Indexes
November 2nd, 2009
November 7th, 2009
November 6th, 2009
November 5th, 2009
November 4th, 2009
November 3rd, 2009
November 2nd, 2009
The following stories have received the most reader comments during the last 7 days.
- Bible is entwined with American civic life (135)
- I predict: A conservative tide will rise in 2010 (73)
- David Diskin is first to give an invocation under new city of Lodi policy (70)
- The Treaty of Tripoli hoax (60)
- Universal health care solves big problems (54)
- Here's what my father knew about the assassination of JFK (35)
- Stuck in neutral? Hardly! (35)
- Words from our forefathers (27)
- City of Lodi staff looking into possibility of limiting number of taco trucks (24)
- Majority cannot deprive the minority (23)
ADVERTISEMENT
Does News-Sentinel announce same-sex couples?
Tuesday, December 30, 2008 6:38 AM PST
With all the firestorm over the November elections and Proposition 8, I found an interesting footnote.
In the October edition of The Advocate, it mentioned Lodi by name. It went on to say how the Lodi News-Sentinel was the only newspaper in the state of California, (88 publications in all) that didn't announce same sex couples. Whether it was because couples didn't want their unions announced or the paper didn't bother with it at all is up to interpretation. I would like to think Lodi is a community that accepts people, gay or straight all the same, but I'm starting to feel a chill.
Michael Gorman
Lodi
Note from editor Rich Hanner: In fact, News-Sentinel guidelines on engagement and wedding announcements allow for the publication of same-sex unions, though we have received none to date. The Advocate has issued an apology and correction.
Search for Ads 
Today’s Print Ads 
RSS Feeds
Reader Feedback
real facts wrote on Jan 7, 2009 12:37 PM:
rhodie, your up
"they" think i make this stuff up "
real facts wrote on Jan 7, 2009 12:36 PM:
God IS ALL LOVE, he is not vengeful, and there is no wrath.
I don't believe in hell. God would never turn away from HIS CHILDREN or send them to a pit of fire. We can turn away from him, but never the opposite.
Hell was created by the early church for control over people. Eventually, any dark souls will be absorbed back into God."
***************************************
nope, not biblically/historically true.
the recordations of God are clear, in that God is ALSO a vengeful God against those that would PURPOSEFULLY disobey HIM, as the record shows where God DID include the eventuality of hell for those that "would".
you can't make things "disappear" just because you don't like it, and the TRUE record shows there is more than one side to God "
real facts wrote on Jan 7, 2009 12:29 PM:
i already told you.....people that talk trash in "here" wouldn't have the guts" to do it in front of someone "out there"
people who so willingly run to lie about others aren't people of strength, they are little weazels who take their insecurities in life out on others
so i called them on it, like i always do "
real facts wrote on Jan 7, 2009 12:23 PM:
you keep screaming foul like a little child, all because i can challenge your position like no other, so you keep deflecting your "unwillingness" onto me, while you keep throwing out your deflective REPEATED questions.
answer the questions bobby, and then we will get to see if your position is the right one. what are you so afraid of?
(1) provide ONE pro homosexual passage where the bible says ANYTHING POSITIVE about ANY kind of homosexual sex, and not some FORCE it into the text by lying "it's there". (you do remember my suggestion about talking to a rabbi about the ORIGINAL don't you?)
(2) as per your recent "what is a marriage" attempt at legitmizing YOUR life, tell us all about your "committment" to your C-BFF, and how come you CAN'T qualify your OWN life sexually before Gods word
cry-about-me-all-you-want. manufacture-lies-about-me-all-you-want, it-still-won't-change-what-you-have-become, and what-your "attempting" to-do-whether-or-not-i "remind you" when-YOU-provide-opportunity
go ahead, answer "them" "
real facts wrote on Jan 7, 2009 12:12 PM:
God calls us to be under the current governmental systems he creates, and part of that IS "certificated" by each state.
now, go ahead and "teach us" how YOU can FORCE homosexuality into that equation "biblically".
make sure you use your OWN "commmittment" where you don't even live with your C-BFF "
real facts wrote on Jan 7, 2009 12:11 PM:
your the only one bobby whose ego lies to him enough that you stick around for continual exposure of the lie you base your life upon. "
bobbyg wrote on Jan 6, 2009 7:14 PM:
bobbyg wrote on Jan 6, 2009 7:13 PM:
Is there a ceremony requirement?
Is there a requirement that a preacher be involved?
is it a requirement that a docment be filed? "
bobbyg wrote on Jan 6, 2009 7:11 PM:
Rhodie v2.0 wrote on Jan 6, 2009 6:00 PM:
'cough-cough' Don't do that, I almost choked on dinner laughing so much.
Is that a shorthand like LOL, ACODLSM (almost choked on dinner laughing so much)? "
Lodian wrote on Jan 6, 2009 5:38 PM:
Oh, I see... ya mean, humorous, interesting, intelligent, engaging and just plain coooool. LOL! ;-) "
Lodian wrote on Jan 6, 2009 5:35 PM:
Lodian wrote on Jan 6, 2009 5:33 PM:
" Sorry, Sam. I was looking for more middle of the road posters. I can guess what his react to the more extreme personas would be in person. I was more curious as to why he deals differantly in person than on the pages here. "
Me too. "
Lodian wrote on Jan 6, 2009 5:32 PM:
Rhodie v2.0 wrote on Jan 6, 2009 5:32 PM:
Rhodie v2.0 wrote on Jan 6, 2009 5:31 PM:
Lodian wrote on Jan 6, 2009 5:30 PM:
Lodian wrote on Jan 6, 2009 5:27 PM:
I can imagine many people reading his blogs and leaving here thinking that if that's a Christian they wouldn't want to have anything to do with Christianity.
You are right when you mentioned that someone like RF, and his attacking and troublesome anger, would push someone (that may be on the fence about Christ) far away from Christianity.
After leaving other churches and RF not being able to find one now maybe he is bitter and angry and wants to strike back at Christians because he feels rejected. It sure explains his irrational behavior.
It's really sad when ya think about it. Someone must have made him feel pretty awful for him to be so hateful to his fellow man, and Christians. "
sam wrote on Jan 6, 2009 5:26 PM:
lodi boy wrote on Jan 6, 2009 2:02 PM:
Who cares? If it bugs you, then don't date the same sex. Spend your energy debating issues that matter. "
lodi boy wrote on Jan 6, 2009 1:50 PM:
You all can believe what you want. I've lived outside of Lodi and experienced other cultures, so I'm not held down by ignorance or a narrow-minded religion.
God is in me, I'm part of him, and will be for all eternity. "
lodi boy wrote on Jan 6, 2009 1:44 PM:
God IS ALL LOVE, he is not vengeful, and there is no wrath.
I don't believe in hell. God would never turn away from HIS CHILDREN or send them to a pit of fire. We can turn away from him, but never the opposite.
Hell was created by the early church for control over people. Eventually, any dark souls will be absorbed back into God.
The reason there are bad people, is so that our souls can learn and grow from their acts. Everything in this life from wars to sickness has been written. We are living it out so our souls can be tested and grow for God. Take what you want form what I believe. "
bobbyg wrote on Jan 6, 2009 1:39 PM:
"once again Christians will be murdered for what they believe."
and while that is what you believe, the facts are that your type of so called Christian will continue to execute and kill gay people both dirctly with their own hands and indirectly with their words causeing young gay people to commit suicide. "
bobbyg wrote on Jan 6, 2009 1:32 PM:
Arrogance? ignorance? you decide.
real facts wrote on Jan 6, 2009 1:15 PM: "like i said, the truth is whatever i say" "
bobbyg wrote on Jan 6, 2009 1:26 PM:
No! You can see by the many stories of Jesus in the Bible that is exactly what he wouldnt do. Jesus and Paul both would bring people to God, not divide them and seperate them from the word of God as you do. T
here are so many stories of this nature, please give me a few where Jesus or Paul purposefully push Gods children away from Him! "
bobbyg wrote on Jan 6, 2009 1:20 PM:
au contraire real facts, it is not you defending Gods word, it is all the other true Christians in these blogs, while you choose to bastardize all the scriptures to meet what you have decided is the so called word of your God. Many of us in here actually do believe in God while you seem to want to be God.... you thought you would pass this off again but you are not Jesus, even though you keep trying to implicate that you are!!!
real facts wrote on Jan 5, 2009 12:54 PM: people yell and scream "foul" and throw all kinds of stuff at me
hmmmm seems like a fact about Jesus, I know Jesus and you my mistaken little misguided aquaintence are no Jesus, not even close. "
real facts wrote on Jan 6, 2009 1:15 PM:
well, then that will become very unfortunate for you, because of the ratcheting up against God TODAY, it WILL reach the levels it previously did in the early church.
the bible predicted it would, and in what looks like the near future, once again Christians will be murdered for what they believe.
should one wait "until then" to speak the harsh truth when vehetmly opposed, or should i wait until "then"?
like i said, what i say divides a room, and the truth is whatever i say, NO ONE can blame me on thier day before God "why they didn't believe"
that's a cop out
"if" it IS the truth, your responsibility is to adjust to it, or eventually you will be judged by it
i have NOTHING to do with that part "
real facts wrote on Jan 6, 2009 1:01 PM:
" Can everyone just stop judging each other?
God doesn't get mad or judge anybody - BECAUSE THEN GOD WOULD BE HUMANIZED. And God isn't that.
He is all love. He only knows love").
that is entirely in-accurate about God.
i am NOT being saracstic, i am making a point......if God "doesn't judge" people, then you should have no problem with the child molester down your street, as "judging others" isn't the right thing to do.
God isn't "just about love", HE is also a righteous God who WILL judge man for his sin, and quite possibly that could lead to eternal damnation, a fact i have rarely ever mentioned in these blogs in comparison to the opportunity i get TO mention it
there isn't ANYTHING "loving" about hell "
real facts wrote on Jan 6, 2009 12:49 PM:
doing what i do in here.....if the forefathers of the early church DIDN'T do what i do in here, there would be no "Christianity"
back then, the early Christians that laid the groundwork for Christianity to spread, as part of what they did involved the harsh defense against those that sought to DESTROY the works of Christ.
"their" goal is the same in here, as is mine, but "they" won't reach their goal while i am in here.
back then, in the very beginnings, Christians WERE murdered, and if it wasn't FOR Christians standing up for what's right, and saying the harsh truths about those around them.....YOU AND I wouldn't even be having this conversation.
the "rules" of engagement are stiil the same.....hand those looking FOR God, or "struggling" in life for answers ---->RESPECT.
when purposeful evil rears it's ugly head, call it what it is and work to stop it.
it's what i do
what i say divides a room right in half, and thats EXACTLY what God would do
there is righteousness in calling something what it IS, because it challenges a person TO decide "
real facts wrote on Jan 6, 2009 12:37 PM:
explained the way you just explained it, is-ENTIREly-not-true.
if you knew me personally, i am known for giving a W I D E path of acceptance/tolerance because OF the job i have.
what you witness in here is twofold....
WHEN (which is extremely rare in here) i ever encounter someone with "different beliefs", and they actually ARE "searching" and being respectful, THEN i treat them with respect.
what you are witnessing here is the defense fallout OF laying out my opinion(s) on matters pertaining to God, and then being attacked for it, and someone reverting to lying about me.
these people think Christians are door-mats, and when they attack me, i will put them in their rightful place
if you think for a moment that a guy like bobby can come in here and start lying about me, and then CONSISTENTLY lie about God and i am not supposed to call him what he is.....you-are-sadly-mistaken "
real facts wrote on Jan 6, 2009 12:27 PM:
if you only knew...
i wouldn't DARE do that, as i actually care what God thinks, and i wouldn't dream of doing anything the antithesis OF His goal for others OR me.
what i "do" in here revolves around defense, and as you can tell there is virtually NO ONE defending God or HIS word in these blogs, despite the daily onslaught against it "by them".
now, part of that defense is to demonstrate intent.....i show what peoples intent REALLY is, so that their voice about God DOESN'T negate HIS authority.
demonstrating intent is a dirty business, but a necessary one.
look at bobby. that guy comes in here all "nice" and "biblical", and based on that underthebackdoor evil, i HAVE to call it what "it" is
don't worry, people that WANT truth, will be drawn-to-it-by-"watching"-the-decisive/dividing-OF-truth-in-here.....i-am-FULLY-comfortable-with-that "
real facts wrote on Jan 6, 2009 12:17 PM:
your too steeped in your ego to realize it
i ain't going to "lie". if i witness it's eventual meltdown, it won't break my heart
and no, i don't have to be "loving" to PURPOSEFUL evil..
the last go around when you were on the verge of getting kicked to the curb (for which you somehow "escaped" ONLY because the LNS didn't keep it's word toward you) you then got all "contrite" about your willful nastiness.
that didn't last long as the "real lodian" came roaring back as her usual ZERO conscience self
what cracks me up, is watching as you "think" you live a noble life
"it" WILL catch you and overtake you
what will you "high five" then? "
Lodian wrote on Jan 6, 2009 9:52 AM:
Billy Rubin wrote on Jan 5, 2009 3:04 PM:
Well, OK then; Lunatic it is.
And I'm comfortable with that conclusion. "
Acampo_Mom wrote on Jan 5, 2009 2:21 PM:
You say you pick God over people (or something to that effect, I can't remember your exact words), but as a Christian (and I've asked this before) isn't it your job AS a Christian to bring as many souls to Christ as possible? But...that is IMPOSSIBLE when you essentially wag your finger in people's faces and tell them how "bad" they are or when they interpret their beliefs differently than yours you call them liars.
If I took you seriously, real facts...all your preaching would have already condemned me to hell, I suppose. Because I don't think I would chose "your" God. "
lodi boy wrote on Jan 5, 2009 1:19 PM:
God doesn't get mad or judge anybody - BECAUSE THEN GOD WOULD BE HUMANIZED. And God isn't that.
He is all love. He only knows love.
It's the rest of us that experience negative emotions.
And for what?! Hate, judgement, wrath adds nothing to your spirituality.
