NationStates Jolt Archive

... and I believe sex is best kept inside of marriage, doesn't mean anything is wrong with me.

I never claimed it did. We're trying to get to the root of your sexism here.

I never claimed it did. We're trying to get to the root of your sexism here.


I'm not a sexist, not by even the longest stretching of the term can you begin to class me as one.

So I smoke cigars, that doesn't mean anything...

All hail Refused Party Program, psychic master of the Universe.

All hail Refused Party Program, psychic master of the Universe.
okay, this whole exchange has been utterly brilliant. i bow before thee, Master, and make homage to thy genius.

cigars...hehehehe...

I'm not a sexist, not by even the longest stretching of the term can you begin to class me as one.

Yes, the truth hurts, but the first step towards recovery is admitting that you have a problem.

I want you to repeat after me:

"My name is <your name> and I am a sexist! :("

Try to look really ashamed when you say it. And don't forget to stand up.

Yes, the truth hurts, but the first step towards recovery is admitting that you have a problem.

I want you to repeat after me:

"My name is <your name> and I am a sexist! :("

Try to look really ashamed when you say it. And don't forget to stand up.



I'm not a sexist, I don't have a problem, I don't need help, I don't need some "step program", and I don't want to be "recovered" because I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM.

Simply believing women ought to act decent is not a problem, it's morality.

Girls in my HS wondered why I never accepted their advances, well hell, you don't rub up against a guy, spread your legs in plain view of him, offer to suck him off, etc, and expect him to accept! At least not a good guy, and I was a good guy.

Upright, moral, and virtuous, and I'm proud of it.

Yes, I was better than them, there, I admit it, I was better than the whores and the whore mongers. (whore-monger = a man who associates with loose women, thus furthering the problem of the societal whoredom)

I've already answered this in that it may make it such that they don't bleed on their wedding night, and a man has the right to know if she's lying or telling the truth about her virginity.

A woman has the right to know also, so if someday I'm going to get married, and the bride wants, I'd take a polygraph.
She also has the right to play sports and live her life as she sees fit, without having to worry that some intolerant hatemongering ass is going to beat her because of his/her archaic beliefs.

Now we are back to wondering if VE is a puppet, that was too coincidental methinks. :)

I hava teach you da way of da condom and this is how you repay me!

She also has the right to play sports and live her life as she sees fit, without having to worry that some intolerant hatemongering ass is going to beat her because of his/her archaic beliefs.


I resent that, it was a low-blow, and a flame, not even worthy of a reply. But I shall, for the sake of rebuttal, reply.


I'm neither a hatemonger, an ass, or intolerant. I may be a bit old-fashioned, but hey, treating your neighbor nice was an old ideal, helping them out when the harvest on their farm wasn't too great, now it's all the "Me" generation. So you go on ahead and enjoy this new society you've all killed morality for the sake of making, I'm going to stick with traditionalism.

Now we are back to wondering if VE is a puppet, that was too coincidental methinks. :)


I say again, I'm a major RPer in II, my old names were Decisive Action and Communist Mississippi, I am not a puppet of anybody.

I'm not a sexist, I don't have a problem, I don't need help, I don't need some "step program", and I don't want to be "recovered" because I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM.

Simply believing women ought to act decent is not a problem, it's morality.

Girls in my HS wondered why I never accepted their advances, well hell, you don't rub up against a guy, spread your legs in plain view of him, offer to suck him off, etc, and expect him to accept! At least not a good guy, and I was a good guy.

Upright, moral, and virtuous, and I'm proud of it.

Yes, I was better than them, there, I admit it, I was better than the whores and the whore mongers. (whore-monger = a man who associates with loose women, thus furthering the problem of the societal whoredom)
I won't even address you claim to not being sexist, but I find this last bit "I was better than the whores and the whore mongers. (whore-monger = a man who associates with loose women...)" to be highly interesting.

See, there was this guy, son of God, went by the name Jesus. He spent his days spreading love and forgiveness, and hung out with the outcasts of society (whores included). Are you saying you're better than Jesus?
Seems to me that Christian (good ones at least) are supposed to emulate (immitate?) Jesus, forgiving others and all that jazz.
All I see coming from you is alot of hate.

I'm not a sexist, I don't have a problem, I don't need help, I don't need some "step program", and I don't want to be "recovered" because I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM.

Methinks the lady doth protest too much.

Unfortunatley our time is up. Before our next session I want you to think about your mother and then take a blank piece of paper and a pencil and just draw. Do this without thinking too much and time yourself. Stop after 1 minutes. Please bring the results with you next week.

Methinks the lady doth protest too much.

Unfortunatley our time is up. Before our next session I want you to think about your mother and then take a blank piece of paper and a pencil and just draw. Do this without thinking too much and time yourself. Stop after 1 minutes. Please bring the results with you next week.


