts wrote on Dec 13, 2008 9:35 PM:
so far
some things ARE for certain, whether or not a "ceremony/legal document" is required, is that EVERY instance of biblical mention of marriage is followed by a MAN and a WOMAN.
NO_HOMOSEXUAL_"marriage"
and like i said, you or anyone else can't claim God-favored "comittment" just because a person has had sex with another person, and there are ZERO instances of where "living together" IS justified before God.
remember what i said, Jesus Christ confronted the woman at the well ABOUT just living together instead of being married.
so, let's see YOU demonstrate living together or sexual intercourse constitutes a "marriage" before God.
go ahead and re-hash to the blog how God "accepts" your current sexual realtionship because you are "comitted", then make sure you tell the board about all your other PREVIOUS "comittments", and how THEY were your "husband(s)". laughing
tell us again how you-have-no-idea-about-lodian-as-well......liar "
real facts wrote on Dec 13, 2008 9:24 PM:
Are you going to tell us again that Mark chapter 7 is all about homosexuality again? ").
if your dumb enough to keep bringing it up, i am more than up to the task of reminding you that mark chapter 7 DOES include a NO NO warning against the sin of homosexuality, via the all inclusive fornication/adultery/sexual immorality true sexual definition clause.
the "clause" by which entangles YOU in it's "no no net".
the "claus" that says that ANY sex outside a MARRIAGE between a MAN and a WOMAN is OFF LIMITS, and therefore sin.
that counts YOU out
thanks for the reminder to the blog your lying about sexual biblical principles "
real facts wrote on Dec 13, 2008 9:19 PM:
your a deflective maestro, or so you think, because now you can't answer anymore after your lie about lodian, and your little deflective posts about blaiming me. not to worry, i will make sure that lie haunts you in here, to underline who you really areNT.
as far as your lie about me capatalizing ANY word in here, about me or otherwise, it's my "distinctive grammar skills" (or lack thereof) at work when i choose to EMPHASIZE something.
your desperation shows it's continuing freak show by inSINuaHATING i think of myself as something i am not, and turning around and lying about it.
go ahead, because your unraveling again at a record pace. everytime you lie about me, it UNDERLINES the FACT that i am right about YOU
con't-----> "
bobbyg wrote on Dec 13, 2008 9:06 PM:
Going to say you had company or a game to catch in stockton? Too bad there isnt a home game for another couple of weeks. "
bobbyg wrote on Dec 13, 2008 7:46 PM:
Answer the questions that you keep saying for 5 days that you are going to answer but never have enough time.
What, dont really have the knowledge you think you do? Cant answer the simplist questions? Are you going to tell us again that Mark chapter 7 is all about homosexuality again? "
bobbyg wrote on Dec 13, 2008 7:36 PM:
Really want to read the last few comments that you wrote? Anybody watching these blogs know that you are only concerned with you...
In fact many times you capitalize and put "Me" "My" in the middle of sentences the only "Me", Him, etc that are capitalized in the middle of a sentence are refrences to God. So not only do you think these blogs are about you, you also seem to think you are important enough to capitalize first person refrences which is reserved only for God Himself. "
real facts wrote on Dec 13, 2008 7:29 PM:
Its you that is a disgrace to normal God fearing and loving Christians everywhere. You enjoy bullying people with what you believe to be the truth you perpetuate your religion with your ignorances through the Bible. ").
cry yourself a river of tears on your drama queen showboat extravaganza.
i LAUGH when i see people like you type the word "bully", because that's EXACTLY what you people do in various forms to silence actual biblical truth.
i don't play games bobby, and you met a Christian that can paint you rightfully for who you really are....one that knows "enough" about Gods word so that liars like you can't pull your self-justification innocent act game on those that don't have the tools to defend against the likes of you
historical Christianity makes you a liar by choice, and the texts of scripture are blatantly obvious
your game is over, by me STILL demonstrating your lying about "scriptural inclusion" of homosexuality.
scoreboard tonight....
no PRO homosexual passages in Gods word
you cannot justify your OWN sexual relationship
you lied about not "knowing about lodian"
GAME OVER "
bobbyg wrote on Dec 13, 2008 7:26 PM:
Now are you going to answer the questions about marriage that you have been avoiding for 5 days now? Perhaps you want to answer the questions from the previous blogs, doubtful as you cant answer questions about the Bible or God, you only know how to preach your misguided singlemindedness about one subject in the Bible that you really dont think that much about? "
real facts wrote on Dec 13, 2008 7:19 PM:
" You call it as you want. I am not a player and what are you the offical or are you still trying to be the head of the league? ").
nope. not "me". these blogs are NEVER 'about me', and your a little "slow" to think it is
i WAS making the definitive truth that God has alraedy spoken out AGAINST homosexual sex, and you continue to lie about it and CIRCUMVENT the "rules" "
real facts wrote on Dec 13, 2008 7:17 PM:
" You cant even remember the lies you tell about yourself, the bible, God and the many bloggers in here. You may in fact be a spounge but you are no longer able to acurrately soak up anything in here, all you do now is leak and drag contaminated bacteria all over this blog. ").
it's too bad there can't be a fine type system in place on these blogs when people like you lie about others......maybe THEN you would "slow down"
in the maentime, i wouldn't raise the "bacteria" issue, because as we know, YOUR "group" that you belong to, that you keep desperately trying to "justify" is known for "bacteria-related" societal offenses "
real facts wrote on Dec 13, 2008 7:13 PM:
laughing
maybe you can explain your "reasoning" in lying about lodian, when you have consistently been involved in trying to defend lodian THROUGHOUT lodian/mine's "wrestling match"
your game is over, and your "innocent act" has been exposed.......your nothing but a man who HAS to lie about his life to others, and try to present it as "justfiable"
PUKE
i guess your just a glutton for integrity punishment.
people like you never learn, their ego just thinks (lies to itself) that it can sell it's can of lies
NOT IN HERE "
bobbyg wrote on Dec 13, 2008 7:12 PM:
bobbyg wrote on Dec 13, 2008 7:08 PM:
Its you that is a disgrace to normal God fearing and loving Christians everywhere. You enjoy bullying people with what you believe to be the truth you perpetuate your religion with your ignorances through the Bible. Just like the many times when you quote Bible verses and not the actual books of the Bible or when you try to say that certain things are in certain chapters and then there is nothing regarding what you said, at all in the chapter about your so called claims. The problem is not me or anyone else, it is your shallow interpretation with bliders on and your big mouth little filter that keeps you in trouble. "
real facts wrote on Dec 13, 2008 7:05 PM:
" Real facts, First regarding Lodian and what she supposable did to you , I wasnt around for that and you know that. So I couldnt have admonished her for something I didnt see or hear myself and I dont repsect or believe anything that you say or type").
i LOVE this post, because it FULLY demonstrates what a liar you are.
you read the last blogs up one side and down the other were lodian got busted FOR exactly what i said. you read where lodian copped to it, and during all that fiasco......YOU posted right around it so don't think for a second that your going to get away with your "i have no personal knowledge about it" garbage lie
the behavior you DO exude in here fits textually PERFECT to the scriptures that describe what happens to a man that gives himself OVER to sin.....they lie, and cannot control it OR cover it up.
your post above proves who you really AREN'T, completely apart from me
congradulations bobby for being a no conscience willful liar "
bobbyg wrote on Dec 13, 2008 7:00 PM:
Current Eunuchs under CURRENT DAY definition are what you wrote. But the Biblical definition is not the same. Languages change tremendously over short periods of time and you know that. For example most people would have not a clue what the phrase "four score and 7 years" actually means, and that want written that long ago.
You really should do a little research before you put your foot in your mouth.. "
real facts wrote on Dec 13, 2008 6:58 PM:
So let me understand this... you say that the Bible does not say Homosexual, but it condems it everytime that it is mentioned...
So it is mentioned and then its not, but when its not mentioned it condems it everytime that it is....
Whose on first, whats on second and real facts is in the OUTFIELD! ").
your in the "penalty box" for mis-conduct
actually, YOU know better than i do "what it says", and someday you will pay a very heavy price for lying about it just to justify your CHOICE to sin before God, and ESPECIALLY your attempt to sell it to others that "they can too"...
here is the "baseball" order.....
God is the baseball "commissioner", and HE makes the rules.....you CHOOSE to take "steroids", thereby assasinating the "character" of the game, so now you have NO CHANCE to enter the "hall of fame", unless you confess your deeds and repent by giving talks to youths about the dangers of "steroids", and why it is AGAINST THE RULES...
THAT'S whose on first, second, third, etc
right-now.....your-a-disgrace-to-the-"game" "
real facts wrote on Dec 13, 2008 6:49 PM:
" And in case others think I am kidding about what You actually said... here is is,
real facts wrote on Nov 14, 2008 7:14 PM: "you should tell bobby that, seeing how the guy has attemted to FORCE homosexuality to "fit" the bible, when there isn't ONE INSTANCE of homsexuality mentioned to begin with.").
there isn't......not in a positive light like you know exactly what i maent by when i made that statement.
what "integrity giant" in these blogs thinks for a second that for two years i have been engaged on these blogs discussing homosexuality, that "all of a sudden" i turn coat and state that the bible doesn't say anything AGAINST homosexual sex, or it doesn't reference it at all, like you just lied to the board by "implying" that's what i said and meant.
your desperation to "best me" is your personal blog unraveling, by YOU corroborating what i said about homosexuals......that they are willfull liars, and when they can't defend their OWN position, they will resort to lying and twisting-peoples-words........bobby,...your-a-willful-liar-that-can't-defend-his-position-in-life "
real facts wrote on Dec 13, 2008 6:40 PM:
your "eunuch" defense is a lie
there was ZERO sexual connotation/activity between jonathon/david, and that's another lie
you and your lie "many well respected Biblical scholars" are full of it, and purposefully lie in an attempt to FORCE things into a text purely based upon agenda.
i remember having a conversation with a jehovah witness a long time ago, when he attempted to pull that one out of the hat, that when confronted with witness "theology" that witnesses "manufactured" their OWN scriptures (because historical texts didn't coincide with their goofy-agenda based teachings), he stated the same thing.......what he DIDN'T expect is that he was used to encountering virtually NO ONE who knew what the leaders of their church ACTUALLY did, as they-lied-and-tried-to-pass-themselves-off-as-"scholars"
i "reminded him" that NO ONE on his so called "biblical scholar" panel knew a stitch of greek that their text was "translated" into, and that it was proven they lied that-they-were-"knowledgeable_about_greek"......a-biblical-scholar-corroberates-original-textual-intent....which-WOULDN'T-include-homosexual-sex "
bobbyg wrote on Dec 13, 2008 1:59 PM:
Matthew 19:12
For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs
Then we have David and Jonathon which we have also already discussed in previous blogs. I know you dont want to listen to any of it and that is fine. But there are examples of it in the Bible, where you say there are not. Religions generally dont want you to believe that it is possible for homosexuality to be in the Bible in a positive manner. It would not be in thier intrest to admit they were wrong in their interpretations an that they have been teaching things inaccurately. Religions believe that they and the Bible are the same, they are not. Religion is supposed to be man's study of God and the Bible, the Bible is what God has passed down for us. "
bobbyg wrote on Dec 13, 2008 1:39 PM:
real facts wrote on Nov 14, 2008 7:14 PM: "you should tell bobby that, seeing how the guy has attemted to FORCE homosexuality to "fit" the bible, when there isn't ONE INSTANCE of homsexuality mentioned to begin with." "
bobbyg wrote on Dec 13, 2008 1:33 PM:
So let me understand this... you say that the Bible does not say Homosexual, but it condems it everytime that it is mentioned...