Give it a rest already. "
real facts wrote on Jan 5, 2009 12:54 PM:
If a person is on the fence...which way is real facts' "truths" going to push that person?").
it's going to "push them" into making a decision......a decision that has eternal consquences attached to it rather than whether or not super wal mart will make it to lodi
straight to the point forces a man/woman to decide, OR makes her/him run away from it.
Jesus Christ was confrontive when the situation called for it, which was MOST of the time.
other times he spoke in terms that challenged a man to contemplate his circumstances/fate
what you see hear is when i get "confrontive/narrow", people yell and scream "foul" and throw all kinds of stuff at me
funny, because in the end, it really doesn't matter does it? i mean, God really isn't real is he? HE didn't really reveal who he is exactly and what he wants from us exactly did he?
if he "didn't", then why all the fuss?
that makes me either a lunatic, or a standardbearer of Godly truth, and i am fully comfortable you people deciding which one i am "
real facts wrote on Jan 5, 2009 12:44 PM:
i asked him about adultery, and if that was "biblically" right, and he provided a bunch of scriptures condemning it.
for face value, it "appeared" he handled his business, but he DIDN'T.
you see, my goal is to demonstrate intent to show whether or not a person actually IS willing to both tell the truth, or gravitate TO IT.
in this case, david underhandedly SIDESTEPPED it ON PURPOSE, "thinking" he was going to squeeze it past me.
not so fast david.....maybe you can "explain" to the reading audience about "why" you PURPOSEFULLY EXCLUDED new testament references about adultery as well, to demonstrate the FLOW of Gods ordinances OVER TIME, and how those MORAL LAWS have not changed?
willful exclusion is what? honesty?
"we" were debating Gods laws concerning man NOW------you insinuated that O.T. "LAWS" were antiquated, and yet you ONLY replicated adultery edicts FROM the O.T., while purposefully leaving out N.T. references
tell everyone why you PURPOSEFULLY did that?
dear-girard-and-acampo_mom.......now-you-can-see-"why"-i-do-what-i-do,....so-that-NO-ONE-can-highjack-the-REAL-truths-Of-God.......eternity-is-at-stake-you-know "
real facts wrote on Jan 5, 2009 12:27 PM:
true, but only a HALF representation of HIS character.
God "hates" as well as HE "loves", in that God DOES NOT EVER tolerate or give place to sin. EVER
while God may "lovingly" be patient with a person who STRUGGLES with sin (like EVERYONE does), he DOES NOT TOLERATE willfull-disobedience-on-purpose-haters OF his righteousness (HE-calls-them-his-"enemies"), and if you actually DID read Gods word ON YOUR OWN instead of what was thrown at you in church, you might have noted that at times God has shall we say...."been very angry" at HIS creation, and made them pay FOR them shaking their fist at HIM as they mock HIS standards.
since you are so "biblically resourseful" david, why don't you take the time to ACCURATELY replicate the OTHER side of God that you biblically/purposefully "forgot" to mention
here is another question that will squash the "God is only love mantra".....what does the entire book of revelation contain ABOUT man?
that-makes-three-questions-YOU-need-to-answer "
real facts wrote on Jan 5, 2009 12:14 PM:
i know, i have a way, being the ever so get-down-to-business-straight-to-the-truth-efficient type of guy that i am.......does Gods word actually condemn homosexuality as "sin" david nielsen, or if within your "theology", is it "ok"?
that question alone ought to streamline our "conversation" real quick
i also realize that people come in here ALL THE TIME thinking they have the ability to set the biblical record straight, but EVERYONE OF THEM when pressed REFUSE to be under the same "biblical truth spotlight" they put me under.
i cannot count by now the BUSLOADS of people that have attempted this and EVERYONE OF THEM has left the building after i started asking them challenging questions. questions that will float the REAL truth to the top QUICKLY.
so, in that long winded "explanation", YOU have (2) questions to answer.
(1) is homosexual sex biblically condemned?
(2) can ANYONE have sex-with-anyone-else-outside-their-marriage-"biblically"?
now-we-will-see-the-real-"motives"of-david-nielsen.....another-hit-and-run-artist?......"they"-ALL-have-been "
real facts wrote on Jan 5, 2009 12:00 PM:
Nope, that would be Real Freak, it is showed over and over, if one was to believe what you preach, then god is hate... ").
nope. wrong again robb
what i actually "do" is demonstrate that there ARE actual standards while people like you work ever so hard at making them "disappear", and if that "process" of defense includes the harsh aspects OF defense by sending people like you the message that you won't get away with it, up to and including calling you what you are "when" you are, then i am by GODLY definition being "loving"
love conquers ALL things, and "love" DOES NOT allow for sin to steamroll past righteousness.
i LOVE God enough to not let people like YOU bully/intimidate people like "us" any longer.
for a long time now, Christians have been bullied into silence under the psuedo flag of "PC".....NOT ANYMORE
my game is......i will start out defending Christ and HIS word. maybe in a narrow/strict straight up way, but still respectful....that is until someone tries to play me or lie about me, then it's "on" "
real facts wrote on Jan 5, 2009 11:51 AM:
since eternity can be had NOW contained in a decision, THAT is why i defend ever so staunchly the truths of God against those that would change it, so that they could make Gods standards "disappear".
the "message" i am sending is two fold.....(1) if you ARE a person in here that thinks you are going to get away with bastardizing Gods word for self justification purposes, your not. and your not, because i happen to be a Christian who actually gives a rip that Gods standards ARE represented instead of daily "steamrolled"
IN HERE, how many Christians do you ever see even countering these people on ANY level? it's virtually a ghost town in here that way. someone has to do it, and by me doing it, that lays the groundwork for my 2nd intent.....to get people to choose. Godly truth devides a room, and forces a person to make a choice about their life and THAT IS the benefit of those "on the fence" "
Acampo_Mom wrote on Jan 5, 2009 9:58 AM:
If a person is on the fence...which way is real facts' "truths" going to push that person?
A non-believer will just keep not believing...
A Christian will just keep believing the way they have been, secure in their own faith...
But that someone who isn't sure...
They will teeter over to one side or another of the fence eventually. "
Robb wrote on Jan 5, 2009 8:57 AM:
Nope, that would be Real Freak, it is showed over and over, if one was to believe what you preach, then god is hate... "
Audi 5000 wrote on Jan 5, 2009 8:29 AM:
that in and of itself means nothing. "
Lodian wrote on Jan 4, 2009 9:25 PM:
Yes, we all know exactly why that would happen.
Happy New Year! "
David Nielsen wrote on Jan 4, 2009 6:22 PM:
Jeremiah 3 (Whole Chapter)
Jeremiah 5:7
Jeremiah 7:8-10 (in Context)
Jeremiah 7 (Whole Chapter)
Jeremiah 23:14
Jeremiah 23:13-15 (in Context)
Jeremiah 23 (Whole Chapter)
Jeremiah 29:23
Jeremiah 29:22-24 (in Context) Jeremiah 29 (Whole Chapter)
And the ever popular Leviticus 18:22 (Homosexuality is an abomination) is also Jewish law and most misquoted and misused to justify modern day hatred by "Followers of Christ". God is LOVE. And what you do to your brother you do unto Christ.
This is my last post on this letter thing.
It was fun blogging! And please have your church group clean up the East Side- since u have time to blog. "
David Nielsen wrote on Jan 4, 2009 6:21 PM:
( I do not wear it on my sleeve the way some feel obligated to). But- for Real facts- I will respond to his question.
Exodus 20:14
Thou shalt not commit adultery.
Exodus 20:13-15 (in Context)
Exodus 20 (Whole Chapter)
Leviticus 20:10
Leviticus 20:9-11 (in Context) Leviticus 20 (Whole Chapter)
Deuteronomy 5:18
Deuteronomy 5:17-19 (in Context) Deuteronomy 5 (Whole Chapter)
Proverbs 6:32
Proverbs 6:31-33 (in Context)
Proverbs 6 (Whole Chapter)
Jeremiah 3:8
Jeremiah 3:7-9 (in Context)
Jeremiah 3 (Whole Chapter)
Jeremiah 3:9 "
real facts wrote on Jan 4, 2009 5:55 PM:
well that certainly wasn't a "factual" statement "
real facts wrote on Jan 4, 2009 5:54 PM:
you didn't just "ask questions".
you came at me in a mocking sarcastic bent, and i responded as per your angle.
as far as what the bible says "literally" about sexual definitions, those are clear as sexual MORAL LAW never changes.
the other "scenarios" you pointed out revolve around JEWISH ceremonial/civil laws aimed at insuring that the jew could NEVER become righteous on their own thru "good works", thus the pile-on-scenario
there is a complete difference between ceremonial/civil law, which Christ fullfilled so that BOTH jew AND gentile could only become righteous before God thru the FINISHED work of Christ.
there is not one time where sexual-moral law has ever changed, and since YOU mentioned homosexual sex specifically, and Gods word condemned it outright, there is no "selective-interpretive" problems.
the "problems" always come when a man refuses to accepts Gods laws as they WERE laid out, including their intent, and that's why i noted that it is NEVER appropriate-for-a-man-to-have-sex-outside-his-marriage.....a-question-you-avoided-that-DID-answer-your-"questions" "
David Nielsen wrote on Jan 4, 2009 3:56 PM:
TheRealFacts wrote on Jan 4, 2009 2:12 PM:
23 Wise people don't make a show of their knowledge, but fools broadcast their folly. "
real facts wrote on Jan 4, 2009 2:08 PM:
hey bobby, would you like to "expound" more on your concept (lie) that God provided certain biblical characters with what YOU called "the gift" of mutiple wives.
what you inSINuaHATED was that God said ABSOLUTELY NOT to sex with anyone other than your wife and husband thru strict biblical standards outlined in leviticus, then according to your lie, God not only looked the other way when it came to certain people being sexually out of bounds by obtaining multiple wives, but he looked at it as a "gift" (your words) TO man.
so lets take a look it your twisted methodology world of self justification by PURPOSEFULLY fading in and out of truth likes it's nothing.
first God condemns ANY KIND of sex outside marriage between a man and a woman, then YOU STATE God "changed his mind", and actually GIFTED men WITH multiple wives.....and finally, God "changed his mind" (again) in the new testament and made it a no no again.
you should write "scriptures" for the mormons
that-was-a-great-example-of-just-how-your-self-justification-"biblically"-really-works......you-MANUFACTURE-your-"truth" "
real facts wrote on Jan 4, 2009 1:41 PM:
you see, i have this knack in life of being able to establish someones motive quickly, and what YOUR attempting actually ISN'T Godly (entirely), because what you ARE attemting to do is silence my voice in here about sin, and those that would highjack Gods word for self-justification.
everyone else will get sucked into your "attempt", because afterall your USING Gods word against me. they too ONLY LIKE the "fuzzy" aspects, and so you are gathering "fans"
you forgot it didn't make a difference the last time you did this, and my "mission" in here will be the same
all you will do is insure that i will UP my game by replicating even more about the "judgement of mans sin" aspects of God.
that's not what you had hoped for "
Billy Rubin wrote on Jan 4, 2009 1:40 PM:
I've never understood that.
All of the loudest-yelling, bible-humping, Jesus-screamers are ALWAYS the biggest lying hypocrites and you, Reverend, are the worst.
Why is that? Why is your own belief such a tortured and convoluted mess of contradictions and lies?
Hey, remember when you said to beware of cultists because they won't tell you what they believe?
I get it now. I understand why they flipped you off at your old church and sent you packing. "
TheRealFacts wrote on Jan 4, 2009 1:25 PM:
and all who live in love live in God,
and God lives in them.
(NLT, 1 John 4:16) "
real facts wrote on Jan 4, 2009 1:24 PM:
I am the LORD.
(NIV, Leviticus 19:18) "
***************************************
you "forgot" the parts of leviticus where God kills people that sin.
"memory loss"?
how could that be? you were just in "leviticus"
here is a way to test your "biblical honesty", how much of leviticus is steeped in the judgements of God, and how much contain what you are trying to sell as the "only" aspect of Gods character?
half truths DO NOT represent God, they only serve to undermine who he really is
God job "undermining" God
so far, you have only presented HALF TRUTHS "
real facts wrote on Jan 4, 2009 1:18 PM:
Jesus Christ gives a stern warning of the fate that awaits someone who "plays" HIS word for self justification.
take notice, because Christ isn't being "fuzzy-wuzzy" about his creation.
he WILL smite evil
**************************************
Revelation 22
18I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book. 19And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.
20He who testifies to these things says, "Yes, I am coming soon."
Amen. Come, Lord Jesus. "
TheRealFacts wrote on Jan 4, 2009 1:14 PM:
I am the LORD.