I can't draw a manifestation of the thoughts, "spiteful, hatefilled, rotten, adultering, back-stabbing, against my father, abusive, compulsive liar, femi-commie, bi---" and make it into a drawing. I really can't draw well at all.

I resent that, it was a low-blow, and a flame, not even worthy of a reply. But I shall, for the sake of rebuttal, reply.


I'm neither a hatemonger, an ass, or intolerant. I may be a bit old-fashioned, but hey, treating your neighbor nice was an old ideal, helping them out when the harvest on their farm wasn't too great, now it's all the "Me" generation. So you go on ahead and enjoy this new society you've all killed morality for the sake of making, I'm going to stick with traditionalism.I'm sorry, read my post correctly next time. "She also has the right to play sports and live her life as she sees fit, without having to worry that some intolerant hatemongering ass is going to beat her because of his/her archaic beliefs"
I was not singling you out, but speaking of people who would carry out acts of violence because of a few archaic beliefs.

Methinks the lady doth protest too much.

Unfortunatley our time is up. Before our next session I want you to think about your mother and then take a blank piece of paper and a pencil and just draw. Do this without thinking too much and time yourself. Stop after 1 minutes. Please bring the results with you next week.


I can't draw a manifestation of the thoughts, "spiteful, hatefilled, rotten, adultering, back-stabbing, against my father, abusive, compulsive liar, femi-commie, bi---" and make it into a drawing. I really can't draw well at all.

I won't even address you claim to not being sexist, but I find this last bit "I was better than the whores and the whore mongers. (whore-monger = a man who associates with loose women...)" to be highly interesting.

See, there was this guy, son of God, went by the name Jesus. He spent his days spreading love and forgiveness, and hung out with the outcasts of society (whores included). Are you saying you're better than Jesus?
Seems to me that Christian (good ones at least) are supposed to emulate (immitate?) Jesus, forgiving others and all that jazz.
All I see coming from you is alot of hate.



I'm a Calvinist, for us the main word that goes with God is "vengeful", or you could substitute, "hateful", "wrathful", "angry", "enraged". They're all good words.

I'm not ducking out of the discussion, I have to get moving to get a ton of work done, then I have a class, I'll be back probably around 8 pm EASTERN.

I can't draw a manifestation of the thoughts, "spiteful, hatefilled, rotten, adultering, back-stabbing, against my father, abusive, compulsive liar, femi-commie, bi---" and make it into a drawing. I really can't draw well at all.

Joviality aside, I believe that your hatred of the female gender stems from your relationship with your mother. Clearly there are some unresolved issues, as you have raised yourself.

Yes, I'm charging you for this, now get out of my office and don't come back until you have a drawing.

Joviality aside, I believe that your hatred of the female gender stems from your relationship with your mother. Clearly there are some unresolved issues, as you have raised yourself.

Yes, I'm charging you for this, now get out of my office and don't come back until you have a drawing.


No, I don't draw, period. Anyway, all of my drawings in middle school and high school, often got me into trouble. I was dragged down to the office and asked about the "recurring themes of violence in your drawings and writing."


Bah!

Somehow I'm not surprised.

Somehow I'm not surprised.


I once wrote a story where my school was taken over by the Iraqi Republican Guard (this was in 1996) because it was sitting on tons of stolen Iraqi Oil, and my friend and I got into a shoot-out with the arabs who practiced "spray and pray" rather than aiming, plus they believed in Allah, and we believed in Christ, so we won. :)


Anyway, I also wrote other stories, mostly about war, fighting, etc.


I was the only person who brought in a copy of Wolfenstein (and a computer to play it on) for 1st grade show and tell.

I also asked if I could bring a rocket launcher in for 4th grade show and tell (a relative of mine got one and smuggled it back after he was done killing Nazis in France and Luxembourg in 44')
(They turned my request down :( )

Hmm, I'm not sure. I know I would be furious and not very merciful at all. I wouldn't let him abandon the child or dump it on me though. Probably give him some help after I've cooled down.

I'd be shocked. I mean, not about the whole getting a girl pregnant thing. I'd be shocked that I managed to procreate myself.

well for all you homophobes....bastardz :upyours: ....you could say at least he is straight

Svae this crap...I mean..er...valuable information for next week's session. Get drawing in the meantime.

Svae this crap...I mean..er...valuable information for next week's session. Get drawing in the meantime.


The funniest thing I remember from my senior year of HS. I think it was either myself or my best friend who it, I'm not quite sure. But anyway, a conversation was going on, he and I were talking, and some devil woman (she was a whore) interrupted us. I do believe it I was who verbally slapped her back into her place with a, "Quiet woman, men are talking." It was a classic, it sure shut her up. Anyway, regardless of whether it was myself or my friend who said it, we all a good ole laugh.