So it is mentioned and then its not, but when its not mentioned it condems it everytime that it is....
Whose on first, whats on second and real facts is in the OUTFIELD! "
bobbyg wrote on Dec 13, 2008 1:28 PM:
And I am still waiting for you to anwser the question (about 5 days +/- now) about where the Bible says marriages must be performed in a ceremony and what constituted marriage in the Bible... two simple wuestions for a biblical scholar such as yourself. PLease book and verses, thanks "
real facts wrote on Dec 13, 2008 1:10 PM:
the time i DID have this afternoon i had to devote to taking out your lying trash.
maybe you can explain to the board how "innocent" you are in these last few posts, and why you DIDN'T say SQUAT to lodian when she publically published personal info about me.
that little fact will haunt you now "
real facts wrote on Dec 13, 2008 1:07 PM:
You were wrong about many Biblical facts due to your blurred vision of what the Bible originally said.
I have given you vast examples and yet you ignore the facts. ").
NAME ONE ????
ohhh you gave "vast examples" of all the effort you have put into FORCING homosexual sex into Gods word, but because of audi's/my abilities to expose your lies about how you HAVE twisted Gods word by reminding people of the TRUE historical renderings of Gods word on God DESIGNED human sexuality, your "attempt" got squashed in here, something your not used to.
your "used to" pulling your "i have studied the origianl languages blah blah blah on most Christians, and coupled with your "innocent act", i am sure you have enjoyed "some" success.
NOT IN HERE
like i said, you are nothing more than the myriad of cults out there, or those morons on TV that say the same thing about "studying Gods word" and coming up with an amalgamation of sellable trash (to ignorant people) for SELF-justification purposes.
straight up, your a liar, because Gods-word-CONDEMNS-homosexual-sex-everytime,....and-that-includes-your-OWN-personal-life "
real facts wrote on Dec 13, 2008 12:56 PM:
You were wrong when you lied and said you "didnt say that you said that Homosexuality was never mentioned in the bible", because you did say that").
here is some more of your lying, purposefully twisting my words trash.
you continue to lie about WHY i said this, because it is just like i stated over and over, that homosexuals are liars.
i said it to you at least 5 times now that i stated those exact words to richnlife as PART of a conversation with him where i was making the point that while the WORD "homosexual" DOES NOT appear anywhere in the bible except in some modern translations, that just because the word isn't there, DOESN'T mean God doesn't condemn homosexual sex EVERYTIME it's mentioned.
i said many times over that Gods word is specific about same gender sex as being nothing but a no no, yet in your post about your pathetic excuse of a life comes bubbling straight to the surface by PURPOSEFULLY lying/twisting my words AGAIN.
i love your "innocent act", and-the-opportunities-YOU-provide-for-me-to-prove-your-NOT........there-is-nothing-"innocent"-about-people-who-PURPOSEFULLY-lie......it's-a-sickness "
real facts wrote on Dec 13, 2008 12:46 PM:
You were wrong to give out other bloggers personal information (two different people now)".
i noticed what a hypocrite you were/are because you said SQUAT about lodian hacking into my account at the LNS and stealing my email address AND POSTING HALF OF IT ON THESE BLOGS...
she posted that info on these blogs PUBLICALLY in her weak attempt at intimidating me, and i was able to demonstrate to her you don't play those games with me by one upping her.
enough info on her to show why she needs to check her life
she did it FIRST, so where were you on that one bobby?
your dreaming if you think YOU can one up me in any way either, because all that WILL happen between me in you is i will demonstrate to the board what a liar you really are.
you don't pick the integrity aspects of life, all you do is lie about whatever you need to, to try to "justify" your life.
if you HAD "integrity", you would have busted lodian for what you just pulled on me
now, the-pox-is-on-YOU "
real facts wrote on Dec 13, 2008 12:36 PM:
You were wrong to personally attack other bloggers, you were wrong to insult people, you are just wrong").
name ONE TIME where i didn't tell the truth about someone?
don't give me your lying garbage about me "personally attacking people", when all i do is defend Gods word against the likes of you.
if you or others don't want to be called a liar, then don't lie about me, because i don't take anything off of anybody.
you people get what you have coming to you by causing your own dilemma in here, and insuring i tell the straight up truth about your motives.
look at your posts below where you started back in on your lying about me. i defend myself, and as long as you people pull the garbage in here that you do, you can call it an 'attack' all you want, but you ARE going to get back what you give out. "
real facts wrote on Dec 13, 2008 12:30 PM:
" Real facts, You were wrong about your interpretation of the Bible").
really? .....and where was i ever "wrong" about any biblical interpretation on ANY subject matter in here.
prove it instead of lying about it.
if anyone that was "wrong" about biblical interpretation it was YOU, after attempting to FORCE homosexuality into both the original texts, and now your lie about homosexual being "rightfully interpreted" based on the "newer texts"
your so upside down biblically about homosexuality it isn't even funny anymore.
you have had ample opportunity to demonstrate ONE TIME/INSTANCE where homosexual sex is high fived by God ANYWHERE in scripture, yet even the most resourceful bobby the biblical magician/illusionist STILL can't even find one.
that, and i proved that you reside in biblical sexual no mans land on your OWN sexual relationship.
it isn't possible even for someone like you to make homosexual sex biblically "right".
all you can do is manufacture MORE lies about how you have "studied it over and over".
you sound just like all the cults out there that say the same thing about "Gods word".
they-lie-about-it-too "
mk2roccoboy wrote on Dec 13, 2008 12:27 PM:
Do you have a Dell as well? This one is a P.O.C. "
real facts wrote on Dec 13, 2008 12:19 PM:
that's entirely not true, because in fact God commands those that follow Christ to be able to defend HIS word against the likes of ANYONE that seeks to redefine it, or attack it, which is what i do without worrying about being "politically correct"
what i would like you to do, is back up your accusation by showing in the bible where it says what you claim it does, otherwise don't come here making claims you cannot back up "
bobbyg wrote on Dec 13, 2008 12:16 PM:
mk2roccoboy wrote on Dec 13, 2008 12:08 PM:
sam wrote on Dec 13, 2008 11:23 AM:
mk2roccoboy wrote on Dec 13, 2008 10:24 AM:
mk2roccoboy wrote on Dec 13, 2008 10:22 AM:
wtf wrote on Dec 8, 2008 8:20 AM: "The **real** fact is that if Christ himself were to show up today, many who call themselves "Christians" were crucify him all over again. "
Attention wtf, sam, and Lodian,
Just so you know, The "Christians" did not crucify Christ on calvary but in fact was the Hebrew's as they were threatend by him and labled him as a "false" prophet. The "Christians were those that cose and still choose to follow him and know he was the one and only true messiah. Therefore the "Christians" will not crucifiy him again as he cannot die. "
mk2roccoboy wrote on Dec 13, 2008 10:10 AM:
wtf wrote on Dec 8, 2008 8:20 AM: "The **real** fact is that if Christ himself were to show up today, many who call themselves "Christians" were crucify him all over again. "
Attention wtf, sam, and Lodian,
Just so you know, The "Christians" did not crucify Christ on calvary but in fact was the Hebrew's as they were threatend by him and labled him as a "false" prophet. The "Christians were those that cose and still choose to follow him and know he was the one and only true messiah. Therefore the "Christians" will not crucifiy him again as he cannot die. "
bobbyg wrote on Dec 13, 2008 9:55 AM:
I have given you vast examples and yet you ignore the facts. "
lodibound wrote on Dec 13, 2008 8:33 AM:
real facts wrote on Dec 13, 2008 7:42 AM:
the blogs went that way because of lodian, and your a liar to blame me
but then again, you always were a liar packaged in "nice"
anybody that trashes Gods word for personal justification isn't "nice" by Gods description.
it's sickening how you resort to lying while pulling your nice guy act in here, but i am fully "comitted" to making sure you own it everytime you do.
later today, i will be back to weigh in on the marriage thing......in the meantime, since God "loves" homosexual sex as you state, show us ONE EXAMPLE biblically where it states that he does/did
oh yeah, YOU CAN'T
you can't, because the bible doesn't contain ONE single inference FOR homosexual sex......it ONLY condemns it
liar "
real facts wrote on Dec 13, 2008 7:36 AM:
" I told you then and I will tell you again. Those post were closed off due to abbusive personal attacks. Just as you choose to try to intimidata others by giving out their personal information or impying such things as you have done with Lodian and with the other individual in this blog. You know you were wrong many times and I think you knew that and did things to get the blogs closed off on purpose.