(NIV, Leviticus 19:18) "
real facts wrote on Jan 4, 2009 1:08 PM:
~Luke 6:37~ "
***************************************
whoops. maybe you can post the ENTIRE portion of the CONTEXT of that scripture to see if Jesus Christ condemned the judgement of the motives of others, or high fived it thru "judicious judgement".
while it IS nice to see the loving aspects of Gods word that draws men to HIMSELF, rather than the all the times i have to "flyswat" all these people in here as they attempt to bastardize Gods word FOR personal justification, what you ARE doing "therealfacts" is you are inadvertantly swimming in dangerous territory by purposefully NOT representing ALL the character of God, especially the portion whereby God holds man accountable FOR sin, and God calls US as "voices" of those standards.
especially poinant of your purposeful "half truths" is your only "partial" representaion of luke 6 on judging - where judging others is MANDATORY for which standards actually CAN be held
your actually/inadvertantly working against God
you-already-know-the-fact-your-purposefully-omitting-the-other-half-of-Gods-character,....as-this-is-your-2nd-trip-around-the-blogs-attempting-this "
real facts wrote on Jan 4, 2009 12:57 PM:
" There it is, that proves RF is a liar.. ").
laughing
what part of "behavioral health" therapy is that statement culled from?
skip behavioral health.....and run straight to "behavior emergency modification" because as weird as you have allowed yourself to become, you are in desperate mode for help.
didn't you read my dissertation on a person that lies, and how that ILLustrates a weak position in life?
your still the weirdest person on these blogs robb
your "multiple friends" will tell you that's an accomplishment "
TheRealFacts wrote on Jan 4, 2009 12:55 PM:
~Luke 6:37~ "
real facts wrote on Jan 4, 2009 12:43 PM:
you weren't around before when your "concerns" were easily flyswatted?
that's a shame, because now all you have done is provide me ANOTHER opportunity to "teach", and of course if after i am done, and you STILL won't align with Gods word, you will only become MORE "accountable" TO HIM as a result of what you thought you were going to hand it to me.....bad-news-huh?
now, given your "style", this is another copy/paste job culled from Christian hater cites, so we will proceed right ahead with displaying you really don't posses "biblical knowledge", that your just a "sheeple" who doesn't like Gods true standards.
out of all your posts, i can unravel your "concern" with one statement/challenge, and that will test your "biblical accumen"....
is it "lawful" for a married man or woman to go have sex with ANY OTHER outside thier marriage as per biblical standards?
he won't answer it, and that will be the end of david neilsens "attempt"
david, i know you are used to playing Christians, but this is the big leagues
your wasting your time
but, if-you-feel-you-must... "
TheRealFacts wrote on Jan 4, 2009 12:43 PM:
Ephesians 4:2 "
Robb wrote on Jan 4, 2009 12:33 PM:
real facts wrote on Jan 4, 2009 12:29 PM:
"arm-that's not so-strong"
1st real facts chapter 2 verse 3 "
TheRealFacts wrote on Jan 4, 2009 12:27 PM:
Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love. "
real facts wrote on Jan 4, 2009 12:27 PM:
actually, i could care less if a person is gay or not. it's YOUR LIFE to win or lose, not mine. as long as a person is respectful, I AM.
the-"bobby's"-of-the-world demand that i get a little "downtown" because of the games they play, and the stakes at hand.
bobby and i WERE "respectful", until he changed that by lying about me way back when, when he could no longer defend against the hard questions i posed to him about his "biblical" position.
it's what always eventually happens in here with these people
my questions were confrontive and straight to the point, but they were not disrespectful.
when people lie, that changes EVERYTHING, as that reveals intent
look at the current "contender" david neilsen. now he thinks he is going to be the latest one to hand it to me, while trying to sell to the blogs he is "inquisitive/nice". he's out to try and play me like the busloads have for 3yrs straight
ummmmmm-not-quite "
TheRealFacts wrote on Jan 4, 2009 12:26 PM:
TheRealFacts wrote on Jan 4, 2009 12:25 PM:
--1 Corinthians 13:1-8a "
TheRealFacts wrote on Jan 4, 2009 12:25 PM:
TheRealFacts wrote on Jan 4, 2009 12:24 PM:
TheRealFacts wrote on Jan 4, 2009 12:24 PM:
TheRealFacts wrote on Jan 4, 2009 12:23 PM:
real facts wrote on Jan 4, 2009 12:16 PM:
"free thought" is a GREAT thing......until it takes a willful detour from Gods KNOWN OBVIOUS standards so that one "attempts" to justify thier gathering steam perversion, ala bobbyG's "example"
so no, bobby ISN'T a "beacon of hope" for those that desire to ditch Gods standards so they too can justify living outside them, so bobby isn't the "free thought savior" you held him up to be.
what bobby really is, is the EXACT representation of what a person DOESN'T DO.....both in his OWN life, and selling to others what they can do also.
it's too bad you cannot actually witness what happens eventually to people that do these things, because "maybe" then you wouldn't be so quick to high five bobby's "efforts".
to be blunt, at bobby's current rate of speed.....bobby has NO "future"
not in this life OR the next.
BUT, bobby does have a way of escape, as he still draws breath
he knows fully what "it" is
but will he CHOOSE "it" ? "
flamerinlodi wrote on Jan 4, 2009 12:13 PM:
I do not "lie" when I'm out in public; ask me if I'm gay-I would tell you. A little bit insensitive, but I've seen enough of your writing style to know yor're an insensitive person. Or someone who likes wearing the blinders of society to fit in with everybody else. I guess high school doesn't end for some people. "
real facts wrote on Jan 4, 2009 12:06 PM:
"he has stalked the young teenage "homosexual" boy at the fast food restaurant" "
real facts wrote on Jan 4, 2009 12:04 PM:
lodian said the same thing. so did billy rubin and leonard....and a couple other "aint's". big whoop. just plays into my hands about what's really true in life
i just cruise along in life right over the top of you people as you squirm trying to defend yourselves. all i have to do, is stick to the truths of God and watch the busloads of people line up to take thier shot
here is a news flash (again)......lying about your opponent ISN'T a defense, it's a tell-tale sign of supreme weakness.
your lies WERE mostly contained to the context of Gods word, but now your desperation AND perversion have demanded of you to "up your game"
congradulations bobby, you are caving into the abyss of life you want others to "believe" you aren't headed for, but i already "forewarned" them you would up this part of your game
i am good at this huh? "
real facts wrote on Jan 4, 2009 11:54 AM:
i also told them that i have yet to encounter a homosexual that DOESN'T lie.....because their lifes position is built on the premise OF a lie, and so they have to keep on lying in order to justify their life in their own mind.
people who are weak in their position(s) in life ALWAYS resort to lying about others when they no longer can righteously defend their OWN position, as evidenced in your last perverted post.
i want to THANK YOU for fleshing out my previous accurate accusations about you to demonstrate that when it gets right down to it, YOUR LIFE gravitates TO perversion
you know for a fact i have ZERO inclinations that way, and yet you lied straight about me anyway. it just proved i was right about you.
you going to get "reinforcements" now because you can't defend YOUR life any longer?........figures "
bobbyg wrote on Jan 4, 2009 11:29 AM:
Lets see, real facts has been smitten with me and now with you, he has stalked the young teenage "homosexual" boy at the fast food restaurant (he keeps it private as to which restaurant, but he probably takes his lap top and blogs from there!). So yes he is probably a closet case. "
TheRealFacts wrote on Jan 4, 2009 10:43 AM:
real facts wrote on Jan 4, 2009 10:28 AM:
and no, you won't be able to "exceed" bobby's attempt
sorry for the bad news upfront
love, real facts "
real facts wrote on Jan 4, 2009 10:24 AM:
" TheRealFacts: Welcome to the LNS boards. I like your style. :-) ").
i bet you do
i guess we are going for round #2 "
Robb wrote on Jan 4, 2009 8:06 AM:
David Nielsen wrote on Jan 3, 2009 11:41 PM:
My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? - Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)
I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.
And Bobbyg- Thank you for reminding us all that FREE THOUGHT is a GOOD THING! "
David Nielsen wrote on Jan 3, 2009 11:39 PM:
I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?
A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination - Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?
Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?
Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?
I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves? "
David Nielsen wrote on Jan 3, 2009 11:36 PM:
Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from you, and try to share God's knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate.
I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the other specific laws and how to follow them:
When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?
I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?
I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness - Lev.15:19- 24. The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense. "
bobbyg wrote on Jan 3, 2009 11:26 PM:
"ok, well lodian is not "man enough" to come clean about her lie in another blog, that i am the one that starts this blog-clog garbage"
Bwaaaaahahahahahaha
Real facts you are obviously delusional an the facts are listed directly below! "
Lodian wrote on Jan 3, 2009 11:03 PM:
TheRealFacts wrote on Jan 3, 2009 8:32 PM:
TheRealFacts wrote on Jan 3, 2009 8:07 PM:
real facts wrote on Jan 3, 2009 8:00 PM:
i understand you ripped these passages out of your bible thinking if you did, that somehow they didn't "apply" to you any longer, but they do. they are nearly two thousand years old (the words of Christ), and they are the fulfillment OF Gods already spoken position on intended evil.
revelation 21
verse 8......"but the cowardly, unbelieving, abominable, murderers, sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolators, and all liars shall have their part in the lake that burns with fire nd brimestone"
your bible doesn't include THOSE aspects of how God will deal with those that willingly fight against him?
it does, and your "exclusion" will cost you, not me
strong and arm "
TheRealFacts wrote on Jan 3, 2009 7:48 PM:
real facts wrote on Jan 3, 2009 7:43 PM:
or did you rip those pages out of your bible?
seems the"real"facts suffers from "biblical loss of memory", as she only posts the "fuzzy/wuzzy" aspects of Gods character.
i know, maybe we can expound on the judgement therealfacts WILL face for purposefully leaving OUT the other character aspects of God that God gave man as an incentive NOT to sin.
therealfacts aren't so "real", now that therealfacts desires to be a party TO sin, and make allowances so that sin flourishes
you actually may not know it "therealfacts", but you are inadvertantly digging YOURSELF into a spiritual hole.
if you attempt to silence voices against Godly evil, you WILL be judged of God for doing it.
don't believe me, fine, read the accounting of how harsh Christ was with peter when peter "suggested" Christ NOT go to the cross
as far as you thinking your going to use scripture against me to silence me, you won't
unless you can use ALL OF IT, your-wasting-your-ego-fed-mind "
TheRealFacts wrote on Jan 3, 2009 7:33 PM:
TheRealFacts wrote on Jan 3, 2009 7:32 PM:
real facts wrote on Jan 3, 2009 7:30 PM:
(1) do you personally know the blogger sam?
(2) are you related to her by family tie?
(3) are you a friend of HER family
(4) did sam put you up to this?
(5) are YOU sam?
now remember, i am good at this
now, just to give you some incentive HOW good i am at EVENTUALLY establishing "who" tries to play me, i will throw out the code words "green and belt". she will know what that means
bare with me people, i am on my way to extracting motive, because all this bloggers wish is to silence me. it comes in various forms "
TheRealFacts wrote on Jan 3, 2009 7:21 PM:
It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; it does not rejoice in wrongdoing, but rejoices in the truth.
It bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.
Love never ends. But as for prophecies, they will come to an end; as for tongues, they will cease; as for knowledge, it will come to an end... And now faith, hope, and love abide, these three;
and the greatest of these is love. (NRSV, 1 Corinthians 13:4-8, 13) "
real facts wrote on Jan 3, 2009 7:20 PM:
repeat performance sam?
sure looks like it. it's the EXACT same methodology as the last circus that came thru blog town
who are you getting to do your bidding this time? "
real facts wrote on Jan 3, 2009 7:15 PM:
HE DOES.......until they WILLINGLY pick evil God opposing intent over HIM, then they BY CHOICE become HIS enemy.
your only replicating HALF of Gods word
what about the other half where God sends people to hell, and the WHOLE BOOK of revelation is filled with the brutal accounts of Gods judgements against man?
you can either replicate the WHOLE truth, or you can provide another opportunity for me to "teach" the ENTIRE aspects of God, including how he really deals with evil.
people like you don't come on here "suddenly".
you have been watching for while, so you know i RARELY have ever mention "hell"
why is that?
this is how it will go down.....you either educate yourself on the FULL character of God, where God HATES evil intended people, and will judge them in this life OR the next, or your completely out of your league in here if you think your going to "silence me" about evil intent aimed at God
i KNOW my role,,,, and NO ONE dissuades me "
TheRealFacts wrote on Jan 3, 2009 7:13 PM:
TheRealFacts wrote on Jan 3, 2009 7:06 PM:
The commandments, "Do not commit adultery,"
"Do not murder,"
"Do not steal,"
"Do not covet," and whatever other commandment there may be, are summed up in this one rule: "Love your neighbor as yourself."
Love does no harm to its neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law. (NIV, Romans 13:8-10) "
real facts wrote on Jan 3, 2009 7:06 PM:
ahhhh, who i am dealing with in here are NOT "brothers and sisters"
brothers and sisters by biblical definition are ONLY those who FOLLOW Christ.
these people are God haters who lie about Christ ON PURPOSE, the antithesis OF God
since your the latest "biblical expert", maybe YOU can expound on what the bible calls someone who lies without conscience
it is the exact opposite of "brothers and sisters"
use a concordance and look up the word "liar" and see what you find about your concern
the last time someone pulled the "real_facts" debacle and coupled it with scriptures that they really had no idea of peripherally, they didn't fare too well then either.
could this be a desperate repeat performance of the same perpeTRAITOR?
my "radar" is on
come ahead "
TheRealFacts wrote on Jan 3, 2009 6:59 PM:
Are not five sparrows sold for two cents? And yet not one of them is forgotten before God. Indeed, the very hairs of your head are all numbered. Do not fear; you are of more value than many sparrows. (NAS, Luke 12:6-7) "
TheRealFacts wrote on Jan 3, 2009 6:58 PM:
real facts wrote on Jan 3, 2009 6:57 PM:
to this post, you have YET to provide ONE PASSAGE where homosexual sex is high fived in Gods word, and you have yet FAILED to provide proof that YOU can qualify your CURRENT sexual choice before God.
those two FACTS kill any possibility of you being able to "teach" others that homosexuality is "biblicaly acceptable"
all your position in these blogs and your OWN personal life HINGE on those two facts.....AND YOU REFUSE
game over bobby "
TheRealFacts wrote on Jan 3, 2009 6:52 PM:
real facts wrote on Jan 3, 2009 6:51 PM:
you were all over that as being "unbiblical", and now you attempt the lie that God "used to" high five it and ordain it as a "gift" to men
it takes patience, by unraveling your lying popsition is a walk in the park for me
all i have to do is show where you attempt to FORCE homosexuality biblically, and then call you on your consisten lying position where you MANUFACTURE (lie) "truth"
go ahead, keep spitting your "nuggets" of "biblical truth" "
TheRealFacts wrote on Jan 3, 2009 6:49 PM:
real facts wrote on Jan 3, 2009 6:45 PM:
I know its hard for you to read and comprhend your Bible and you only live on the so called truths that you have heard or been taught. But as you are well aware there are many examples in the Bible of men having many wives or wives and sexual servants/slaves. But current belief is that a man should only have one wife. Why dont you ask yourself why and how that changed as the Bible clearly shows examples and "gifts from God" of multiple wives. If we now believe that that is what God wants (one wife) how did we come to that conclusion now? How did we evolve to this understanding?").
**************************************
not at all, i read it as it's presented, all you do is lie about it
"current belief" is an outright lie
it's called an always stated biblical fact, starting with adam and eve.....ONE WIFE ONLY.
"multiples" were a sin, and where eventually punshished by God FOR obtaining multiple wives thru sexual greed. it was NEVER high fived by God
once-again,....you-lie-about-scripture-to-justify-your-sin
"gifts_of_God".....your-a-sick-liar-that-God-made-allowances-FOR-sin "
real facts wrote on Jan 3, 2009 6:37 PM:
and seriously, why dont you tell us were it says that as Christians we are supposed to be combative and abrasive such as youhave been with everyone that has a different oppinion about religion than you! ").
sure, not a problem
what kind of "language" did Christ use at the money changers table when he discovered evil?
what is the verbage and tone of Christ when peter told Christ to "not go to the cross"?
what did Christ say about the pharisee's?
what was the varied accountings of paul about his dealings with evil men?
the WHOLE book of revelation is filled with condemning tones aimed at evil.
shoot, david the psalmist wasn't exactly "nice" towards purposeful evil intended people in the psalms and proverbs.
sorry bobby, i am not "in trouble" for giving you people what you deserve, based on your attempted agenda
ever noticed that in the 3+ years i have been in here, i haven't ratched it back a notch?
that's because i am "committed" AGAINST known God-opposing evil
it's what i do
bad news for you huh? "
real facts wrote on Jan 3, 2009 6:27 PM:
" ...and our control continues. ").
you keep thinking that, and see how far that gets you.
the trouble is, delusion paves the way for ALOT of voices in peoples heads, and one of those "voices" keeps telling you to follow the path you have trampled for 3 years that i know of
what do you think your future includes lodian? good things? "
real facts wrote on Jan 3, 2009 6:21 PM:
well then, it's simple, you can teach "us" what is "off" about it then
go ahead.... "
real facts wrote on Jan 3, 2009 6:17 PM:
baWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
sure billy "
real facts wrote on Jan 3, 2009 6:10 PM:
that's-a-position-of-"strength"-huh?
at least you were dumb enough to include the WHOLE portion of my comment aimed at billy, instead of the PARTIAL part you culled to make it appear that you could discredit me.
the-ongoing-fact-remains, your life demands you keep lying, because your life is built on one
all i have to do is repeat truth ALREADY given by God
i suppose you will claim "gays are victims of hostility" with billy rubin AFTER you purposefully lie about people
like billy, albeit on a different level, you deserve everything that comes your way in here based on what you try and pull.
this may or may not make you happy, but i actually "like" you more than billy.
by "like"....i mean that billy is a disgusting human toilet, so he is nothing to "oppose"
to me, your the "bigger fish", because of your "ability" to create a smokescreen that teaches others they can sin by USING Gods word.
to me, that's WAAAAAAY more evil, and you will forver be my "favorite"
until someone exceeds you "
real facts wrote on Jan 3, 2009 5:55 PM:
you mean as opposed to your hallmark card life where you "lovingly" opine in the blogs, and say nothing but encouraging things towards others that "differ" from you blog after blog.
all those "nice" comments about how i should "go have sex with my own daughter", because you said "the bible says so"
and all those warm and fuzzy discussion board posts filled with "respectful posts"
gee, i almost forgot the one time where you "lovingly" stated that "Christians should roam galt and lodi looking to shoot queers", and your recent "truth" where "Christians should stone adulterers at hutchins street square", etc
there isn't enough space on these blogs to print your "truthful/warm/fuzzy" accolades that come from your corner
straight up billy, you deserve the "hostility" you feel, because your revolving door, and your trash can of a life precludes ANY aBILLYity of you "demanding" respect
you bring this garbage on YOURSELF, and NO.....your not going to claim your a "victim" again
you deserve it "
bobbyg wrote on Jan 3, 2009 5:51 PM:
"i don't want to be labeled "judgemental".
http://www.lodinews.com/articles/2009/01/03/religion/letters/ltr_lee_090103.txt
Now that is proof that you are a LIAR!
And also the funniest thing I have ever read in these blogs. "
Billy Rubin wrote on Jan 3, 2009 3:46 PM:
bobbyg wrote on Jan 3, 2009 3:12 PM:
you really do know how to control him... you are the puppet master! =) "
flamerinlodi wrote on Jan 3, 2009 2:39 PM:
On marriage in schools, I don't remember ever having any of my teachers talk about in class. As it stands now, permission slips go home with students when discussing anything parents might find questionable. Seeing how much out of state funds came into this is abhorent. Why was a Ca proposition getting money from Focus on the Family and the Church of Latter Day Saints. (In Utah mind you) The passing of Proposition 8 will be short lived. The state of California cannot promote descrimination on any class of persons. Not to mention, separation of CHURCH AND STATE. "
bobbyg wrote on Jan 3, 2009 2:08 PM:
" BobbyG wrote: "I believe that team that led the No on 8 campaign failed the voters of California by not doing their job and informing people properly.:
Actually I kind of thought the passing of 8 was due largly to two poorly times media events. First was when w school bussed a class to see their teach have a same sex marriage (It would be inappropriate to bus kids to see any marriage ceremony). I know that one made the rounds with the "see, it's starting in the schools already".
Rhodie, I completely agree, and what was not told in the media or by the No on 8 campaign was that the School that took those kids was a PRIVATE School, NOT A PUBLIC SCHOOL!!! "
Begsbelief wrote on Jan 3, 2009 4:24 AM:
actually we already discussed this with dictionary terms and you found out that the word Homosexuals is not in that part of the Bible. It does specifically mention many sexual acts but specific terms but not once does it mention homosexuals. Again this is your attempt to FORCE homosexual predjudices into the Bible. "
~~~~~~~~~
To correct a misconception. Homosexuality is not mentioned in modern day terms but it does clearly state. For a man to lie with a man as he would a woman is an abomination.
Which means hated by God.
The problem is that this was classed as such an abominable act that they did not even talk about it. Men were killed instantly for this breaking of the levitical law.
We cannot write off truth because we do not like what it says. We have to consider everything when considering what is in the bible.
However, the bible does not condone abuse of people who believer contrary. "
Begsbelief wrote on Jan 3, 2009 4:18 AM:
looks like it's time for you to get busy with your life, by making the priority of TRUTH your ultimate goal instead on relying on others FOR your "truth", because the bible absolutely says something about "lesbian" sex.....in romans chapter 1 verse 26. read it YOURSELF
begsbelief, you need to make up your mind.
first you chastize me for things i say to people while i am taking people to task FOR playing me, then you pull posts like this one
there is a "fence" in life. you really should decide what "side" you are on, because after your life is over, you CANNOT jump back onto the other side.
by then, it's too late "
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The Christians I know they are genuine.
I said my girlfriend was gay I never said I was. void of humour?
The point is you allow people to play you. You pray for help but you certainly won't accept it. "
Lodian wrote on Jan 3, 2009 12:10 AM:
Rhodie wrote on Jan 2, 2009 11:56 PM:
I don't know about the "combative and abrasive" aspect but ephesians 6: 10-20 clearly tells us that we are at war. Even so much as to tell us what our armour is and how to engage the enemy, "that I may declare it boldly, as I ought to speak". And the Enemy is defined in John 19 "And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. 20For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved." And the light is clearly defined as well "Again Jesus spoke to them, saying, (L) "I am the light of the world." "
Rhodie wrote on Jan 2, 2009 11:40 PM:
Actually I kind of thought the passing of 8 was due largly to two poorly times media events. First was when w school bussed a class to see their teach have a same sex marriage (It would be inappropriate to bus kids to see any marriage ceremony). I know that one made the rounds with the "see, it's starting in the schools already".
Second was another school passing out the pledge cards to kindergardeners making them promise to be an ally to the gay life-style as well as "Gay Day" at the school.
I think both events just before the election made people think that the defeat of 8 would only promote the percieved educational systems endorsment of Gay issues. "
Lodian wrote on Jan 2, 2009 11:15 PM:
Lodian wrote on Jan 2, 2009 11:14 PM:
What he ("hwsnbn") doesn't seem to realize is that every time he posts his nasty comments to people here he is in fact picking "people" over "Godly truth". Ironic, isn't it? (chuckle) "
bobbyg wrote on Jan 2, 2009 10:44 PM:
and seriously, why dont you tell us were it says that as Christians we are supposed to be combative and abrasive such as youhave been with everyone that has a different oppinion about religion than you! "
bobbyg wrote on Jan 2, 2009 10:40 PM:
"is it acceptable for me to go have sex with any woman i see walking down the street, even though i am married? "
I know its hard for you to read and comprhend your Bible and you only live on the so called truths that you have heard or been taught. But as you are well aware there are many examples in the Bible of men having many wives or wives and sexual servants/slaves. But current belief is that a man should only have one wife. Why dont you ask yourself why and how that changed as the Bible clearly shows examples and "gifts from God" of multiple wives. If we now believe that that is what God wants (one wife) how did we come to that conclusion now? How did we evolve to this understanding?
On that same premise how did religion go from supporting slavery to being against it? How did religion go from oppressing women and minority to being against those as well?
Got an answer or will you deflect again? "
bobbyg wrote on Jan 2, 2009 10:32 PM:
actually we already discussed this with dictionary terms and you found out that the word Homosexuals is not in that part of the Bible. It does specifically mention many sexual acts but specific terms but not once does it mention homosexuals. Again this is your attempt to FORCE homosexual predjudices into the Bible. "
real facts wrote on Jan 2, 2009 9:00 PM:
" real facts, why is always an "US vs THEM" mentality with you?").
i pick Godly truth over people
i don't get sucked into a "PC" situation, and mold my response around that.
it depends on how people come at me, that determines how i deal with them
you changed the "me and you" deal when you resorted to lying about Gods word, and about me.
up until then, "we" had a congenial "discourse"
once i see evil, i am all over it
it's pathetic that Christians think their only response TO evil is to send it flowers and a box of chocolates.
or maybe, they just leave it to run amok and unchallenged "
real facts wrote on Jan 2, 2009 8:53 PM:
is it acceptable for me to go have sex with any woman i see walking down the street, even though i am married? "
real facts wrote on Jan 2, 2009 8:51 PM:
I think you should tell people how you manipulate the Bible into what you think people are supposed to believe").
nope. that's YOUR game, and as it turns out, you have ZERO conscience about it.
the complete difference between you and me is that i only have to replicate already proven 5,000 years of RECORDED history, whereas YOU have to "change it" (lie) to FORCE it to fit your justification parade.
if i am so wrong about my "interpretive skills", all you have to do is provide ONE pro homosexual passage, and then my game is over in here.
the bible speaks ALOT about married herterosexual love/sex......where are those "scriptures" about homo-sexual "love"?
THERE ISN'T ANY
gee, i wonder how many wishful thinking individuals down thru history convinced God to change his mind to "accept" sin?
read the accounting JUST BEFORE the end of the world where God says homosexuality will STILL be "unacceptable"
you have no conscience about Godly truth. all you want to do is justify your sin, so i just use your life to "teach"
what-your-attempting-to-do-is-evil-before-God-bobby "
real facts wrote on Jan 2, 2009 8:41 PM:
out right lies about the people in here").
ok, where did i ever "lie" about anyone?
unlike you, i am a man with a position of strength where i don't have to lie.
that's YOUR life
but to just to demonstrate again that YOUR the one that lies.....where did i lie about ANYONE?
you will skate from this one, because YOUR the liar, not me "
real facts wrote on Jan 2, 2009 8:38 PM:
for a guy that claims God thinks homosexuality is "good" and "biblical", what's your deflective problem that you cannot show one definitive scripture about homosexuality where God high fived it?
according to you......God "made" homosexuals, in that you claim that when a gay person states "i was born this way", YOU piggyback that by saying God "did" create a person that way.
if that actually was the truth, given a 5,000 year accounting by 40 authors in 66 books and not ONE pro-homosexual passage/inference, then you have no position, only a wishful thinking agenda where the ONLY way you could hope homosexual sex IS 'acceptable' by God.....is if you FORCE it into the context-by-lying-that-it's-"there"
bobby, your not the "criss angel" of homosexuality. i know that hurts your ego, but even you can't FORCE God to accept something HE spoke against.
two facts remain about you.....you have NEVER provided ONE PASSAGE....nor can you qualify your OWN sexual life.
your hope of pulling that in here is OVER "
bobbyg wrote on Jan 2, 2009 8:38 PM:
I think you should tell people how you manipulate the Bible into what you think people are supposed to believe.
I think you should stop pushing people away from God.
I think that you need to repent about your ugly agression and out right lies about the people in here.
AND I REALLY THINK YOU SHOULD TELL US ALL ABOUT YOUR ARGUEMNTS ON THIS SUBJECT. instead of avoiding it as you have done for the last three blogs now.
So how about it, put up your arguements, lets have some dialogue rather than your deflection and name calling. "
real facts wrote on Jan 2, 2009 8:29 PM:
" real facts, I have answered you many times in other blogs and you choose to ignore those posts...").
your-such-a-liar-it's-sickening
your the one that screams on multiple blogs that God "approves" of homosexual sex, yet to this day you have NEVER provided ONE SINGLE PASSAGE of pro-homosexual accounts, nor can you qualify-your-OWN-life-sexually
all you have ever "done" is lied that certain accounts "contained" hints of homosexual sex where there was absoloutely NONE.
NONE in ruth/naomi
NONE in jonathon/david
NONE in the centurion account
NONE in the eunuch account
NONE in the daniel account, for which you completely ran away from when i challenged you to provide "proof" of daniel, because your whole "justification" game is built on hit and run lies.