Any word yet on my real identity? ").
typical behavior coming from a person that can't defend themselves any longer, so you resort to lying about me.
always the resourceful guy that you are, but when pressed you cannot come up with a SINGLE incident where i was wrong before, all you can do now is lie about me.
it's just like i said, homosexuals are known liars, because they HAVE to lie in order to even make an attempt at justifying their lives.
i am the LAST person to get a blog shut down, because i don't run-and-hide-like-you-people-do.......con't------> "
Lodian wrote on Dec 12, 2008 9:19 PM:
" Also, bobbyg, I commend you for looking toward the Bible for answers. The truth is there, keep studying! "
--------
Yes it is and the problem is that there are so many interpretations of the Bible. I guess the problem isn't so much just the interpretation itself, but the people that try to impose those interpretations on other people. "
Lodian wrote on Dec 12, 2008 9:16 PM:
" real facts has NEVER once backed any of his inane points, don't wait for him now... "
Robb: He thinks he's right just because he says so. {{ yawn }} "
bobbyg wrote on Dec 12, 2008 4:09 PM:
bobbyg wrote on Dec 11, 2008 11:27 AM:
...perhaps you can show me in the Bible where it says one must be married by a religious officiant? " "
bobbyg wrote on Dec 12, 2008 4:04 PM:
Any word yet on my real identity? "
real facts wrote on Dec 12, 2008 12:34 PM:
there isn't one time where homosexual sex of any kind is high fived biblically, especially in "marriage"
so bobby, since the texts have been (according to you) "re-translated and the true meanings lost or biased in", where in ANY biblical text are there passages that demonstrate homosexuals "marrying"?
THERE ISN'T ANY
and remember how you lied just a couple of posts ago where you said i was "wrong before" and i asked you to prove it instead of lying about it?.....where is it, or did you graduHATE from the robb school of hit and run lies? "
real facts wrote on Dec 12, 2008 12:27 PM:
doing a little google research on what constitues marriage that IS recognized by God, i came up with the account in genesis about God joining adam and eve as one flesh (sexually), and interesting enough the passage says that man shall leave his parents and cleave to his wife, yet adam and eve only had God as a "parent", indicating their union was God directed FIRST.
marriage so i see thru research was done PUBLICALLY to demonstrate committment, and that the jewish culture had to sign a legally binding document BEFORE they could get married called a "ketubah". they couldn't just live together, as referenced in john 4 where Jesus pointed that out to the samaritan woman at the well.
marriage according to God is legally contractual because God calls us to obey the laws of the land. it was mostly CULTURALLY recognized before man as a commitment to the covenant requirements by God for marriage, including ceremonies at times to publically proclaim it before man that it WAS of God "
Audi 5000 wrote on Dec 12, 2008 8:27 AM:
Just as the word "dinosaur" is not mentioned in the Bible because the word was invented in the early 1840s to describe the fossils that were being discovered at that time. Fossils that were identical to the descriptions of animals detailed in the book of Job (just one more proof the Bible is reliable). As one of the most detailed described animals in the Bible, the Behemoth, Dragon, and Leviathan are what we would now refer to as dinosaurs.
The point is just because we call a behavior or an animal by different names, the behavior or animal are still what they are. "
DeltaPenguin wrote on Dec 12, 2008 6:35 AM:
" bobbyg, adding to what you have said, there are heterosexual couples who are not religious. Does this mean that they would be forced into domestic partnerships as well? If marriage is purely religious, then it seems they would not be afforded marriages either. "
I tend to separate religion from marriage. I believe that marriage is the civil wedding between two people. I believe that Holy Matrimony is the religious equivalent.
Just let them get married, so they can enjoy those right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. "
Robb wrote on Dec 11, 2008 11:22 PM:
bobbyg wrote on Dec 11, 2008 10:51 PM:
bobbyg wrote on Dec 8, 2008 11:38 PM:
Perhaps you can tell me what constituted a marriage in the Bible? Perhaps you can tell me more about "traditional Marriage" as defined in the Bible? "
There you go. I would think a simple answer from you would be well.... simple. I mean you are the self professed Bible expert. "
brokenl wrote on Dec 11, 2008 10:35 PM:
real facts wrote on Dec 11, 2008 7:45 PM:
the truth is about people like you, is your "studying" is aimed at one thing, and that is an attempt to FORCE homosexuality into the time honored texts, by willfully lying about what it DOES say.
i liken you to those same people on television that use "scripture" to suck money out of peoples wallets in the "name of God". those guys do the same thing you do, they pervert Gods word for personal justification/gain
why Christians are afraid to tell the confrontive truth about what people like you and "them" is beyond me.
certainly Christ had no problem telling the straight up confrontive truth about self-justification perversion of ANY biblical truth
your plea of "studying your position" is a perversion uncovered, as it is the very same "reasoning" trumped out by cults and scam artists looking to USE God for self-justification "
real facts wrote on Dec 11, 2008 7:34 PM:
" Yea... keep "telling the truth"..
Come on Real Freak, school us.. ").
remember when you lied and said you "never" call(ed) me any names?
laughing
oh what will precede robbs imagination of who he is this time?
you know, as it turns out, i was actually thinking of YOU today.
i was, when i drove by the GRANITE advertisement truck, which is now parked on the dirt pull-over on turner road just west of the 99 bridge.
i think of you (and laugh) everytime i see that truck "
real facts wrote on Dec 11, 2008 7:30 PM:
You are avoiding any such truth in the way that you are trying to avoid your answer of where it says how a marriage is to be performed. Again I ask you were in the Bible it says you must be married in a religious or civil ceremony? What does define marriage in the Bible? Why are you affraid to answer this question? I asked you this several days ago and you still havent answered! ").
"being afraid" of answering anything you can throw at me is YOUR imagination.
i already partially answered it, in three seperate posts....(1) where i stated that ephesians 5 is the "go to" description of God designed marital definition, noting that ephesians 5 DOES NOT mention same gender sex......
(2) Jesus Christ performed his first miracle at a HETEROSEXUAL wedding.
(3) i also stated that the ONLY marriage God backs is one where the participants bow to HIS authority, by choosing to act within the marriage as God calls each individual SINGULARLY to do so.
i will get more "biblically specific" when i have more time "
Robb wrote on Dec 11, 2008 7:27 PM:
Come on Real Freak, school us.. "
real facts wrote on Dec 11, 2008 7:17 PM:
" Real facts you know you have been wrong many times in the past. however, due to your personal attacks on people those blogs were deleted by the LNS").
this post above is the exact reason why i get down-town with people in here, versus a controlled debate.
when you step over the line and lie about me on purpose in order to discredit me, then my "gloves" come off because one thing i won't stand for is no conscience evil.
audi hasn't experienced this aspect yet.
all i do is tell the straight up truth about God, or peoples peripheral beahvior around that. when people don't like that, and they cannot defend themselves, they resort to lying about me.
the truth of the squashed blogs are lodians fault, and the fallout for me having to make sure she owned it. you can blame HER.
i own my part of dealing with "you people"
and to be straight up, your a liar that you can't "find" where i was "wrong" because the blogs were deleted
PROVE IT (where-i-was-"wrong_before"). "
bobbyg wrote on Dec 11, 2008 3:53 PM:
I just want you to understand that I do not take God lightly. I grew up in Church and have been searching for understanding on this subject in the Bible for many years. While I understand it is not what it typically taught by religions, religions were formed by man and can be wrong. The Bible was written and re-written by man specificaly for the purpose of those said religions. When you do research you find that the word that is translated in current day english to say homosexual is sometimes translated to mean something completely different just a few chapters later. Words dont change their meaning, so why were they translated to mean two completely different things??
I hope you understand I mean no disrespect to you and wish you could open your heart to see where I come from. "
bobbyg wrote on Dec 11, 2008 3:38 PM:
You are avoiding any such truth in the way that you are trying to avoid your answer of where it says how a marriage is to be performed. Again I ask you were in the Bible it says you must be married in a religious or civil ceremony? What does define marriage in the Bible? Why are you affraid to answer this question? I asked you this several days ago and you still havent answered! "
Audi 5000 wrote on Dec 11, 2008 3:20 PM:
Audi 5000 wrote on Dec 11, 2008 3:17 PM:
Audi 5000 wrote on Dec 11, 2008 3:01 PM:
RF: I understand what you're saying but to presume I'm in the camp of those who are soft on sin, (seeker, post-modern, or whatever) you're way off. There's never been a time when I have responded in that fashion, NEVER. Hoping that bobbyg will be enlightened by the truth of scripture is a good thing, obviously it hasn't happened yet, but I pray God chooses to do a work in his heart. "
real facts wrote on Dec 11, 2008 1:46 PM:
the post is here at.....bobbyg wrote on Dec 11, 2008 11:01 AM: "
real facts wrote on Dec 11, 2008 1:43 PM:
a marriage committment between a man and a woman should be a no brainer, seeing how Christ placed so much emphasis ON marriage, and the warnings of falling short OF committment
no "homosexual marriges" recorded in Gods word as you well know
in the meantime bobby, maybe YOU can explain to the reading audience how you "yet again" think you can justify your "current" sexual relationship under your auspices of "committment", which you have stated in here is the "same EXACT equivalent of heterosexual marriage without the paperwork/ceremony", yet you had "realtionships" prior to this one, and the biblical qaundry of being in sexual no mans land you will face should your "relationship" dissolve.
you have NO future biblically of sexuality OR marriage unless it includes repentance and a woman "
real facts wrote on Dec 11, 2008 1:34 PM:
" RF specialically stated that the Bible NEVER called shrimp anabomination. It did and he was wrong yet again and that was my point").
i was wrong and i owned it, but in your post above, you stated "wrong yet again"...
wanna try and show where is was "wrong before"?
or are you lying about me "yet again"? "
real facts wrote on Dec 11, 2008 1:32 PM:
" Real facts I asked you to show me in the Bible where it says that a marriage must be performed either religiously or Biblically. Can you do that?
You are claiming that WTF is married according to your standards and claiming that yours and Gods are the same thing. So put up! ").
where did Jesus Christ perform his first miracle bobby?
what is the marriage supper of the lamb?
marriage before God is (1) ONLY recognized between a man and a woman, (2) is ONLY recognized BY God when the "commitants" are committed TO God, thereby entrusting their marriage TO God.
wtf readily admitted he has left certain aspects of God out of his life.
if he is so "committed", then why DOESN'T he get married, and the simple/obvious answer is because getting legally "committed" requires a DEEPER committment, and one he can't readily walk away from.
it's not the paper/ceremony or size of ceremony, it's the committement before God AND man that solidifies marriage these days.
whether or not the state grants you (bobby)the ability TO 'marry', God STILL won't recognize it "
real facts wrote on Dec 11, 2008 1:18 PM:
For you to say anything about my encouragement for others to find answers in the Bible absurd, if not sinful. If not the Bible, where should one look for what God has to say about issues? You? Me? The stars? A life coach? Check yourself, brother. ").
i was making a point that bobby isn't the least bit interested in "answers", and his time spent in Gods word was ONLY for the purpose of self justification.
of course Gods word is the ONLY "go to" on the issues of man, and i wouldn't steer anyone in any other direction.
the other point i was making is that at times being "nice" and not telling the confrontive truth is that it "can" become an enabling act
i see ALOT of Christians suffer from that malady, in that they are unwilling to tell the sometimes confrontive aspects of truth, and in not doing so, they in-advertanly become a party to the perpetuation of sin
the-truth-is.....bobby-could-care-less-about-the-authoritative-aspects-of-Gods-word-over-his-life "
bobbyg wrote on Dec 11, 2008 1:14 PM:
You are claiming that WTF is married according to your standards and claiming that yours and Gods are the same thing. So put up! "
real facts wrote on Dec 11, 2008 1:11 PM:
" Real facts, how someone chooses to recognize thier marriage is none of your business. It is between them and God. God recognizes WTF's marriage. A religious or civil ceremony is not what makes a marriage as you know.
It is a commitment with God that makes a marriage. Or perhaps you can show me in the Bible where it says one must be married by a religious officiant? ").
ahhhh, the wishful thinking meanderings of a homosexual wanting desperately to justify his OWN sexual relationship before God.
sorry bobby, you living together with your "current" boyfriend doesn't qualify you before God under ANY definition, even though your attempting to front for WTF (and yourself) while thinking everyone else will give you a free pass under the "comittment umbrella".
God doesn't recognize ANY aspect of homosexuality, even IF they are "comitted", so your wishful thinking has no future before God.
as far as wtf, he isn't married either, so God can't "recognize" his "marriage", because he doesn't have one to begin with
wtf has been "living together" with his woman. they have never "married" "
bobbyg wrote on Dec 11, 2008 11:27 AM:
It is a commitment with God that makes a marriage. Or perhaps you can show me in the Bible where it says one must be married by a religious officiant? "
bobbyg wrote on Dec 11, 2008 11:02 AM:
bobbyg wrote on Dec 11, 2008 11:01 AM:
Audi, While I appreciate your wisdom on many things in here, I find that you are wrong in here. Audi you wrote: (God's commands of sexual purity, however, are applicable for all time, people, and cultures, as they have never been abrogated by God.)
The problems become when the Bible has been interpreted and re-interpreted by man. The Bible does not say anything in actuality about "homosexuality" until about 175 years ago during one of the many re-interpretations. While this is one aspect of life for you Audi this is my life, I have spent many many years trying to understand what God wants of me, why if He created us in His image, why then did he create me a homosexual? And he did, I have found many answers in the Bible. Many of those teachings of the Bible are not what is taught by religion infact sometimes religion teaches us the opposite.
I have research grammar, language of the time, historical reasonings for certain items (such as your arguments earlier about shrimp) and so many more items of these anti-gay doctrines. "
Audi 5000 wrote on Dec 11, 2008 10:07 AM:
For you to say anything about my encouragement for others to find answers in the Bible absurd, if not sinful. If not the Bible, where should one look for what God has to say about issues? You? Me? The stars? A life coach? Check yourself, brother. "
real facts wrote on Dec 11, 2008 9:58 AM:
" Also, bobbyg, I commend you for looking toward the Bible for answers. The truth is there, keep studying! ").
audi, your a nice guy with excellant motives, but you are burying your head in the sand if you think for a moment that the "bobby's" of the world haven't "studied enough".
bobby knows more about Gods word than most Christians you will ever come across in your lifetime, but he REFUSES to bow to it's authority over his life.
his ONLY intent in "studying" Gods word is to search out opportunities to twist it to fit his sin into it.
for bobby, it isn't about "studying more", it will always be about bowing to it as it is stated.
as demonstrated in here over time, bobby isn't the least bit interested in "answers", as he is in "justification-nation"...
sometimes, "nice" blocks the truth of a matter/circumstance/person, and even has the potential of being an enabler "
real facts wrote on Dec 11, 2008 9:49 AM:
And dont forget that you yourself in a previous blog admitted that the Bible never once mentions homosexuality...").
what i said was (and you know it, yet you continue to lie about it), is that the bible doesn't specifically USE the word "homosexuality", but that it is chocked full of references to same gender sex in any form as being condemned by God. that's a fact, and you know it.
do you really think you can slide homosexuality onto the "go page" because of a semantics based arguement like that? that is about as pathetic an arguement "in favor of" as i have ever seen.
the bible doesn't specifically say the words "child molester" or "child predator", yet scripture is crystal clear as to it being a huge no no, just like same gender sex.
somewhere along the line you have fully given yourself over TO sin, and now you have reduced yourself in life to trying to justify something you never will be able TO justify
fighting against God......that's the ultimate definition of futility "
Audi 5000 wrote on Dec 11, 2008 9:38 AM:
real facts wrote on Dec 11, 2008 9:37 AM:
So in actuality the Bible does call Shrimp an Abomination. So why dont YOU explain why you 'cherry pick" or practice "Cafeteria Christianity"?").
if anyone in here is guilty of "cafeteria Christianity" it's you for trying to play stretch armstrong with Gods word so you can sell the notion to yourself and anyone else that's gulliable enough to swallow your lies that Gods word high fives ANY aspect of homosexual sex.
you got me on the leviticus/shellfish/abomination thingy. i should have realized it DID reference it in those terms.
BUT, you STILL didn't explain to the reading audience the difference between shellfish and sexual sin, and how Christ STILL condemns EVERY manner of sexual sin that God referenced IN leviticus.
tell everyone how every other levitical "sexual sin" is STILL a no no, but (according to you) somewhere along the line God gave "only" homosexuality the "thumbs up".
actually, your the "penn and teller" of Christianity.
i could have picked from a bag full of illusionists, but if you know anything about penn jillet, you-would-know-why-i-picked-him-on-purpose "
Audi 5000 wrote on Dec 11, 2008 9:31 AM:
The new covenant is when God abrogated the food laws.
Jesus said in Mark 7:18-19, "..do you not perceive that whatever enters a man from the outside cannot defile him, because it does not enter his heart but his stomach ..."
Furthermore in Acts 10:15, God instructed Peter that He has abrogated the laws of ritual cleanliness.
For the case of the food laws, it's clear they were for a historical time, and fully abrogated by God. God's commands of sexual purity, however, are applicable for all time, people, and cultures, as they have never been abrogated by God.
the OT and NT both absolutely call trespasses of the sexual variety, including homosexuality, a sin.
Dig deeper, bobbyg, to find the whole truth of the Bible. "
real facts wrote on Dec 11, 2008 9:23 AM:
Dyan being gay is not about sex, it never has been. It is no more about sex than being a heterosexual is about sex. Being gay is the same as you with the difference that they are not attracted to the opposite sex. They do not choose to be gay, nuch the same that you didnt choose to be straight. ").
it IS about the sex, as the sexual element is what God either cofirms or condemns based on the choice of enactment, versus Gods standards.
at minimum, over time, gays choose to be gay, and the sexual choice/element thereafter condemns that choice.
while different groups of people experience "attraction" to all kinds of deviant pull, still over time a person is responsible before God to deal with that attraction thru the power of God over it.
i am reminded of a friend of mine who cheated on his wife with a woman 20years his junior. he still seeks to justify his "attraction" and subsequent sin by saying it isn't just about sex
like you bobby,....he-attempts-to-justify-his-sin-because-he-doesn't-want-to-fight-against-it "
Audi 5000 wrote on Dec 11, 2008 8:56 AM:
In order to have a sound interpretation of the Bible you need to thoroughly study the Bible, using principles for sound biblical interpretation. They are historical, literal, grammatical, synthesis, and practical.
In Leviticus, Moses instructs the Israelites regarding cleanliness. Certain classifications of animals were disease carriers at that time in history (e.g. pigs), but also it was an exercise in avoiding carnivorous animals and birds of prey that eat flesh with blood in it. Only domesticated animals were offered in sacrifice, and for human consumption, as per the old testament law.
Cud-chewing, cloven-hoofed land animals were clean and so could be eaten. Other animals were unclean.
Only ordinary fish with fins and scales were clean. Other water creatures were unclean and therefore inedible.
Birds of prey were unclean, but others were clean.
Insects that hop may be eaten, but not others.
Again the OT law, which Jesus fulfilled by His ministry and by establishing the New Covenant. cont ... "
real facts wrote on Dec 11, 2008 8:16 AM:
i think it's pathetic of how many people line up to give it to me, then when i meet their "challenge", they pull up short.
i understand fully why you refuse to qualify your living together instead of being married, but regardless of whether or not you do that in here, you WILL have to deal with it sooner or later because despite me, you know it falls short of Gods standards, and has NOTHING to do with a piece of paper
don't challenge me if your not willing to follow thru on it, as that is not a fair representation of integrity
now go ask your wife to marry you... "
bobbyg wrote on Dec 10, 2008 4:57 PM:
(Bobbyg: Notice how gay marriage advocates never consider their effect on families, children, society, culture, religion or even attitudes of terrorists toward the US.)
Dyan, perhaps it is the opposite? perhaps the non-marriage advocates forget that Gay people have families, adopt children (or have their own), they are apart of society and its moral fiber, many gay people are also very religious and are you serious about terrorist????
Dyan continues.. (The only thing they seem to care about is thier own personal sexual gratification.)
Dyan being gay is not about sex, it never has been. It is no more about sex than being a heterosexual is about sex. Being gay is the same as you with the difference that they are not attracted to the opposite sex. They do not choose to be gay, nuch the same that you didnt choose to be straight. "
dyan wrote on Dec 10, 2008 4:48 PM:
bobbyg wrote on Dec 10, 2008 3:47 PM:
jack black *forgot* to mention in his mentioning of "shrimp cocktail" that shrimp cocktail WASN'T labeled an "abomination"
would YOU like to explain the old testament difference between shrimp cocktail and homosexual sex?)