NONE-IN-GODS-WORD-ANYWHERE
drop the lies off at the curb, then run to the next one. that's-your-"position"
what i did with you was a fast and efficient way of demonstrating that your whole position is built on ONE lie....that God "approves" of homosexuality.....and the subsequent lies you HAVE to manufacture to FORCE it into "acceptability".
what do you think i should call you then?......a-man-of-"truth"? "
bobbyg wrote on Jan 2, 2009 8:23 PM:
bobbyg wrote on Jan 2, 2009 8:21 PM:
real facts wrote on Jan 2, 2009 8:15 PM:
" Let it go bobby, RF will never tell the truth, and will continue to hide behind his false idols. ").
you mean the one that HISTORICALLY raised HIMSELF from the dead?
the one that the record of your life is built around?
because your just a little blinded by your penchant to steer clear of ANY ultimate truth, you just inadvertantly ALSO dissed bobby, as bobby says he "believes" in that "false idol"
way to go robb
behavioral health huh?
laughing
maybe as an outpatient "
real facts wrote on Jan 2, 2009 8:12 PM:
looks like it's time for you to get busy with your life, by making the priority of TRUTH your ultimate goal instead on relying on others FOR your "truth", because the bible absolutely says something about "lesbian" sex.....in romans chapter 1 verse 26. read it YOURSELF
begsbelief, you need to make up your mind.
first you chastize me for things i say to people while i am taking people to task FOR playing me, then you pull posts like this one
you demand of others, what you are unwilling to do YOURSELF.
there is a "fence" in life. you really should decide what "side" you are on, because after your life is over, you CANNOT jump back onto the other side.
by then, it's too late "
Gator wrote on Jan 2, 2009 7:19 PM:
I could Give a S*** lessI said if its approached in a cool, polite
manner you might get what your after, but if you try and shove it
down peoples throats it will never happen. Simple!! But by the way
you come across you dont sound all that smart!! I guess you must have
missed the debate where McCain and Obama were both asked
about same sex marriage, both replied they apposed it!! The Question
was asked by Charlie Gibson of ABC, sorry!!! "
bobbyg wrote on Jan 2, 2009 5:46 PM:
Gator wrote on Jan 2, 2009 5:26 PM:
gay marriage.. Blacks and Latinos overwhelmingly voted for Prop 8
While the majority of the no vote was white voters. And you conveniently
left what I said about the Mosque!! The Koran makes no bones about it..
Under Shira law the life span is very short if they are found out. And you
also disregard what I said about letting it cool off and then go about quietly
and peacefully making your change. "
BegsBelief wrote on Jan 2, 2009 3:06 PM:
the fact that you can't produce ONE PASSAGE containing pro homosexuality, and you can't qualify your own life sexually against biblical standards.....those two FACTS seal your fate in here, no matter how many times you post."
The bible doesn't mention Lesbians-does that mean I am okay. My girlfriend is gay but I am not.LOL. "
Robb wrote on Jan 2, 2009 12:31 PM:
Robb wrote on Jan 2, 2009 12:24 PM:
bobbyg wrote on Jan 2, 2009 12:03 PM:
bobbyg wrote on Jan 2, 2009 11:55 AM:
And it was more than so called black voters, it was religious voters. There is evidence that the backers of prop 8, specifically targeted minorities and used very specific "scare tactics" in these churches to get them to vote. They also falsified voter hand-outs to say that Obama was for Prop 8 when in fact Obama spoke out against prop 8!
Now i dont blame the Churches per say, I do believe if they or anyone else broke the laws (as has been implyied) that they be held accountable for it.
I believe that team that led the No on 8 campaign failed the voters of California by not doing their job and informing people properly. examples, they spent a majority of advertising dollars in places that were already voting against 8 (SF,LA, coastal). Infact all of the no on 8 signs, adverstising that you seen here in S.J. county was specifically bought and paid for by locals. There were no marketing plans to go out and show who gay people really are, The Valley is what made the difference and there was no fight here. "
real facts wrote on Jan 2, 2009 11:54 AM:
" real facts I am still waiting for your arguments and facts or is it just what you do to think you "win" to call people names with no facts or basis for your name calling.... ").
do you really think that you not answering two honest questions that that i have asked you for MONTHS would either vindicate you completely, or completely squash your position, that the truths OF those questions will go away just because OF your refusal?
your refusal is the supreme indicator that you have no position to defend in the 1st place.
the fact that you can't produce ONE PASSAGE containing pro homosexuality, and you can't qualify your own life sexually against biblical standards.....those two FACTS seal your fate in here, no matter how many times you post.
not to worry, for as long as you are in these blogs, i will make sure those two "facts" will follow you into every future blog
tell us again about your C_BFF? "
real facts wrote on Jan 2, 2009 11:48 AM:
" There are allot of things that are true and are also NOT in your bible.. ").
true
like GRANITE that covers the planet "
bobbyg wrote on Jan 2, 2009 11:41 AM:
Billy Rubin wrote on Jan 2, 2009 10:54 AM:
"...you sit there and watch as bobby clogs the blogs with his willful lies about God..."
OK, show of hands; how many busted out laughing when they read this? "
tanner b wrote on Jan 2, 2009 10:24 AM:
lodibound wrote on Jan 2, 2009 9:13 AM:
Gator wrote on Jan 2, 2009 8:43 AM:
legislate from the bench, That is not what Democracy is about!! Also we
Have a bunch of radicals from the Gay community going after the Mormon
Church, which by its self is a soft target and they know it. Now on the other
hand if they had any Cajones they would go after the local Mosque or have a wild trashing protest in a Black neighborhood but that wont happen because they know what the outcome would be!! Its best to let this cool
Down and then quietly and peacefully go about making the change you want "
Robb wrote on Jan 2, 2009 8:04 AM:
bobbyg wrote on Jan 1, 2009 11:39 PM:
bobbyg wrote on Jan 1, 2009 9:12 PM:
Lodian wrote on Jan 1, 2009 9:08 PM:
" Realfacts- You always sit there on your computer and judge people. You seem to talk horrible about gay people.. I'm really wondering if your hiding in the closet..."
Lodibound: Many of us here have long thought that he is still in the closet, and very frustrated. You seem to have hit the nail on the head. Welcome to the blogs. You're very observant. :-)
Happy New Year! "
lodibound wrote on Jan 1, 2009 7:24 PM:
real facts wrote on Jan 1, 2009 6:47 PM:
equally disgusting is those that play off of that, as a tool that they use to silence truth
God never had a problem calling evil, evil
you will have to figure out where that takes you.....i already have "
real facts wrote on Jan 1, 2009 6:40 PM:
you just attempted to create another smokescreen, by attempting to lay down an anything-goes 6 lane freeway of thought vs actual interpretation so you can justify your sin against those not equipped to defend against that lie
try as you might, scripture is clear throughought, the ONLY SEX high fived in scripture is between a married man and a woman. anything else by scriptural definition is either adultery or fornication.
so for you to LITEARLLY make your case, you would have to provide ONE PASSAGE that high fives homosexual sex
who knows, since girard is content with watching you pull this garbage while sitting on the fence, maybe HE can find you one
ask him
because one things for sure about you, you STILL cannot provide ONE PASSAGE that high fives homosexuality, nor can you qualify your OWN sexual choices "
real facts wrote on Jan 1, 2009 6:29 PM:
i wonder what your "reward" will be when you sit there and watch as bobby clogs the blogs with his willful lies about God high fiving homosexuality "biblically", and you say NOTHING?
being honest, i am the only Christian that even contends with this guy. how pathetic is that?
straight up - bobby is not a "seeker" by biblical definition, he is a "destroyer"
since your so steeped in knowledge of how you should treat willing destroyers of Gods authority over men, maybe YOU can give us some bible passages on God (or anyone else that served HIM) just sitting there and watching these people do it un-opposed?
when it does come crunch time, your desire to be viewed as only a "nice guy" could become your complete undoing
your so "unconcerned" with evil and sin ratcheting up, it's pathetic girard
high five for being a "nice guy" "
real facts wrote on Jan 1, 2009 6:17 PM:
Yet rf pushes people away from God by his words and then chastises them for not being closer to God! ").
you have no idea who i really am, except what you experience in here.
i would NEVER "push away" a person who seeks after God, but struggles with sin or "lack of belief"
what i do in here with people like you is what i am called to do, and that is call evil what it is, and fight against it.
your not a "seeker" bobby.
your a person who seeks to fight against the standards of God in order to justify your sin, and worse yet, you seek to teach others they can as well.
God calls that evil
lodisafeway can play the "nice guy" all he wants, as he was always worried about his "image" in here first anyway, but God views your motivation/intent as being evil, and i will call it what it is.
you continually lie about scripture to justify your sin, and i am supposed to be "nice" while you do?
that will never happen "
bobbyg wrote on Jan 1, 2009 5:26 PM:
You cant push people away and take away their base of morals (friends, family and religion) and expect them not to fall into bad habits.
Yet rf pushes people away from God by his words and then chastises them for not being closer to God! "
bobbyg wrote on Jan 1, 2009 5:18 PM:
Literalist such as yourself also claimed that Christians could only support slavery and anyone that believed that slaves should be freed were labled as atheists, Socialist, heretics, Communist, Red Republicans and so on.
So if you want to put yourself in that boat which you now have, go ahead! "
bobbyg wrote on Jan 1, 2009 5:17 PM:
LodiSafeway wrote on Jan 1, 2009 5:10 PM:
While you are free to rant on about virtually anything you desire on these blogs, your attitude about people not as "superior" as you believe you are is unsettling. Your approach does nothing to bring glory to God; for someone who has not made the decision as to whether or not to follow Christ, your continued harshness will do little to convince them that the God you purport to worship is unlike you.
I know you've read these words before at various times, and still you continue. As a believer I understand that we will all face judgment one day; I believe the worst that I could ever do while here is to keep someone from choosing God over the myriad other "choices" that will lead to no where. You seem to not care much about that. Pity. "
real facts wrote on Jan 1, 2009 5:06 PM:
all you are doing is deflecting from a responsibillity that YOU have had for MONTHS.....
(a) that you give us ONE PASSAGE from Gods word that high fives homosexual sex
(b) you tell us how you can have sex with your unbelieving boyfriend and call it "justifiable" before God.
both of which i have been asking you to do FOR MONTHS, and for months you have REFUSED, and now your deflecting again because your a man that CAN'T qualify your own position.
do it bobby
when you qualify those two things i have been asking of you, you can ask me anything and i will answer you
once again, you will lie, deflect and attempt to skate because you CAN'T answer those two challenges...
two challenges that would actually VINDICATE who you are, and solidify your position.
but you won't, BECAUSE YOU CAN'T "
real facts wrote on Jan 1, 2009 4:58 PM:
And what are your credentials real facts? ").
no "paper" tacked up on the wall, just a calling to defend Gods word against those that want to bastardize Gods word for personal justification purposes.
since i don't get sucked into things by emotion or "paper on the wall", the Holy Spirit gives me the ability to determine rather quickly who is or isn't, thus my easily done exposure of dale martin.
dale martin high fives aspects of homosexuality, and that fact alone strips him of being a "voice" that echoes God, i don't care how many books he writes or where he gets his "professor" degrees from.
if martin doesn't "profess" biblical accuracy, those "degree's" will haunt him in eternity
shall we google the different "degree's" people hold in positions of power who oversee cults?
once again, you "thought" you were going to sneak your lie under the back door
not while i am around "
bobbyg wrote on Jan 1, 2009 4:55 PM:
facts and you dont seem to go hand in hand, perhaps you need a name change. I would ask you again to put up some facts but you won't because you can't! "
real facts wrote on Jan 1, 2009 4:48 PM:
Marriage is about love and commitment, but evidentially you are unaware of those. ").
so, is this were you justify your life before God by stating your "married" or "committed", and thats why it's ok for you to have sex with your C-BFF?
you just stepped on your own tongue, because you just admitted that the ONLY relationship that includes the sexual element that God DOES accept is a marital one
so go ahead, tell us all about your current sexual foray, and how that qualifies your life.
not the disgusting details, but just the fact that your neither "married" OR "committed".
i sure didn't have a problem being forthright about my life's choices, and how they line up with Gods design.
what's the holdup bobby?
what if your C-BFF is watching, and he inteprets your "unwillingness" to be plain about it as an "un-committed" stance. then what? you will have to explain why your having sex with THAT "c-bff"
like i said, you have no position to defend, because you can't even qualify your OWN life "
real facts wrote on Jan 1, 2009 4:39 PM:
Real facts, in your world does everything revolve around sex? Because in a marriage, that is just one small aspect of the relationship. Marriage is about love and commitment, but evidentially you are unaware of those. ").
remember when you attempted to justify YOUR life sexually by stating you were "committed", and that was your premise you built your current lie on?
tell us again how you are "committed" to your C-BFF, and how THAT justifies you before God.
your right, it isn't all about the sex, but God gives sexual parameters to follow IN a God-directed relationship, and the fact that you can't rectify your OWN sexual realtionship proves your entire position is built on a lie.
your game is over bobby, and you are free to babble on about it and embarrass yourself all you want.
you won't - because you can't
tell us all about your warm and cuddly "committment" stories while acting out homosexually.
you have made ZERO headway in here on justifying homosexuality "biblically" "
real facts wrote on Jan 1, 2009 4:30 PM:
" now would you actually like to debate some of your facts or do you have any? ").
i do have the facts......5,000 years worth of unchangeable truth against homosexual sex of ANY kind biblically, and now i am waiting for you to provide proof that Gods word actually high fives homosexual sex
where is that ONE PASSAGE?
oh yeah, i forgot, you were the guy that for months has tried to sell the notion that the bible actually does high five homosexual sex, but can't find ONE PASSAGE that does, and then turns around and tells everyone today "the bible doesn't have to".......which is code for your homosexual-speak which means it doesn't have to, "because I will force it to say so, because i want it to so i can tell myself my choices are justifiable before God"....by bobbyG
"truth" by FORCE bobby, is that how it works? do you realize how many books you can sell based on that premise?
JUST ONE PASSAGE BOBBY "
real facts wrote on Jan 1, 2009 4:23 PM:
What I notice is that you cant say "gay" or Homosexual" with put also using the word "sex" in front or behind those words").
oh geeze, here we go with the lie "it's not about sex" - homosexual justification garbage.
your that desperate that you want to embrarrass yourself that bad bobby, that now you going to sell the notion that it isn't about sexual definition?
sidetrack garbage tactics.