Well I must say you are not very good at researching your Bible and knowing what it says....
Leviticus 11:10
And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you
Leviticus 11:12
Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you.
So in actuality the Bible does call Shrimp an Abomination. So why dont YOU explain why you 'cherry pick" or practice "Cafeteria Christianity"?
And dont forget that you yourself in a previous blog admitted that the Bible never once mentions homosexuality... "
wtf wrote on Dec 10, 2008 2:08 PM:
Unlike yourself, I do not hover around the blogs waiting for a response.
Your response, by the way, was totally off base and is not what I said.
You can make very good points at times, real facts; I mean that sincerely.
However, there are times when you are bug fricking nuts. Your latest posts to me and others on the board are of the latter.
Therefore, any discussion, on my part with you is done....you're just sounding too crazy.
Given your past posts, I'm sure you'll crow about how "right" you are...so go ahead...have at it. LOL! "
real facts wrote on Dec 10, 2008 1:37 PM:
you wanted so bad for me to answer your question, so i did.... are you suddenly at a loss for words? "
real facts wrote on Dec 10, 2008 1:36 PM:
jack black *forgot* to mention in his mentioning of "shrimp cocktail" that shrimp cocktail WASN'T labeled an "abomination"
since you doled out the video, would YOU like to explain the old testament difference between shrimp cocktail and homosexual sex?
maybe voter, sam or wtf could do it for you since they thought it was so great? "
real facts wrote on Dec 10, 2008 1:25 PM:
real facts wrote on Dec 10, 2008 1:24 PM:
Please enlighten me as to where, exactly, I defined God on my terms since you claim to have such an absorbent memory. ").
in this blog, you explained how you "re-defined" the standards of God for your own personal comfort by "living together" and not getting married
as per your own words in these blogs, you still possess a conscience about God, yet you are determined to do things YOUR way, instead of the standards God has set forth
would you like to explain how "living together" is justifiable before God versus marriage? "
wtf wrote on Dec 10, 2008 1:22 PM:
Please enlighten me as to where, exactly, I defined God on my terms since you claim to have such an absorbent memory. You haven't answered yet and I'm waiting. "
real facts wrote on Dec 10, 2008 1:10 PM:
" RF wrote: (actually, we will grab a two-fer-one-deal in this one by referring to ephesians chapter 5, where sex OUTSIDE the marital bounds of ONLY a man and a woman are discussed)
Well First you might want to re-read that because now where does it mention as you say "ONLY between a man and a woman". There is no mention of ONLY at all. So your point of proving that is wrong as well.
Also in all of that Chapter never once is Homosexuality mentioned, not once. You cant say that because it wasnt mentioned it must be implied. As you say the Bible is direct it doesnt imply anything it is direct. ").
***************************************
the true replication of scripture has you over a barrel once again, proving you have ZERO biblical grounds to say that God approves of ANY aspect of homosexuality.
ephesians 5 is the "go to" chapter ON biblical marriage, and it ONLY mentions a man and a woman.....(NO WHERE in-scripture-is-there-ANY-mention-of-"homosexual_marriage")
furthermore, it DOES specifically condemn homsexuality thru the fornication/adultery/sexual immorality angle.
it-is-IMPOSSIBLE-to-justify-homosexual-sex-of-ANY-kind-"biblically"
your game is over bobby
now, let's-see-you-qualify-your-OWN-sexual-realtionship? "
bobbyg wrote on Dec 10, 2008 12:01 PM:
It is you who are so wound up that you cant see that you are the one denying someone else the right to believe as they do. Your beliefs are not the only ones allowed, even if there are more of you. "
dyan wrote on Dec 10, 2008 11:06 AM:
bobbyg wrote on Dec 10, 2008 9:43 AM:
Besides the anger went both ways, the yes campaign went mafia style when they sent "extortion" style letters to people/businesses that sent money to the No campaign. Then the Yes people broke into several Jewish temples and spray painted the sanctuaries with YES on 8 and Lev. quotes.
There are/were idiots on both sides.
Just for the record Bigot: : a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices
(websters dictionary). "
dyan wrote on Dec 10, 2008 8:41 AM:
sam wrote on Dec 9, 2008 7:36 PM:
wtf wrote on Dec 9, 2008 6:50 PM:
bobbyg wrote on Dec 9, 2008 6:00 PM:
Prop 8 the musical
http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/c0cf508ff8/prop-8-the-musical-starring-jack-black-john-c-reilly-and-many-more-from-fod-team-jack-black-craig-robinson-john-c-reilly-and-rashida-jones "
wtf wrote on Dec 9, 2008 5:32 PM:
bobbyg wrote on Dec 9, 2008 5:21 PM:
Most gay people dont stand out in a crowd so you dont know who a majority of us are. What you do see are those who cant "hide" or choose to be outrageous in their behavior. I think you will be seeing a lot more of the "normal" gay people coming out in the future. For example the former Mayor of Folsom, several religous leaders and more have recently come out of the closet.
An aquiantance of mine has started to ask how peoples "significant other, or "special friend" is instead of calling his straight married friends spouses husband or wife. Imagine if someone were to call your husband or wife your "special Friend" it makes a statement. "
voter wrote on Dec 9, 2008 4:41 PM:
bobbyg wrote on Dec 9, 2008 4:36 PM:
voter wrote on Dec 9, 2008 4:25 PM:
WCPatty wrote on Dec 9, 2008 4:13 PM:
Real Facts: Thanks so much for clearing that up for me. I must concede to your superiority. I had no idea what I was dealing with. You're in a whole other league for sure. You "win"! "
dyan wrote on Dec 9, 2008 4:10 PM:
If you don't believe me, ask a black man if he thinks gary marriage is in the same category. "
voter wrote on Dec 9, 2008 3:51 PM:
bobbyg wrote on Dec 9, 2008 3:50 PM:
dyan wrote on Dec 9, 2008 3:39 PM:
bobbyg wrote on Dec 9, 2008 3:22 PM:
After a couple of days it becomes a breeding ground for harmful bacteria and contaminates everything!
It wasnt meant to be that way, but it goes from good to evil pretty quick, kinda like other things. "
wtf wrote on Dec 9, 2008 3:03 PM:
Hunh? Whatever. If it makes you happy to believe what you're saying, go right ahead...just stop putting words in my mouth such as your comment, "...attempting to define God on YOUR terms..."
Please enlighten me as to where, exactly, I defined God on my terms since you claim to have such an absorbent memory. "
bobbyg wrote on Dec 9, 2008 10:47 AM:
Well First you might want to re-read that because now where does it mention as you say "ONLY between a man and a woman". There is no mention of ONLY at all. So your point of proving that is wrong as well.
Also in all of that Chapter never once is Homosexuality mentioned, not once. You cant say that because it wasnt mentioned it must be implied. As you say the Bible is direct it doesnt imply anything it is direct. "
bobbyg wrote on Dec 9, 2008 10:36 AM:
now you can come forward with whatever you think you have set me up for ")
RF I was just curious on where you stood thats is all. In all the talks we have ben involved in I just didnt know where you stood on that. "
real facts wrote on Dec 9, 2008 10:12 AM:
Perhaps you can tell me what constituted a marriage in the Bible? Perhaps you can tell me more about "traditional Marriage" as defined in the Bible? ").
thanks for the opportunity.
actually, we will grab a two-fer-one-deal in this one by referring to ephesians chapter 5, where sex OUTSIDE the marital bounds of ONLY a man and a woman are discussed, where ANY sex outside marriage is straight up condemned, and towards the end of the chapter, the ONLY descriptive of what God blesses in a marital union, that of a husband and wife.
a man and a woman, ......not a man and a man, or a woman and a woman.
now, i would love to see you twist ephesians 5 into a "homosexual high five" like you have attempted to do in the past
ephesians chapter 5 completely ditches any notion that God 'accepts' homosexuality, in ANY form
well ??? "
real facts wrote on Dec 9, 2008 10:00 AM:
" real facts, just out of curiosity what is your thought on the Mormon Church? ").
it's an easily defineable cult
now you can come forward with whatever you think you have set me up for "
real facts wrote on Dec 9, 2008 9:56 AM:
the point i made about you is the same point i make about everyone else in here that gives a free pass to the nastiest aspects of life by not saying a word to the likes of billy rubin et al, while attempting to point your finger in my direction.
billy in particular has said some of the nastiest bottom feeder lies about people in here, and people like you NEVER say a word because your either afraid or your a hypocrite.
it's a sickening joke that you people pick and choose this way.
and i of course will continue to call people what they are, when they are... "
WCPatty wrote on Dec 9, 2008 7:39 AM:
Real Facts: Simple. First off, your statement I referred to concerned your denial of using of personal attacks - no one else's. Second, it is possible to criticize or offer a rebuttal to another's statement without resorting to calling them names, whether you believe it's "true" or not.
Debating statements = not a personal attack
Name calling or personal inferences = personal attack
And the absurd (and immature) suggestion that I approve of incest? What did that accomplish for you? "
bobbyg wrote on Dec 8, 2008 11:38 PM:
Perhaps you can tell me what constituted a marriage in the Bible? Perhaps you can tell me more about "traditional Marriage" as defined in the Bible? "
bobbyg wrote on Dec 8, 2008 11:33 PM:
real facts wrote on Dec 8, 2008 10:19 PM:
although i know you are used to being a party to intimidating Christians by bullying them into silence, i hope for your sake your not lingering around in here waiting for an apology from me on doing what i do in here....because that will never happen.
i can understand it being completely frustrating for people like you that wish people like me would just go away so that you wouldn't have anyone to "remind" you, but my job description prevents that from happening.
you see, i cannot be run out of town like you people are used to doing with most other Christians by intimidating them.
i did make several offers over the last two+ years i have been in here.....that unless people diss Christ/Christians/Christianity or they lie about me, there is no need for "me"
people like you must still want me around, because you keep providing "opportunity"
did you ever notice all the other blogs where i am NOT around?
i-read-them,...but-i-don't-comment-on-them
why is that? "
Brokenl wrote on Dec 8, 2008 8:04 PM:
real facts wrote on Dec 8, 2008 7:46 PM:
i don't recall you attemting to use scriptures against me.....but i definitely recall you indentifying YOURSELF as a Christian when attempting to leverage me.
maybe you don't recall it, but i do.
people will resort to whatever measure they have to in order to throw me off my game, which is why i have become a "sponge" in my memory of who has/hasn't so i can deal with them accordingly.
that being said, i DO piggy-back your decision to distance yourself from "religion", as religion is nothing more than mans ill aimed attempt at getting themselves into a position "spiritually" where God will accept them,....which-is-impossible
while distancing yourself FROM religion and being more "spiritual" IS a good thing, attempting to define God on YOUR terms has eternal disasterous ramifications-attached-to-it......Jesus-Christ-didn't-claim-to-be-"a_way",.....HE-claimed-to-be-"the-ONLY-way" "
real facts wrote on Dec 8, 2008 7:25 PM:
since i am willing to speak the truth about people when they attempt to pull their stuff in here, anytime you can make your point by showing where i "didn't" tell the truth about a persons BEHAVIOR in here using YOUR desrcriptives, feel free to set me straight.
as an example, i find it completely hypocritical of you that you would attempt to take me to task on calling billy a "human toilet" after your knowledge of billy telling me to "go have sex with my own daughter", and his ongoing hit parade of perverted comments.
evidently in your world, having sex with ones own daughter IS acceptable, but rightfully calling the person what they are, because they continually stoop that low into the gutter of life "isn't" acceptable.
let's see you explain that one? "
WCPatty wrote on Dec 8, 2008 4:15 PM:
Real Facts: Maybe no one has explained this to you before: calling individual bloggers names like liar, hypocrite, "human toilet", or "false" Christian ARE personal attacks. "
wtf wrote on Dec 8, 2008 3:00 PM:
Though I have **never** said I was a Christian, I **have** said that I was **raised** a Christian which you may have concluded meant I was **still** a Christian.
The **real facts** are my **parents** chose to raise me as a Christian and, of course, along with that went the **label** of Christian.
As an adult, I have chosen to expand my relationship with God to be more spiritual and, as a result, beyond **any** type of label. "
wtf wrote on Dec 8, 2008 2:47 PM:
that is an outright lie....you people think you can use that as a tool to silence someone who is willing to speak up....you forget i have a "sponge memory" about these things
A "sponge memory" real facts? Sounds like your "sponge" is waterlogged and can't hold anymore. LOL! If you want to think I've called myself a Christian (which I have not though I **have** quoted the Bible), feel free to do so.
And by all means, speak up...it's apparent you have no problem doing so and I don't see anyone trying to silence you; but do us all a favor and take your medication first. OK? ;) "
real facts wrote on Dec 8, 2008 1:19 PM:
" RF, It has been so nice in this blog so far and I am scared to ruin that and have LNS shut this one down because of you and your personal attacks again").
one move you don't want to make toward me is to start your lying about me just because you wish i wouldn't "remind you" of things others aren't willing to do.
go ahead, PROVE your lie about me "personally attacking" anyone in this blog. you can't, because it's a lie "
real facts wrote on Dec 8, 2008 1:16 PM:
However in your statement "but your above statement smacks of hypocrisy and is totally inconsistent with the teachings of Christ against homosexuality". I have one problem with what you said here, Christ never once spoke of homosexuality, not once is He quoated in the Bible talking about homosexuality. Jesus Christ says many things on many subjects and He is quoated a vast amount of times about divorce but never does Jesus mention homosexuality. ").
i relish the opportunities that you provide to demonstrate that your "biblical homosexuality" is nothing more than a lie.
Jesus Christ DID speak out aginst homosexual sex, because he was/is God, and he condemned it in the old AND new testaments HIMSELF.
Jesus Christ condemned ANY sex outside the marriage of a man and a woman, and you know this and continue to lie about it.
the all inclusive any sex outside marriage between a man and a woman with the adultery/fornication/sexual immorality EXCLUDES any posibility of homosexual sex being "good"
shoot, even cogito stated that Christ was God, and condemned it in the old testament "
real facts wrote on Dec 8, 2008 1:09 PM:
I support them because it makes THEM happy. ").
do you feel the same way about friends of yours that incessantly cheat on their wives because God called adultery sin?
do you "support" that behavior because it makes them happy? "
real facts wrote on Dec 8, 2008 1:06 PM:
" RF, I believe God told me to "judge not", so I try not to. There are many people in my life that I love and care about who happen to be homosexual. I find their sexuality to be the least interesting thing about them. I would never do anything to deny them their happiness. As far as things I say occasionally, many times I say things to get a reaction. I do it for intellectual sport. Some times I'm in a mood where I might say something idiotic, and wish I hadn't. But I'm being sincere right now when I say that with all the things that are messed up in this world, two people finding love, support, and comfort in one another's companionship isn't something that's any of my business, or any bother to me. I support them because it makes THEM happy. ").
**************************************
exactly
just like i said cog, you are more interested in pleasing people, being popular or creating enviornments where people feel "comfortable" than you are about being obedient to God.
God calls homosexuality sin, and commands us-to-call-it-the-same-without-prejudice "
real facts wrote on Dec 8, 2008 1:01 PM:
" real facts wrote on Dec 7, 2008 10:38 AM: now i know why at times YOU have claimed to be a "Christian" in these blogs
Uh, real facts? Better change your name or learn how to read. I have never said I was a Christian. I have studied the Bible - in fact, I've read it three times cover to cover - each and every page; but never have I called myself a Christian").
***************************************
that is an outright lie.
in these blogs on at least two seperate occasions when you were attempting to silence me on one of the many blogs about homosexuality, YOU said YOU were a Christian while attempting to make your point about keeping God "seperate".
you and others have done it in here, by claiming yourselves to be "Christians".
you people think you can use that as a tool to silence someone who is willing to speak up.
you did it at least two times
you forget i have a "sponge memory" about these things "
sam wrote on Dec 8, 2008 12:38 PM:
How does a woman legally become a man without sex organs being changed?? "
Audi 5000 wrote on Dec 8, 2008 11:34 AM:
Here's the question; if God has defined how He wants this relationship to be, will we be obedient to His desires, or will we tell Him what His role will be in the relationship? Is He the boss or are we the boss? "
bobbyg wrote on Dec 8, 2008 10:27 AM:
I agree with all of you on many of your posts. A relationship with God is just that God and us. I dont need a place to worship I have every where to do that, some of the best times I have had were where I walked over to the park or sat on the front porch and read my Bible.
And just as was said before by someone else, I dont enjoy the seen and be seen aspect of church, its not a runway, its a place of worship. "
SportsGuru wrote on Dec 8, 2008 9:57 AM:
TO SAM:
Indeed, the Barbara Walters story was actually about "two Lesbians... one with a hairy face who had her breasts removed and got pregnant".
My point was, Barbara Walters characterized it as "The First Pregnant Man"! "
Lodian wrote on Dec 8, 2008 9:33 AM:
" wtf said "The **real** fact is that if Christ himself were to show up today, many who call themselves "Christians" were crucify him all over again. ""
That's for sure ! "
-----------------
I sure agree with that too. "
WCPatty wrote on Dec 8, 2008 8:40 AM:
Cogito: thanks for the zin tips. I love the "Generous" from Macchia. Have you tried the "Artist Series" zin from m2 winery? It's another favorite of mine. "
sam wrote on Dec 8, 2008 8:29 AM:
That's for sure ! "
sam wrote on Dec 8, 2008 8:26 AM:
From your previous blog when you said you decided to keep both the church and the government out of your marriage, I knew exactly what you meant.
Your statement by no means led me to believe that God was left out of your marriage. It is so obvious that God is a big part of your life. "
wtf wrote on Dec 8, 2008 8:20 AM:
Uh, real facts? Better change your name or learn how to read. I have never said I was a Christian. I have studied the Bible - in fact, I've read it three times cover to cover - each and every page; but never have I called myself a Christian.
The **real** fact is that if Christ himself were to show up today, many who call themselves "Christians" were crucify him all over again. "
sam wrote on Dec 8, 2008 8:18 AM:
Thanks. "
sam wrote on Dec 8, 2008 8:17 AM:
I love to chuckle at your jokes. Your sarcasm often makes my eye brows go up and me say "Huh? Is he for real?"
But when you speak sincerely from your heart, you do it so well. Thank you. "
wtf wrote on Dec 8, 2008 8:07 AM:
So I started going to early morning mass where those who **really** wanted to be there, would get up to be there. Then I'd go into the empty church where it was just me 'n God. ;)
Finally, I found the best church of all.
NATURE!