God doesn't have "parameters" about who we can have a non-sexual realtionship with (unless it's gets unGodly enough to drag us away from HIM), but we are talkng about sexual defintions and you know it.
another strike against you in your war on legitimizing your UNjustifiable life
"it's not about sex"......laughing "
real facts wrote on Jan 1, 2009 4:16 PM:
" I am not the one that is trying to forcefully put homosexuality into the Bible").
that's a laugh.
it isn't there, ANYWHERE, in the pro-forma. the only way it IS "pro" is when you force it into the text by lying it is there. what, you forgot about your lying ruth/naomi, david/jonathon, the roman centurion and daniel the prophet lies that something "homosexual" took place.
your a liar, as NONE of those recordations even hinted at homosexual sex - YOU FORCED IT THERE
where is it bobby?
to this date you have yet to provide ONE passage where homosexuality IS high fived
put up or shut up, because you keep saying it is.
if it was, you would have by now.
the supreme fact that you can't, squashes your position faster than a maddof meltdown
tell us again about your loving committed relationship.
gee, if it is so "good", why can't you qualify it?
laughing "
bobbyg wrote on Jan 1, 2009 4:12 PM:
real facts wrote on Jan 1, 2009 4:09 PM:
God has put me here as a gay Christian to show you how wrong you are").
laughing
there is no such thing as a "gay Christian", in that there ARE people who struggle with sin (including homosexuality), but there is no such thing as a "gay Christian" who practices homosexual sex without conscience and tells other people that they can too because God high fives homosexual sex biblically.
that's a full on lie, and a person that attempts that is labeled biblically as a liar, a wolf in sheeps clothing, looking to steal the souls of others by teaching them it's ok to sin.
the bible is clear.....any person who lies without conscience is NOT a true follower of Christ
gee, what club can a person join to become a "gay child molester Christian" or a "gay adulterer Christian".....i know, the one you belong to....."the gay fornicators Christian club" because of your OWN sexually daliances with your C-uncommitted BFF.
your position is a joke
bobby, homopsexual sex is biblically condemned......PERIOD
take your marbles and "play" somewhere else "
bobbyg wrote on Jan 1, 2009 4:08 PM:
real facts wrote on Jan 1, 2009 3:57 PM:
" I have proven you wrong every time").
that's a laugh
ahhhhhh it's not "me" you are going against bobby, but the true replication of 5,000yrs of an uninterrupted historical fact that your lying desperation of a life dreams it's all of a sudden going to be "justifiable"
keep lying to yourself bobby, it's your life to lose, not mine. your the one that will pay for attempting it, not me.
BTW, the bad news is that with all that effort you have put into it, biblical history hasn't moved 1 millimeter.....homosexual sex of ANY kind is STILL sin.
now where are those passages that high five homosexual sex
there aren't any, right bobby?
there is no "victory" for you to perceive. in the past, today or in the future
you CANNOT justify an unjustifiable "
real facts wrote on Jan 1, 2009 3:49 PM:
" Real facts, Being gay doesnt have to be "high fived" by the Bible").
you know, plodded enough, the truth will eventually spill out...
the bible HAS to "high five" anything that is good FOR it to be good, and when it condemns it, it does so because Gods word IS the ultimate authority on all things, including you choosing to disobey him thru something he calls sexually reprehensible.
the fact that you made this statement proves you could care less what it DOES say, and your game is FORCEFUL INCLUSION at any expense
great job at exposing your own motives bobby.
you think your so crafty, but Gods word always hands the truth it's victory because people like you eventually always fall on their own sword
"Gods word doesn't have to high five homosexuality" by bobbyG
boy is that lying statement going to haunt you in these blogs from here on out "
real facts wrote on Jan 1, 2009 3:41 PM:
don't you people find it strange that a person bloviates day after day that the bible high fives homosexuality, but the guy CANNOT even rectify his OWN life sexually against Gods word?
if you let this guy have a free pass when he REFUSES to rectify that, than YOU could care less about Gods ultimate truth.......it's-a-straight-up-joke
the fact that he won't (and can't) proves he is lying about his assertion that God high fives homosexual sex of ANY kind
here's how it works bobby......i have been married to ONE woman, and we have sex within our marital bounds.
i do not have sex with other women, and therefore by biblical standards, i live a JUSTFIABLE life that way
ok bobby, your turn......go ahead and tell us how you have sex with an UNBELIEVER, with whom your not even living with, while selling the notion you can because you are "committed".
laughing
according to your "theology", anyone can have sex with anyone and call it a "committment"
nope, you have no biblical position "
bobbyg wrote on Jan 1, 2009 3:40 PM:
Now again, for about the third or fourth time... Put up some facts and stop spewing forth your babble. "
real facts wrote on Jan 1, 2009 3:32 PM:
true replicated history, so YOUR the one that needs to "prove" homosexuality contextual-wise, a feat you have REFUSED to do, and now you are deflecting your responsibility onto me so you "think" you can skate from it.
that won't happen
your the one that claims homosexual sex is "scriptural", and it is on YOU to demonstrate that is true
all these blogs and you haven't yet.....all your "proofs" have been outright lies based on "what if's" that aren't even there on ANY level to begin with, and that's a solid position to build your life upon? that' a joke bobby. you are building your life upon a bedrock of lies.....one to cover the previous one
come on bobby, where are those scriptures were homosexual sex is blatantly obviously high fived?
THERE ISN'T ANY "
bobbyg wrote on Jan 1, 2009 3:26 PM:
You know you have said this a couple of times now, yet you include NO FACTS or any other reasoning behind what you say. If you goodle DALE B. MARTIN you will see he is a well qualified Theologian/Historian and Professor of the Bible. Thats what you find when you Google him.
Dale B. Martin
Woolsey Professor of Religious Studies
B.S., Abilene Christian University;
M.Div., Princeton Theological Seminary;
Ph.D., Yale University;
"Dale B. Martin specializes in New Testament and Christian Origins, including attention to social and cultural history of the Greco-Roman world. Before joining the Yale faculty in 1999, he taught at Rhodes College and Duke University."
Professional Positions:
1983-1987 Teaching Fellow, Yale Divinity School and Yale College
1987-1988 Instructor, Department of Religion, Rhodes College
1988-1995 Assistant Professor of Religion, Duke University
1995-1999 Associate Professor of Religion, Duke University
1999-2005 Professor of Religious Studies, Yale University
2002-2005 Chair, Department of Religious Studies, Yale University
2003-2007 Fellow, Whitney Humanities Center, Yale University
2005- Woolsey Professor of Religious Studies, Yale University
http://www.yale.edu/religiousstudies/facultypages/martin.html
And what are your credentials real facts? "
real facts wrote on Jan 1, 2009 3:23 PM:
" You say Google this Google that but what is it you want us to find? ").
it's easy.....all i do is google all the "scholars" you pull on here, and i find the same thing EVERYTIME.....agenda based heretics that depart from Gods word for their liberal anything-that-they-think-goes-agenda.
googling them it takes little effort discovering WHO they really are comparatively
you can find the same garbage type "scholars" who depart from scripture on subjects like stealing money from Gods people for their OWN benefit....."scholars" who teach you can have sex with multiple wives, etc, etc.
the word "scholar" means squat initially, until a person actually demonstrates they really DO accureately replicate Gods word contextually..
what's evil about what you do is your "innocent act", whereby you "pretend" what you are doing is "noble" and of God, when in actuality, you KNOW your trying to FORCE homosexuality into Gods word to make it "fit", and thats evil by definition. "
real facts wrote on Jan 1, 2009 3:12 PM:
" So i point out several factors and history with the use of Historian, Theologians and more and you just want to come in and say, "Nope your a liar").
bummer for you huh?
your used to pulling this on unsuspecting people who cannot counter this garbage, and fall for the "labels" you fly your flag under.
"credentials" mean squat, and actual true reference OF scriptural edicts would trump a piece of paper on the wall everyday anyway.
google proves your a liar, because all those "scholars" you pull out of your back pocket are right away rejected as heretics by the HISTORY of scripture, and true biblical scholars that replicate ACTUAL context
like i said before, cults say the same thing in order to "legitimize" themselves, and they aren't scripturally accurate either, but are driven by agenda just like you
you are used to thinking you could pull the "but i just repeated what a scholar said", and everyone would just buy it like it was the gospel truth.
it's easily provable agenda based FORCEFUL "theology"....AKA a big fat lie
big whoop "
real facts wrote on Jan 1, 2009 3:02 PM:
History shows that when warriors would conquer their opponents they would destroy the villages, kill the women and children and rape the men. Yes the heterosexual men would rape men. Just do a little research its easy to find all this information").
ahhhh no, that's a full on lie, because there is ZERO textual proof where "heterosexual men raped men for dominance, or any other reason" (according to you).
instead of riding on the backs of people with a phony credential, how about you show EXACT references of "heterosexuals" raping men
you won't, because there is NONE
you need to stop including your "scholar" references, as google allows us the luxury of seeing these guys as nothing more than liberal minded biased "inclusionary scholars".
that's code for they could care less what scripture actually teaches, and they are bent on FORCING thier agendas into the text any way they can.
sound familiar bobby? that's who you are, and how you think your methodolgy will sneak you by. "
bobbyg wrote on Jan 1, 2009 2:58 PM:
Are you so affraid of your sources and facts that you wont even put them up? "
real facts wrote on Jan 1, 2009 2:26 PM:
you bloviate for blogs on end, being the ever "resourceful" guy that you are by trumpeting blatantly false teachers, you STILL CAN'T qualify your OWN life sexually.
to this blog day, you have yet to rectify your OWN life sexually, and THAT is the nail in your coffin position-wise.
tell us again about your "realtionship" with your C-BFF?
the DAY you can rectify YOUR "relationship" sexually against Gods word, and you can find ONE pro-homosexual-reference biblically, THEN you can actually proclaim you HAVE a position.
until then, your a liar. a "resourceful" liar, but a liar none-the-less
(and no, i am not going away) "
real facts wrote on Jan 1, 2009 2:20 PM:
what you STILL have yet to do is give us ONE SCRIPTURE that gives a high five TO homosexual sex.
your justification game is built entirely on the backs of lies based on FORCEFUL inclusions into the text where NONE exists in the first place.
in EVERY instance you have ever tried to sell homosexuality "biblically", it's been on the premise of a "see it's there. no look, it's really there. what, you don't see it? i am telling you, it's really there"....by bobbyG
show us ONE pro-homosexual-passage bobby, because-THAT'S-what-soldifies-a-solid-biblical-position
YOU CAN'T, because NONE exists
bobbyG, the-king-of-FORCING-homosexuality-to-be-"justifiable" "
real facts wrote on Jan 1, 2009 2:10 PM:
martin is another heretic in a now laundry list of heretics that you trumpet thinking there isn't anyone that can call you on your biblical lies now.
it is true, that most Christians out there cannot refute the garbage you sell, because they (a) either don't know scripture, (b) they are too lazy to KNOW what Gods word says, and think it not important enough to expose the lies of people like you, (c) they are imtimidated taking people like you on.
poor bobby. you were used to selling this stuff (probably unopposed) everywhere you went.
UNfortunately for you, there is google now.....a tool that can easily expose the liar that you are, in your quest to FORCE homosexuality into the biblical text where NO PRO HOMOSEXUAL SEX exists.
lie all you want, trump out your heretical joke "scholars", but-the-bible-strictly-condemns-homosexual-sex-EVERYTIME-it's-ever-mentioned.....and-you-know-it "
real facts wrote on Jan 1, 2009 2:00 PM:
" ...In that culture, the most humiliating experience for a heterosexual male, was to be treated like a woman and raping a man was the most violent such treatment. As Dale B. Martin, Professor of Religion at Duke University, says, To be penetrated was to be inferior because women were inferior. It is an expression of the ancient horror of the feminine").
THANK GOD FOR GOOGLE !!!!!
you know bobby, it's not like i already know your a weak-desperate man looking to justify your life by FORCING homosexuality into the biblical texts, as a quick cursory glance of Gods word reveals what a liar you are.
never heard of "dale martin" before your post, but i already knew that this was one more chump-card you pulled out of the air for your "justification" game, knowing in blogs past you cited proven heretical "teachers" with "credentials" in what you think is a game of appearing "legitimate".
after googling martin, he can be added to the heretic mess you attempt in here
con't-----------> "
LodiSafeway wrote on Jan 1, 2009 1:50 PM:
real facts wrote on Jan 1, 2009 1:50 PM:
sorry billy, although i know you were living in wishful thinking land again, while i cannot speak on behalf of danielH, i for one actually DO know what scripture says CONTEXT-WISE, and i have a backbone big enough to not sit there and watch as the bobby's of the world spew their personal justification lies.
poor bobby. maybe you can pray for him, because that guy is as desperate as it gets on FORCING homosexuality to "fit" scripture, while you are fully entrenched in your you-could-care-less choice, bobby squirms.
how funny, that a guy that absolutely hates God, would still be willing to piggy-back the likes of bobby so HE could justify HIS choices.
you two are case studies (albeit working from different angles) on the futility of attempting to justify the UNjustifiable
you two "undoing" 5,000 years of design history......that's a laugh "
danielh wrote on Jan 1, 2009 1:47 PM:
LodiSafeway wrote on Jan 1, 2009 1:44 PM:
So once again, keep 'em coming!! You're very entertaining. "
danielh wrote on Jan 1, 2009 1:37 PM:
there are plenty of absurd and clueless people, and I don't even pay attention to them.
for some reason, you looked. "
LodiSafeway wrote on Jan 1, 2009 1:16 PM:
Still, when I relayed to you what is on that birth certificate, you had the further audacity to intimate that I was lying. That goes way beyond absurd, wouldn't you think? "
danielh wrote on Jan 1, 2009 1:06 PM:
You actually went into your file and pulled out your Birth Certificate and studied it.
You even said that your birth certificate was sitting on top of your desk.
This is very strange behavior for someone who claims he doesn't believe what I am talking about, or that it is absurd.