God's own cathedral. I'd go sit by a river or in the woods or by the ocean and meditate on God. "
wtf wrote on Dec 8, 2008 8:07 AM:
WELL said! That's exactly how I see things....to me, spirituality does not belong to any particular religion. "
Cogito wrote on Dec 8, 2008 7:55 AM:
WCPatty wrote on Dec 8, 2008 7:14 AM:
Cogito wrote on Dec 7, 2008 10:49 PM:
Cogito wrote on Dec 7, 2008 10:45 PM:
bobbyg wrote on Dec 7, 2008 7:20 PM:
However in your statement "but your above statement smacks of hypocrisy and is totally inconsistent with the teachings of Christ against homosexuality". I have one problem with what you said here, Christ never once spoke of homosexuality, not once is He quoated in the Bible talking about homosexuality. Jesus Christ says many things on many subjects and He is quoated a vast amount of times about divorce but never does Jesus mention homosexuality. "
real facts wrote on Dec 7, 2008 7:07 PM:
" Real Facts and Bobby G heres a suggestion, roll a big one and mellow out. From your posts you couldn`t be more far apart, light`en up. ").
i used to, but that's in the proverbial rear view mirror until i get glaucoma (lol).
anyway, thanks for the compliment about my position being completely opposite from bobbyg's. in my life, i don't want to be caught dead (literally) attempting to justify anything before God "
real facts wrote on Dec 7, 2008 7:03 PM:
" RF, I will be against gay marriage when an option is available for gay couples to legally join together with all the same rights as heterosexual couples. You can call it whatever you want. ").
but your above statement smacks of hypocrisy and is totally inconsistent with the teachings of Christ against homosexuality, and YOUR stated position against homosexual sex not more than a few posts ago.
first you call it sin just like God does by citing His word, then you turn around and attempt to give it some credibility.
this is where you need to decide what side of the fence you are going to operate on cogito. as a believer, you DO NOT grant sin the ability to become 'accepted' or 'normal', and therein lies your hypocrisy, because your playing on both sides of the fence.
now, it may seem i am busting your chops, when in actuality i am confronting you on deciding what matters to you most.......your Lord, or "popularity" and world opinion/standards?
sin is NEVER a "right", in ANY form "
real facts wrote on Dec 7, 2008 6:53 PM:
" Real Facts, as I've said before, I will answer to God, not you. ").
you cannot believe how true that really is, BUT "if" i have mirrored Gods standards back to you as far as what God expects of you about this subject matter, and you don't adjust to them, then you will wish you had.
it is far better for someone like me to "remind" you OF those standards, rather than being judged by God at a later date by purposefully circumventing them now.
whatever you do or don't do is on you, and has nothing to do with me.
however, you won't catch me standing before God because i was too afraid to remind people when that opportunity presented itself.
saying nothing, is sometimes the equivalent of doing nothing, and God has requirements for both "
real facts wrote on Dec 7, 2008 6:44 PM:
if only you could grasp what awaits your future for attemting to do so, maybe then you wouldn't have to devote your life lying about it, that homosexual sex is good before God, it's just that the "interpreters" got it all wrong (according to you)
to this day, you STILL cannot even qualify your OWN sexual realtionship biblically
and no, your not going to wander around these blogs uncontested spreading the lie that it was all just an interpretive issue.
not while i am around "
dogs4you wrote on Dec 7, 2008 6:24 PM:
sam wrote on Dec 7, 2008 6:08 PM:
I think you may have something. "
sam wrote on Dec 7, 2008 6:03 PM:
As for the meeting of the big 3... I dunno ... I still think it might be interesting. People are different when they cannot hide behind a computer screen. "
sam wrote on Dec 7, 2008 5:56 PM:
Hey... have you tried Bogle Petite Syrah. It is delicious and a steal at it's ridiculously reasonable price. "
bobbyg wrote on Dec 7, 2008 5:55 PM:
I would love to have a sit around or a panel discussion, I think it would be fun.
Contrary to how some of my post sound I am easy to get along with and not at all overbearing. I am just as much interested in what people are saying and asking questions of.
I also think it would be fun and would need to have some rules. Heck we could even charge to have people listen to us. Some of the higher rated tv programming is just that, people with opposite views that respect each other oppinions even it they dont agree with it. "
dogs4you wrote on Dec 7, 2008 5:29 PM:
Cogito wrote on Dec 7, 2008 5:22 PM:
sam wrote on Dec 7, 2008 3:59 PM:
I think the blogs go crazy sometimes because we are just bloggers here. "
sam wrote on Dec 7, 2008 3:56 PM:
Peace out to you ! "
dogs4you wrote on Dec 7, 2008 3:40 PM:
dogs4you wrote on Dec 7, 2008 3:38 PM:
sam wrote on Dec 7, 2008 3:19 PM:
The surgeon was far more concerned about the patient becoming addicted to morphine and OxyContin than weed.
And no offense at all, but I did value and respect his opinion.
But, hey, let's hope you are never put in that situation where you would actually have to consider what is the least addictive and what does less harm to your system. "
Cogito wrote on Dec 7, 2008 3:18 PM:
Cogito wrote on Dec 7, 2008 3:12 PM:
dogs4you wrote on Dec 7, 2008 1:39 PM:
sam wrote on Dec 7, 2008 1:08 PM:
However the doctor who suggested weed is a well known, well respected orthopedic surgeon. That is what surprised me. He was worried about my relative possibly becoming addicted to morphine or OxyContin. I was surprised.
But Dogs, my comment was not meant to turn the blog into a weed blog. I was just surprised that if the federal constitution already defines marriage as being between a man and a woman, why was Prop 8 even needed? Doesn't federal law supercede state law?
Oh where oh where is DanielH???
Anyone out there a federal law expert??? "
dogs4you wrote on Dec 7, 2008 12:41 PM:
bobbyg wrote on Dec 7, 2008 12:22 PM:
The problem is we as Christians are too affraid to question authority and read for oursleves. "
real facts wrote on Dec 7, 2008 11:06 AM:
the war on biblical principles is obvious, as people are seeking to re-define Gods standards to JUSTIFY their personal pleasure/choices, and so is the vitriol of Christians who are raising their voices in defending the true standards of God by drawing those absolutes in the sand
you can whine all you want about "being outside the church", but chances are YOU placed yourself there by choosing the opposite of Gods standards, and no amount of complaining will alter those standards to make you feel "comfortable"
God standards are absolute, and being straight up you either choose to adjust to them and live by them, or you will be judged because OF them.
there has never been one person to oocupy this earth that has EVER successfully changed/altered them to match their choice, and you won't either "
real facts wrote on Dec 7, 2008 10:55 AM:
" By the way Voter, I, an unabashed conservative Christian Republican, voted no on 8. My point of view of the article had nothing to do with my point of view on gay marriage. There is no Biblical argument in favor of gay marriage. None. ").
this statement above, coupled with a previous post of yours where YOU stated that Jesus WAS/IS the God of the old testament, and HE condemned homosexuality, then why on earth did YOU vote "no" on prop 8?
actually, i know why, and i leave it to to your conscience of finally once and for all choosing the standards of God OVER any scenario(s) of man, whether or not that includes familial relationships.
sin doesn't posses a sliding scale based on personal relationships "
real facts wrote on Dec 7, 2008 10:38 AM:
As usual, my dear, an excellent post! LOL! This is precisely why my partner of the opposite sex and I have lived together for 25+ years")
now i know why at times YOU have claimed to be a "Christian" in these blogs, yet you fight against "some" of the clear standards of God, is because your the classic example of "pick and choose Christianity".
i like this part, check. i don't like this part, reject, and insert my own version of what's right.
Jesus Christ doesn't bless "living together", in ANY sexuality/comittment form
you either live by the standards just as they are laid out or you don't "
sam wrote on Dec 7, 2008 10:33 AM:
But knowing that one could still be arrested under federal law makes it's legalization kind of a joke.
I do hope DanielH picks up this blog. I think you are right in that he would be the "go to" guy. "
Cogito wrote on Dec 7, 2008 10:25 AM:
Brian wrote on Dec 7, 2008 10:13 AM:
" The fact of the matter is that gays want to impose THEIR morality on the rest of the country. "
-I'm sure you meant THEIR immorality, I'm sure. "
sam wrote on Dec 7, 2008 9:55 AM:
The story seemed to me to be about two Lesbians... one with a hairy face who had her breasts removed. "
sam wrote on Dec 7, 2008 9:51 AM:
"In 1996, Congress passed the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which defines marriage as a legal union of one man and one woman for the purpose of interpreting federal law. Under DOMA, the Federal government does not recognize same-sex marriages or civil unions, even if those unions are recognized by state law. For example, members of a same-sex couple legally married in Massachusetts cannot file joint Federal income tax returns even if they file joint state income tax returns."
If this is true, why are gays concentrating just on the state constitution? It would seem they would still have the same problems without federal recognition.
Anyone out there (voter? Leonard? cog?) well versed on federal law??? "
SportsGuru wrote on Dec 7, 2008 8:29 AM:
Here is the link to Barbara Walters' "PREGNANT MAN" story. Just by having this headline (knowing that anatomically, this is a woman) shows you the length some media will go to in order to normalize this stuff...
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Story?id=6244878&page=1 "
Cogito wrote on Dec 7, 2008 8:29 AM:
SportsGuru wrote on Dec 7, 2008 8:28 AM:
The "gay marriage" issue has always been LESS about marriage, and MORE about "normalizing" homosexuality.
Recently I stumbled across a Barbara Walters special that touted the "First Man To Have A Baby". The story was about a woman who had her breasts surgically removed, but kept her female organs. She "legally" became a man, got pregnant and had a baby. And this person believes she is a man who had a baby even though she is a woman with a man's name.
She was shown, at one point, with a T-shirt on that asked the question....
What is normal?
And there you have it, right there on that t-shirt. To homosexuals, this is all about being accepted as normal (not about marriage specifically).
To meet that goal, marriage has to become COMMONLY known as being "between two people, regardless of gender". "
Cogito wrote on Dec 7, 2008 8:25 AM:
sam wrote on Dec 7, 2008 6:23 AM:
bobbyg wrote on Dec 6, 2008 10:33 PM:
lol "
WY wrote on Dec 6, 2008 10:12 PM:
WY wrote on Dec 6, 2008 10:10 PM:
voter wrote on Dec 6, 2008 9:57 PM:
http://www.newsweek.com/id/172653/page/1 "
sam wrote on Dec 6, 2008 8:20 PM:
a bottle of wine (immoral by many religious groups)...
fornication without the intent of procreation (birth control in place so it is immoral to many religious groups)...
and a fire in the fireplace (has that been declared immoral yet??)
... priceless. "
bobbyg wrote on Dec 6, 2008 8:15 PM:
It will hopefully be decided soon in court and if it is held as legal (and it could) then it will be back in 2010 to vote on.
My only issue is the Prop 22 was ruled illegal, so what did those people do, they put it on the Ballot again... EXACTLY THE SAME, Same words! In business we are taught the the definition of insanity is doing the exact same thing over and over expecting different results. So I believe prop 8 was insane. =) "
bobbyg wrote on Dec 6, 2008 8:08 PM:
bobbyg wrote on Dec 6, 2008 8:07 PM:
dogs4you wrote on Dec 6, 2008 7:28 PM:
dogs4you wrote on Dec 6, 2008 7:12 PM:
Scrutiny wrote on Dec 6, 2008 7:06 PM:
Scrutiny wrote on Dec 6, 2008 7:03 PM:
dogs4you wrote on Dec 6, 2008 7:02 PM:
Scrutiny wrote on Dec 6, 2008 7:00 PM:
Scrutiny wrote on Dec 6, 2008 6:52 PM:
dogs4you wrote on Dec 6, 2008 6:50 PM:
sam wrote on Dec 6, 2008 6:48 PM:
How is homosexuality related to incest?
Think about your Mom a lot? Dude, you are seriously ridiculous. "
sam wrote on Dec 6, 2008 6:45 PM:
Illegal drugs to 8 years olds?
See a typical "holier than thou" freak trying to impose his ridiculous, illegal drug use on kids.
Freaky. "
Scrutiny wrote on Dec 6, 2008 6:33 PM:
Scrutiny wrote on Dec 6, 2008 6:29 PM:
Scrutiny wrote on Dec 6, 2008 6:26 PM:
Scrutiny wrote on Dec 6, 2008 6:20 PM:
Madman wrote on Dec 6, 2008 6:17 PM:
Correct me if I am wrong, but no where in the constitution does it state that marriage is between a man and a woman. No religion has the right to define marriage to US citizens outside of their congregation. "
sam wrote on Dec 6, 2008 6:09 PM:
My spiritual beliefs dictate my morality. I do not need our government to do so.
Nor do I need your religious beliefs to try and dictate my morality. "
bobbyg wrote on Dec 6, 2008 6:08 PM:
sam wrote on Dec 6, 2008 5:48 PM:
We celebrated last night with a fire in our fireplace, a delicious dinner, and a bottle of wine.
Oh my. How indecent and immoral of us to partake in drinking alcohol. What an immoral society we live in.
Cheers. "
sam wrote on Dec 6, 2008 5:48 PM:
The 75th anniversary of Repeal Day.
THE 21ST AMENDMENT RATIFIED DECEMBER 5, 1933. "
Lodian wrote on Dec 6, 2008 4:25 PM:
bobbyg wrote on Dec 6, 2008 3:33 PM:
http://www.ruthinstitute.org/pages/SSM.html
She was just a little out there in her theories. Infact she and her whole speech was about why marriage is between only a man and a woman. Her argument was a little different, she claimed that even though the actual marriage is of a man and woman (in her view) she said that the Marriage is actually not for the couple but only for the children and that the marriage certificate binds the parents to the child.
It was a differnt type of arguement, And she was definately out there a little. Dr Morse claimed that she doesnt like to speak on Same Sex Marriage but it appears that is all her web page is based on...
It was a little weird for everyone in the room to understand her point, even those that agreed with her. "
Lodian wrote on Dec 6, 2008 2:28 PM:
" mazie: I am not "fruitful" and cannot multiply. So should my marriage be invalid too? Even if it was blessed by a priest? Just wondering. "
-------
I'd like to hear her answer to that one too. Should we all still be trying to be fruitful and multiply into our sixties and seventies if possible? How far do you take this, Mazie? And where do you make that cut off line? Is it spoken of in the Bible? These are sincere questions. "
Lodian wrote on Dec 6, 2008 2:25 PM:
WCPatty wrote on Dec 6, 2008 2:22 PM:
Lodian wrote on Dec 6, 2008 2:21 PM:
WCPatty wrote on Dec 6, 2008 2:20 PM:
Conversely, I know couples who were married in a religious ceremony, but did not file a license. So again, what is their status and that of their children? "
WCPatty wrote on Dec 6, 2008 2:15 PM:
Englishteacher: I am well aware when I sin and that I am a flawed, imperfect being. God gave me a conscience, and it is God I answer to, not any priest or congregation. Just because some of us do not sit in a church and make "appearances" doesn't mean we have excluded God from our hearts and lives. "
sam wrote on Dec 6, 2008 1:11 PM:
You said it all right there ! Great blog. "
sam wrote on Dec 6, 2008 1:10 PM:
" sam wrote: "It is not the gay population that makes a mockery of marriage. It is the people who marry, divorce, marry, divorce... on and on."
As usual, my dear, an excellent post! LOL! This is precisely why my partner of the opposite sex and I have lived together for 25+ years. "
wtf, thank you. You sound like us. In one month it will be 35 years for us. We made a commitment to each other... through the good times and the bad.
When we feel that we might no longer be in love we respect each other enough to fight like crazy for our relationship .... and we always seem to come out better every time.
Anything worth while is worth fighting for. "
bobbyg wrote on Dec 6, 2008 12:15 PM:
englishteacher wrote on Dec 6, 2008 11:50 AM:
wtf wrote on Dec 6, 2008 11:27 AM:
wtf wrote on Dec 6, 2008 11:27 AM:
As usual, my dear, an excellent post! LOL! This is precisely why my partner of the opposite sex and I have lived together for 25+ years.
I stopped going to church decades ago and when we came together, we decided that neither the church nor the state would be involved in our union.
We have stayed together for over 25 years through our own choice and renewal of our commitment to one another on an ongoing basis. "
bobbyg wrote on Dec 6, 2008 11:26 AM:
While I am very much aware that God does not abandon us, it is the teaching and confusion of many religions that have pushed people away from God. Many religions teach that you can not seperate God from Church and thus some of the confusion.
My point earlier is that Church has pushed people away and seperated them from God. Sin is relative as we are all sinners.
But a question for you if we are all sinners why then are we as religious people turning people off to religion and God? I think thats the question that everyone needs to ask themselves as well as ask , is my church turning people off or away from God? Then ask yourself how you and your church can turn that around and help with thdecay of our society. "
englishteacher wrote on Dec 6, 2008 11:08 AM:
englishteacher wrote on Dec 6, 2008 11:07 AM:
bobbyg wrote on Dec 6, 2008 10:59 AM:
I while I might agree with your general statement that as a society many people are moving away from God/Church. What I think I might differ on is that from my experience people have been pushed away from Church and told that God doesnt like them. We are blasted day in and day out about how evil we are or that we are going to Hell. Many people (not just Gays) feel as if they have been abandoned by Religion and as such abandoned by God.
In recent times (over the past 20-40 years) it seems as if not only has society changed but religion has also changed. Religion has become more angry and hatefilled with screaming and condemnation, which I personally believe has pushed people away from Church and God.
Just as a marriage ceremony you are promising in front of a crowd of people to honor and take care of the other, in Church you are promising to live life with the members of the church watching out for you. While it is not the Church itself that keeps moral decay away, it is its members that provide that moral support! "
voter wrote on Dec 6, 2008 10:43 AM:
englishteacher wrote on Dec 6, 2008 10:28 AM:
LodiSafeway wrote on Dec 6, 2008 10:23 AM:
Many of us have parents and grandparents (and so on) who lived with only one spouse for their entire adult lives. Were they blissfully in love the entire time? Of course not. But there had to have been something that kept them together when they invariably desired that their partner was gone.
For many it has been their faith and the guidance that God may have played in their lives. It could also have been that our ancestors understood the meaning of the word "commitment" in not only their marriages, but in many other facets of their lives as well. The moral decay that we have been witnessing has its roots in a society that dismisses God as a mere theory or fantasy. "
sam wrote on Dec 6, 2008 10:01 AM:
Mazie, I believe divorce makes marriage a joke.
It is not the gay population that makes a mockery of marriage. It is the people who marry, divorce, marry, divorce... on and on. "
voter wrote on Dec 6, 2008 9:57 AM:
bobbyg wrote on Dec 6, 2008 9:56 AM:
An interesting book I have just begun to read on this very subject is listed here...
http://books.google.com/books?id=ksWrErBqRVUC&dq=jesus+bible+homosexuality&pg=PP1&ots=9cFn0YmtWd&source=bn&sig=SbeveIelfE6lmTvqXOk84Cz8lZk&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=5&ct=result#PPA85,M1
While I have not read much of this yet it is all available on line. You may not agree with it, and that is perfectly fine. Perhaps however you can see where some peoples views come from.
another site available online is WHOSOEVER.ORG "
bobbyg wrote on Dec 6, 2008 9:50 AM:
While I would agree with most arguements that a child should be born into a married couple, this is not always the case nor is it always the optimum case.
Marriage is about so much more then just "multiplying". "
LodiSafeway wrote on Dec 6, 2008 9:43 AM:
This isn't a new idea. The Soviet Union and other enlightened societies had/have tried to eliminate God from their societies as well. Look how well they've done. Then look at the predicament we find ourselves in now. Frightening, isn't it? "
LodiSafeway wrote on Dec 6, 2008 9:36 AM:
That has got to be one of the most ridiculous statements I have ever encountered on any blog (or anywhere else). I'd expect this kind of statement coming from a far-left leaning professor in a Philosophy 101 class at Berkeley. I can see the freshman now, sitting there pondering the vast implications of such a notion while nodding their collective heads murmuring, "Quite, quite."
What a load of malarkey! "
Mazie wrote on Dec 6, 2008 9:28 AM:
bobbyg wrote on Dec 6, 2008 9:26 AM:
Mazie wrote on Dec 6, 2008 9:11 AM:
voter wrote on Dec 6, 2008 8:55 AM:
voter wrote on Dec 6, 2008 8:54 AM:
Bobbyg wrote on Dec 6, 2008 8:47 AM:
LodiSafeway, Marriage is more than just a document to the gay community as well. If it was just a document I don't think it would matter so much. However, with this document come the responsibility of marriage. To have and to hold, to take care of no matter what, the promise to provide safety and security, the commitment of each soul to the other and the promise to each of the others loved ones that you will take care of thier loved ones til the end of time.
What some people are scared of is that the term Marriage convey respect in society and many people are scared of that. Think about this.... if a gay person has a DP contract and say oh this is my domestic partner does it convey the same respect as this is my "husband" or this is my "wife" and we are married.
If it does not convey the same standards and respect then it is not the "same as marriage". "
real facts wrote on Dec 6, 2008 7:31 AM:
obviously, heterosexual couples fall short at times even with that "document"
at the end of history, it will still only be one man and one woman, and at no time in history will homosexuality ever be "right" in ANY form, for ANY reason "
max stanfield wrote on Dec 6, 2008 7:24 AM:
LodiSafeway wrote on Dec 6, 2008 6:00 AM:
However, there are many who cannot accept the notion that marriage is merely a "document." The problem is much more complicated than that. "
Comments on this story are now closed.