Thank you very much. "
danielh wrote on Jan 1, 2009 1:00 PM:
I'm glad that somebody has a story about what it says in there. I never found the time and energy to study the second half of genesis. "
LodiSafeway wrote on Jan 1, 2009 12:48 PM:
Signed, LodiSafeway - Citizen (sans slave). "
bobbyg wrote on Jan 1, 2009 10:44 AM:
bobbyg wrote on Jan 1, 2009 10:43 AM:
In each of these stories, the host attempts to placate the threatening gangs by offering women of his household for the mob to abuse instead of his male guests. Notice the cultural emphasis on the superiority of men over women. As Old Testament scholar Martti Nissinen of the University of Helsinki notes, the critical issue in the ancient Near East was not sexuality but gender, and it was important that the superior position of men over women be maintained. In that culture, the hosts felt that it was more important to protect male visitors in their house that to protect women, even their own daughters or common-law wife! The host do not seem to think of the attackers as homosexual, or they would not offer women to them to abuse. "
bobbyg wrote on Jan 1, 2009 10:43 AM:
In both stories, a host invites traveling men into his house. Later an angry mob of townspeople surround the house and demand that the host turn his guest over to them. Foreigners are clearly not welcome, and the implication is that they may be raped or killed. Daniel Helminak, Ph.D., a Catholic Priest and Professor of Theology and Spirituality at Oblate School of Theology in San Antonio, points out that in the ancient world homosexual rape was a traditional way for victors to accentuate the subjection of captive enemies and foes. "
Billy Rubin wrote on Jan 1, 2009 10:35 AM:
danielh wrote on Jan 1, 2009 1:44 AM:
I thought I understood it, so I hope you knew what you were talking about when you corrected me. "
danielh wrote on Jan 1, 2009 1:41 AM:
worst: "citizen"
In order to understand this one, consider a creator cannot be governed by its creation.
God created Man. Man cannot govern God.
Man created government. Government cannot govern Man. Conversely, Man governs government. Man can elect officers, and Man can create the rules and regulations for its public servants.
Government contains courts, and Man cannot be convicted and sentenced except by a judicial process in a republican form of government where the defendant receives due process.
Government created citizens. Citizens cannot govern government. Citizens can be employed, fined, and sentenced to prison without fair due process. "
danielh wrote on Jan 1, 2009 1:33 AM:
I appreciate your responding to what I have written.
Your post at Dec 31, 2008 6:55 PM contains several words of art, and by that I mean that their definitions under the law are skewed away from their usage in common everyday conversation which uses Webster’s Dictionary.
According to Webster's, you appear to have written controversy, but
according to legal definitions which are different, your use of the words "employer" and worst of all, "citizen" are not as they appear.
[ You may recall that I wrote a letter about misleading legalese. ]
...continued "
danielh wrote on Jan 1, 2009 1:23 AM:
Looking at what it says, we see the definition is restricted to people who are providing services for the United States, or as an officer of a corporation.
Thus a word that we have used for all of our lives is defined under IRS code as something other that what we were told it really means.
We are horrified by the thought of not being able to work if we don't provide a SSN, but it only means that we cannot be an "employee" as defined under IRS code which is Title 26 USC. "
danielh wrote on Jan 1, 2009 1:20 AM:
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode26/usc_sec_26_00003401----000-.html
(c) Employee
For purposes of this chapter, the term "employee" includes an officer, employee, or elected official of the United States, a State, or any political subdivision thereof, or the District of Columbia, or any agency or instrumentality of any one or more of the foregoing. The term "employee" also includes an officer of a corporation. "
bobbyg wrote on Dec 31, 2008 11:21 PM:
So your saying the they named the city after the "act"??? "
bobbyg wrote on Dec 31, 2008 11:17 PM:
History shows that when warriors would conquer their opponents they would destroy the villages, kill the women and children and rape the men. Yes the heterosexual men would rape men. Just do a little research its easy to find all this information.
So stop the name calling, your just mad cause Huxley was transfered and now you have to find a new guy to support. And you have to wait again for the team to come back to play a few more home games. "
real facts wrote on Dec 31, 2008 10:02 PM:
It was the practice in those days to show ones stature by raping or penetrating other men. So to show these guests who was boss these heterosexual men would rape and torture strangers from outside this desert. To be left outside the city walls in this desert, surely meant death. ").
do homosexuals drop acid when they sit in a circle and make this garbage up?
because that would make TOTAL sense.
your so full of it, i "smell it" thru my computer, and i don't even possess the latest "smell-o-rama" technology.
men....(according-to-your-twisted-perverted-NON EXISTENT-"biblical"-version)....."penetrated" other men as a means to show intimidation or punishment? your out of your wishful thinking mind if you think for a moment that EVER happened contextually in the biblical recordings of what DID happen in sodom.
just like i stated, homosexuals lie, because their whole premise is built on a lie, and this is but another demonstration of your desperation of FORCING homosexuality into Gods word.
perversion demands it's "proponents" pervert MORE in lieu of the truth
sodom wasn't a "prison movie" bobby "
real facts wrote on Dec 31, 2008 9:50 PM:
you couldn't name one, but how many times DID God deal harshly with those of the equal antics OF sodom = ALOT
sorry bobby, you CAN'T pull in here what you are used to.
bummer huh? "
real facts wrote on Dec 31, 2008 9:46 PM:
Daniel, Yes the town was destroyed. Yes Lots wife was turned to salt. I am not sure if you are implying that the city was destroyed because of homosexuality, it was not. It was destroyed because the city was inhospitable to guests and God was appaled at how guest were treated").
the "go to" homosexual lie of the actual events of SODOM (aptly named) and gomorrah.God destroys a city and group of people because they were "inhospitable"?
that's a lying joke
that's one of the most rediculous far-reaching excuses (lie) that homosexuals pull out of the sky in order to excuse away what actually DID happen.
was sodom and gomorrah destroyed solely because OF homosexuality? .......no. but it sure was a part of it as per textual reference. "destroyed because of a lack of hospitality".....is an innane assault on even common sense, because IF God destroyed man OVER a "lack of hospitality", what society WOULD be still standing?
bobby, find another lie that isn't so rediculous/obvious "
bobbyg wrote on Dec 31, 2008 8:05 PM:
LodiSafeway wrote on Dec 31, 2008 6:55 PM:
I know of no above-the-radar employer who would knowingly employ anyone without first seeing, recording and then verifying the Social Security number for each prospective employee.
Does this make us "citizen-slaves" as Daniel Hutchins (admitted to be danielH) recently insisted in his letter-to-the-editor? No, it simply makes us responsible citizens. "
Billy Rubin wrote on Dec 31, 2008 6:40 PM:
Perhaps four or five more layers of tinfoil hat will shield his brainwaves from their listening devices and serial number scanners. "
Whoa Nellie! wrote on Dec 31, 2008 6:31 PM:
Whoa Nellie! wrote on Dec 31, 2008 6:29 PM:
Second, even with those 88 how can the Advocate be so positive that no other publication will not publish same sex marriage announcements?
While many will contend that our little village is still living in a time warp you cant tell me that there are other areas of this great state which lean much more right than Lodi. I can't imagine seeing a same sex announcement in a paper in Reedly, Placerville, or say King City.
The fact is that Lodi has had, and will continue to have, great gay citizens who make an impact in our community. Sure, 99.9% of them in the past were in the closet but depending upon your age you probably had one as a teacher at Lodi High. And the funny thing was, that BOTH were such great teachers no one ever brought up the fact that they were gay.
Lodi, we're lucky to still have a real local paper. "
danielh wrote on Dec 31, 2008 4:05 PM:
danielh wrote on Dec 31, 2008 4:04 PM:
The foreign trust is non-indentured, because we didn’t know to put an indenture on it, so the UNITED STATES had no choice but to appoint their own trustees. These are:
(2) appointees of the president.
(3) Secretaries: Treasury, labor, and Health and Human Services
(1) Commissioner of Social Security
If we realize that JOHN MIDDLE DOE is a trust, we have authority to “fire” these trustees, and appoint ourselves as trustee of the trust, and establish a trust indenture of our own liking.
If we become the trustee, we have authority to approve or disapprove any contractual charges that are assessed against the trust, including traffic tickets, taxes, and fines. when we fire the trustees, we can also stipulate that they agree to accept a lien or other administrative remedy for any violations of the contract. "
bobbyg wrote on Dec 31, 2008 2:57 PM:
Robb wrote on Dec 31, 2008 2:42 PM:
danielh wrote on Dec 31, 2008 2:29 PM:
danielh wrote on Dec 31, 2008 2:28 PM:
danielh wrote on Dec 31, 2008 2:24 PM:
FYI: The ambiguous serial number on the bottom right corner of the back pertains to a Federal Reserve Bank which holds our funds. "
danielh wrote on Dec 31, 2008 2:18 PM:
Lodian wrote on Dec 31, 2008 1:56 PM:
"...to be subjected to the abject filth and distortions by those who lack the intellectual fortitude to argue in a decent manner is equally bizarre."
---
Indeed. "
Robb wrote on Dec 31, 2008 1:48 PM:
bobbyg wrote on Dec 31, 2008 1:44 PM:
" bobbyg: I think in story of Sodom and Gomorah, the whole town was bathed in orgy and was destroyed, and Lot lost his wife, because she couldn't get it out of her head.
I have heard of homosexuals using this story to justify their own behavior, but this story does not support homosexuality. Conversely, the town was destroyed and Lot's wife clearly died. "
Daniel, Yes the town was destroyed. Yes Lots wife was turned to salt. I am not sure if you are implying that the city was destroyed because of homosexuality, it was not. It was destroyed because the city was inhospitable to guests and God was appaled at how guest were treated.
If infact the city and the men that came to lots house were homosexuals why would lot have offered his daughters? It was the practice in those days to show ones stature by raping or penetrating other men. So to show these guests who was boss these heterosexual men would rape and torture strangers from outside this desert. To be left outside the city walls in this desert, surely meant death. "
bobbyg wrote on Dec 31, 2008 1:36 PM:
danielh wrote on Dec 31, 2008 1:13 PM:
It is possible to seize control of the trust. I have the documents and tools to do it, but I am still thinking about it, because it's a one-shot deal. can't be changed. "
danielh wrote on Dec 31, 2008 1:09 PM:
I maintain that our contract with them is to donate for 40 quarters.
Is there a formula that takes into account how much we donated?
Probably. "
voter wrote on Dec 31, 2008 1:05 PM:
Billy Rubin wrote on Dec 31, 2008 12:53 PM:
LodiSafeway wrote on Dec 31, 2008 12:45 PM:
It is also my understanding that the formula used to determine the amount that I will receive is based upon the total period that I have worked, not just the first 40 quarters.
I still see no malfeasance or any other improper behavior on the part of the government in this regard. "
danielh wrote on Dec 31, 2008 12:10 PM:
The only way I know to get one is through the Social Security Administration.
Are you saying that 7 other agencies of the federal government also issue SS cards? "
danielh wrote on Dec 31, 2008 12:07 PM:
Do I know how to stop the deductions?
No. "
danielh wrote on Dec 31, 2008 12:05 PM:
I have heard of homosexuals using this story to justify their own behavior, but this story does not support homosexuality. Conversely, the town was destroyed and Lot's wife clearly died. "
LodiSafeway wrote on Dec 31, 2008 12:04 PM:
Since I started working in the early 1970s, I have an accounting (through the Social Security Administration) of every dollar earned that was reported to that agency. My audit of those dollars reveals no hanky-panky or any other misuse of either my money or my Social Security number. The fact that I am required to contribute roughly 13% of my pay (one-half by me, the balance by my employer), also doesn't expose any wrongdoing or contractual malfeasance by the government. Clearly, if I live long enough I will be entitled to receive a monthly stipend to assist me in my golden years, although under normal circumstances that won't be enough to fully sustain me. Still, since I contributed to the program, I expect to receive my "fair" share.
The idea that I am somehow "owned" by the government through the issuance of that number borders on lunacy, although I realize you did not make this contention. "
danielh wrote on Dec 31, 2008 11:56 AM:
LodiSafeway wrote on Dec 31, 2008 11:38 AM:
Robb wrote on Dec 31, 2008 11:00 AM:
bobbyg wrote on Dec 31, 2008 10:56 AM:
You complain that we are not monogamous, yet you wont allow us to make the marriage commitment. "
Robb wrote on Dec 31, 2008 10:51 AM:
bobbyg wrote on Dec 31, 2008 10:49 AM:
bobbyg wrote on Dec 31, 2008 10:46 AM:
"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 31, 2008 10:31 AM:
" bobby, Gods word didn't explicitly say your "examples" were sin, whereas he did on homosexuality EVERYTIME it is mentioned, it is condemned.
Would you please make up your mind! "
danielh wrote on Dec 31, 2008 10:42 AM:
Any contract where the terms are not disclosed, is null and void. There is no statute of limitations on when a party can rescind a signature in a contract that does not have full disclosure. "
danielh wrote on Dec 31, 2008 10:40 AM:
These are 3-party contracts between man-woman-state.
The state puts up no consideration for the contract whatsoever. They only take. A sane, well-informed human being would not enter into the contract.
The man and woman pledged their children into being property of the state, hence an agreement to register them into the Departments of Commerce, Transportation, and Treasury, where the life's earnings of the child are hypothecated and sold in international commerce. "
real facts wrote on Dec 31, 2008 10:31 AM:
interesting to note when i challenged you, that you didn't provide all those warm and fuzzy statistics about gays being a committed bunch.
why is that bobby? why can't YOU qualify your position of "gay marriage" by providing statistics about how gays are so monogamous?
it's because they aren't, and "gay marriage" is a joke.
it's nothing more than a smokescreen attempt at homosexuals selling their behavior as "legit"
maybe YOU can qualify your OWN "relationship" "
LodiSafeway wrote on Dec 31, 2008 10:20 AM:
LodiSafeway wrote on Dec 31, 2008 9:47 AM:
If there is still doubt regarding the inclusiveness on the part of the editors/owners of the News-Sentinel, perhaps just a little further digging might satisfy those who are still experiencing that "chill." Ask the News-Sentinel to actually print the stated policy to include the date that it was adopted.
Regardless, had Mr. Gorman not relied upon just one source of information for his accusations against the News-Sentinel, he might have thought twice before submitting his letter. I'm in no way suggesting that he didn't have the right to write his letter; I've only commented on his foolish appearance that could have been easily avoided had he looked beyond the one article in The Advocate. Or was there another motive? "
LodiSafeway wrote on Dec 31, 2008 9:30 AM:
I made a point (which I've clarified and won't waste my time re-posting); either people agree or they don't. THAT is supposed to be the intent of this forum. But to read about who you (or others) wish I was or used to be or other such nonsense has no value here (at least to me) aside from the comical.
Even now, as a result of this very "conversation" going off-topic, the editors would love nothing more than to shut down discourse about Proposition 8. I don't want to be a part of that. It is the regular cast of bloggers here (and they all know who they are) who will force them to restrict comments once more. And for what? School-yard silliness. Good luck! "
Audi 5000 wrote on Dec 31, 2008 8:27 AM:
Sorry, you're not a victim because it's not about you personally, it's about behavior. "
begsbelief wrote on Dec 31, 2008 5:16 AM:
" I would like to take this opportunity to announce my engagement to my life partner. "Blackie" and I have been together for years. The fact that Blackie is a sheep should not matter to anyone. We have had to put up with jokes about me living with a Black Sheep but that's how it is when we have to hide in the closet..oops I mean barn. "
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Mad dog had a little Lamb whose fleece was black as soot. And everywhere that Blackie went his sootie foot he put.
I hope you and your Lamb will be very happy together. Makes sure that Blackie doesn't fleece you and leave you. LOL. I think you could write a new book. 50 ways to eat or fleece your Lover. "
Lodian wrote on Dec 30, 2008 11:04 PM:
Lodian wrote on Dec 30, 2008 11:04 PM:
The people (we) cannot vote to take away the rights of other law abiding citizens. "
Lodian wrote on Dec 30, 2008 10:45 PM:
Excellent, voter! The sad thing is that I don't see these same folks discussing divorce anywhere near as seriously as they campaign against gay couples and insist on denying them their rights. I don't think their desire is to preserve the sanctity of marriage at all. "
Lodian wrote on Dec 30, 2008 10:22 PM:
" I would like to take this opportunity to announce my engagement to my life partner. "Blackie" and I have been together for years. The fact that Blackie is a sheep should not matter to anyone. We have had to put up with jokes about me living with a Black Sheep but that's how it is when we have to hide in the closet..oops I mean barn. "
Mad Dog: Do you think anyone here is surprised at your private life? "
Lodian wrote on Dec 30, 2008 10:19 PM:
" Give Billy a break. Gay marriage is insanity. Ask anyone from any culture from any generation (besides this one of course), throughout the history of mankind. "
You need to venture out of your own small little group once in awhile. "
Lodian wrote on Dec 30, 2008 10:17 PM:
bobbyg wrote on Dec 30, 2008 9:35 PM:
"from all of history past until a handful of years ago, homosexual sex WAS an abhoration. now "liberal minds" have continually chipped away at solid principles in favor of self definement/justification.
it isn't "enlightenment" for which liberals have "arrived", it's called personal integrity flushing, trading what was once "off limits" in order to get themselves into a place whereby they can excuse away their OWN "trades"
Wow you are so right, it has only been a handful of years since most religions changed thier minds on slavery. Most religions were against not having slaves and used the Bible as the tool to try to keep it.
Its was only a handful of years that women have been able to vote (again religion was against it and used the Bible to oppress women).
It was only a "handful of years" since non-whites were allowed to vote. Again the Bible was used to oppress.
It was only a handful of years ago that mixed races were allowed to marry and religion using the Bible was also against that. "
dyan wrote on Dec 30, 2008 8:59 PM:
real facts wrote on Dec 30, 2008 8:51 PM:
cracks me up how many people bust my chops for things i say to people.....but when billy rubin the human flushing toilet goes to the sewers of life to express his "opinion", NO ONE says squat.
tell us again voter what a "sane person" billy rubin is...
how about another proclamation from sam when she said billy was a "wonderful human being"...
disgusting semblances of human beings telling yourselves your good people
you people make me sick (literally) "
real facts wrote on Dec 30, 2008 8:44 PM:
What does beastiality have to do with love between two humans? ").
ALOT
it is the next natural progression of humanity NOT being willing to call perversion, perversion.
from all of history past until a handful of years ago, homosexual sex WAS an abhoration. now "liberal minds" have continually chipped away at solid principles in favor of self definement/justification.
it isn't "enlightenment" for which liberals have "arrived", it's called personal integrity flushing, trading what was once "off limits" in order to get themselves into a place whereby they can excuse away their OWN "trades"
liberals made those "trades" in the form of abortion, pornography and now homosexuality.
next on the "trade docket" is child molestation, sibling sex ans sex with animals under the auspices not being sold as an "individual right"
there is nothing "loving" about same sex - it is OUTSIDE design, on ANY level "
sam wrote on Dec 30, 2008 7:59 PM:
I miss you and truthfuly, I do still read all your blogs.
I just miss the old you.
Happy New Year to you. "
Cogito wrote on Dec 30, 2008 7:36 PM:
real facts wrote on Dec 30, 2008 7:35 PM:
in your justification dream world
give the truth a break billy, since when are gays monogamous for any length of time?
the gay world is akin to the children jumpy-jumps, in that gays roam from "relationship" to relationship, and committed "long-term" relationships are about as common in the gay experience as a unicorn sighting at the lodi lake nature trail.
tell us again billy, how many gays STAY TOGETHER for any number of years.
that number (that homosexuals use) as a device for homosexual societal justifiction.....is a joke.
the talk about "gay marriage" is done so pure and simple as a marketing tool for homosexuals to be accepted by society, and their latest highjack "methodolgy" is "marriage"
maybe bobby can expound on "committed relationships", or both of you as the gay "experts" you claim to be on these boards can tell us about all those gay "relationships" where the two people involved stay together for ANY length of time
maybe-when-they-are-old,__and-have-run-out-of-other-"options" "
sam wrote on Dec 30, 2008 7:12 PM:
On a side note, Happy New Year to ya. "
Flamerinlodi wrote on Dec 30, 2008 7:11 PM:
Cogito wrote on Dec 30, 2008 7:05 PM:
sam wrote on Dec 30, 2008 6:56 PM:
What a weird world we live in. "
voter wrote on Dec 30, 2008 6:53 PM:
sam wrote on Dec 30, 2008 6:51 PM:
I respect Obama's view and Arnie's views, as well as my own. It matters not if I am for same sex marriages.
If two consenting adults, under the law, commits to a relationship, they should have the same legal rights as the rest of us. "
Cogito wrote on Dec 30, 2008 6:42 PM:
bobbyg wrote on Dec 30, 2008 6:42 PM:
Rich are you there? "
Billy Rubin wrote on Dec 30, 2008 6:36 PM:
What point that might be was lost behind Lodi74's need to call the writer a fool and to call The Advocate "clearly biased" with absolutely no basis in fact except his own bias.
Girardway is apparently no longer in favor of open forum discussion - implying the writer was foolish to write directly to the source asking for clarification. Maybe Safeway74ASAF wants nobody but himself to write letters to the editor anymore or to blog. He says it would be simple to find out, but he resents the question being actually asked. Perhaps questions are done telepathically in the Safeway household of eternal marital bliss.
I wish, however, LodiSGT74 would tell us (before he flounces away again) why he is so bitter about the possibility of gays enjoying the same monogamous, long-lasting wedded serenity he purports to enjoy. Surely anyone celebrating so many happy anniversaries would cheer others' desire to do the same?
Or not? "
voter wrote on Dec 30, 2008 6:27 PM:
bobbyg wrote on Dec 30, 2008 6:09 PM:
bobbyg wrote on Dec 30, 2008 6:08 PM:
sam wrote on Dec 30, 2008 6:07 PM:
Now you sound like a bitter, pontificating, lonely fool.
Blog on. "
bobbyg wrote on Dec 30, 2008 6:04 PM:
I dont abuse animals...I merely add a touch of garlic salt and let them cook at 425 degrees for 25 minutes or so. "
Mad dog, if you are cooking them at that Temperature you are definately abusing the animal... no more than 350 please! "
LodiSafeway wrote on Dec 30, 2008 5:54 PM:
My first comment was really the only point I desired to make; that by determining just what the News-Sentinel's policy was regarding the publication of marriage announcements, the author might not have had a reason to write his letter at all. By relying upon only one source for his information (in this case a clearly biased publication), it would have been very simple to find out the answer beforehand.
To the regular cast of characters who apparently see red whenever they see my screen-name, sorry, not this time. Responding to your drivel isn't worth the risk of them shutting me down. "
LodiSafeway wrote on Dec 30, 2008 5:52 PM:
sam wrote on Dec 30, 2008 5:28 PM:
What does beastiality have to do with love between two humans? "
Mad Dog wrote on Dec 30, 2008 5:12 PM:
Voter: Me? abuse animals? nope...I belong to PETA (People for Eating Tasty Animals). I dont abuse animals...I merely add a touch of garlic salt and let them cook at 425 degrees for 25 minutes or so. "
BegsBelief wrote on Dec 30, 2008 5:09 PM:
" BegsBelief, well we are celebrating 35 years of marriage .. having the "same sex". Works for us.
To all you reading this, love the one you're with. "
~~~~~~~
Hello Sam,
Congratulations on 35 years.
I am not married to my partner but been together for 15 years now. I was previously married but I have no complaints of loving the one I am with. "
loadeye wrote on Dec 30, 2008 4:59 PM:
LodiSafeway wrote on Dec 30, 2008 4:52 PM:
sam wrote on Dec 30, 2008 4:45 PM:
To all you reading this, love the one you're with. "
LodiSafeway wrote on Dec 30, 2008 4:42 PM:
I point you once again to my recent statement that, ". . . Things are not always as simple as some would like, or need them to be." This singular mindset may be indicative of a severe lapse in our educational system (specifically LUSD?); or just individual lack of ability to see beyond their own feelings. "
BegsBelief wrote on Dec 30, 2008 4:33 PM:
I have to admit I laughed when I read the article. I saw a card in shop yesterday. A woman and man in bed and the woman saying," I cannot understand all the fuss about same sex couples. We have been having the same sex as a couple for the last 25 years."
If only it was that easy. I do not think there is anything to worry about.
Maybe Lodi are just waiting for them to be together for 25 years having the same sex. "
voter wrote on Dec 30, 2008 4:16 PM:
Billy Rubin wrote on Dec 30, 2008 3:29 PM:
Tell us, Safelodimanderkind, how DO you do it? How do you keep the life in your sanctified marriage? So many, it seems, crumble in divorce. Or some just live grim lives of desperation, almost as brother and sister.
You, however, ALWAYS seem to have spot-on knowledge.
Pray tell us your secrets to success! "
Billy Rubin wrote on Dec 30, 2008 3:22 PM:
Here again we see the most lovelorn are the deeply closeted conservatives such as yourself. We see it often in the LNS blogs.
My advice would be to not despair, Rush. 50 is not too old to come out and love will ultimately be where you find it. If you keep hanging around the schools you may find that teen you desperately seek; then will be the time to worry about how you will get around the legal tangles. It makes no sense to worry about it until you find someone who can tolerate your presence, does it?
And Flamer, please re-read my earlier comments. "
LodiSafeway wrote on Dec 30, 2008 3:18 PM:
For some I would suspect that their vote for the measure wasn't against homosexuals at all; but "for" the sanctity of marriage between one man and one woman. Let's also no forget that it was the entire State of California that voted for the Constitutional Amendment - not just little ol' Lodi.
But this is precisely why this issue is so difficult to discuss in any rational manner. If one is for something, it is automatically assumed that they are against something else - and this is not always the case. Things are not always as simple as some would like, or need them to be. "
LodiSafeway wrote on Dec 30, 2008 3:12 PM:
voter wrote on Dec 30, 2008 3:09 PM:
voter wrote on Dec 30, 2008 2:49 PM:
" Question: When gay mariage is finally legalized, will emancipated gay minors then be allowed to marry 40 or 50 year olds?"
I can't believe you are asking this. Can teen GIRLS marry 40 or 50 year old men? Yes, they can. Can teen BOYS marry 40 or 50 year old women? Yes, they can. Your lack of concern for heterosexual teens is telling. The rules for gays would be the same as they are now for heterosexuals. "
David Nielsen wrote on Dec 30, 2008 2:46 PM:
Flamerinlodi wrote on Dec 30, 2008 2:31 PM:
El Rushbo wrote on Dec 30, 2008 1:42 PM:
El Rushbo wrote on Dec 30, 2008 1:39 PM:
Billy Rubin wrote on Dec 30, 2008 12:43 PM:
Stating that a male sheep is a "goat" does, however, make one appear very foolish.
Indeed. "
LodiSafeway wrote on Dec 30, 2008 12:16 PM:
Prior to submitting any letter to any newspaper, I attempt to thoroughly examine the issue about which I am writing. This would include finding out precisely what the policy is regarding the News-Sentinel's publication of engagement/wedding announcements. His lack of real curiosity is supported by his own conclusions that something must be wrong in Lodi - hence the "chill" that he describes he has felt based upon his own "interpretation" of the facts.
You also seem to think Lodi is a frightening place to live for homosexuals. Whether or not that fear is justified could not be based upon how the News-Sentinel announces local couplings, as their policy does not appear to discriminate. "
bobbyg wrote on Dec 30, 2008 11:09 AM:
Perhaps we need to know when Mr. Gorman wrote this letter? As the Advocates piece ran many many months ago. Did the LNS hold this letter until now or did the Writter on recently write this article?
You dont see a lot of Weddings/engagements announced in the LNS compared to the actual amount of those in this community. Same Gender couples are still scared of this conservative community, there have been several weddings of Same Gender couples, but most are of closeted people or people who just want to "blend in" and not make a scene. "
LodiSafeway wrote on Dec 30, 2008 9:34 AM:
LodiSafeway wrote on Dec 30, 2008 9:31 AM:
Here, Mr. Gorman isn't just asking whether or not the News-Sentinel is behaving in a negative manner toward same-sex couples, as for whatever reason he left The Advocate's claim to "interpretation" (interpretation of what, exactly?); no, this letter was more of an accusation based upon nothing more than a self-serving sexually-based publication that itself already formed an opinion based on nothing but supposition. In the final analysis, Michael Gorman appears very foolish indeed.
Logically, the editor of the News-Sentinel put this matter to rest with the "Note" added after this Letter-to-the-Editor. "
Layla Bohm, reporter wrote on Dec 30, 2008 8:50 AM:
Cogito wrote on Dec 30, 2008 8:49 AM:
voter wrote on Dec 30, 2008 8:42 AM:
Mad Dog wrote on Dec 30, 2008 8:35 AM:
Cogito wrote on Dec 30, 2008 8:18 AM:
T & C wrote on Dec 30, 2008 8:14 AM:
Acampo_Mom wrote on Dec 30, 2008 8:06 AM:
Comments on this story are now closed.