The funniest thing I remember from my senior year of HS. I think it was either myself or my best friend who it, I'm not quite sure. But anyway, a conversation was going on, he and I were talking, and some devil woman (she was a whore) interrupted us. I do believe it I was who verbally slapped her back into her place with a, "Quiet woman, men are talking." It was a classic, it sure shut her up. Anyway, regardless of whether it was myself or my friend who said it, we all a good ole laugh.

So I assume you are finished HS. Do you attend university? If so which one?

So I assume you are finished HS. Do you attend university? If so which one?

Yes I do, and none of your business. I'm not going to give you information which would help you locate me.

Yes I do, and none of your business. I'm not going to give you information which would help you locate me.
Yes, 'cause we'll rape you if we find out what college you go to.

Please answer this in a logical way. Some women are not born with a hymen, isn't trust enough. And not playing sports to please someone in the future is a good thing? Are you saying that they should not be allowed to play sports at all?

Please answer this in a logical way. Some women are not born with a hymen, isn't trust enough. And not playing sports to please someone in the future is a good thing? Are you saying that they should not be allowed to play sports at all?


If I trusted and loved a woman enough to marry her, I'd not care if she bled, I'd take her word for it that she was a virgin if she said so. Anyway, I supposed if I cared for her enough, it wouldn't really matter, but I could never marry an adulteror, and probably never marry a divorcee (depends on if her ex-husband is still alive, the bible is quite clear on the matter).

The funniest thing I remember from my senior year of HS. I think it was either myself or my best friend who it, I'm not quite sure. But anyway, a conversation was going on, he and I were talking, and some devil woman (she was a whore) interrupted us. I do believe it I was who verbally slapped her back into her place with a, "Quiet woman, men are talking." It was a classic, it sure shut her up. Anyway, regardless of whether it was myself or my friend who said it, we all a good ole laugh.

Youre proud of that type of behavior? I take it women arent thought of too highly in your religion?

If I trusted and loved a woman enough to marry her, I'd not care if she bled, I'd take her word for it that she was a virgin if she said so. Anyway, I supposed if I cared for her enough, it wouldn't really matter, but I could never marry an adulteror, and probably never marry a divorcee (depends on if her ex-husband is still alive, the bible is quite clear on the matter).

Ok, see your already full of common sense! Good.

The funniest thing I remember from my senior year of HS. I think it was either myself or my best friend who it, I'm not quite sure. But anyway, a conversation was going on, he and I were talking, and some devil woman (she was a whore) interrupted us. I do believe it I was who verbally slapped her back into her place with a, "Quiet woman, men are talking." It was a classic, it sure shut her up. Anyway, regardless of whether it was myself or my friend who said it, we all a good ole laugh.
Awwww... how cute. A homosexual :fluffle:

Youre proud of that type of behavior? I take it women arent thought of too highly in your religion?


Women do NOT so much as speak in a Calvinist church, let alone preach.


1 Corinthians 14:33-38
33For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.
34Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law.
35And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.
36What? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only?
37If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.
38But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant.




Calvinists have a clearly established belief in traditional family and gender roles.

Ephesians 5:22-25
22Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.
23For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.
24Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.
25Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;




Calvinists don't buy into "marriage is a partnership" or any of that, "Hey maybe the woman ought to lead and the man can follow" or any of the modern, new-age, feminist anti-Christ doctrines of devil.

Genesis 3:16
16Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.



Calvinists, at least as I see it, don't believe any woman ought to have power over any man. Thus we are obviously opposed to any situation where women have authority over men (women as officers in the armed forces, women corporate executives, etc)

1 Timothy 2:11-15
11Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
12But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
13For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
14And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
15Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.

Awwww... how cute. A homosexual :fluffle:


Funny, every single whore I turned down, called me gay for turning them down. (Little word of advice, whores HATE being turned down, they can't stand the idea that somebody wouldn't want them)



So what is your angle in calling me gay? Are you an Anti-Calvinist? Or are you just a random flamer/baiter?

Funny, every single whore I turned down, called me gay for turning them down. (Little word of advice, whores HATE being turned down, they can't stand the idea that somebody wouldn't want them)



So what is your angle in calling me gay? Are you an Anti-Calvinist? Or are you just a random flamer/baiter?
No, I am someone who respects all humans as equals

You know what? You omit the parts of the Bible that tell about so- in-so having 6 wives and laying with all of them. How is that Christian??? So basically, you think women should walk 3 feet behind you and not open their mouths unless its to ask permission to do something?

Thats BS....and I dont care if its in the bible or not. I think youve been brainwashed by this crap. Surely you arent this much of a Neanderthal?

You know what? You omit the parts of the Bible that tell about so- in-so having 6 wives and laying with all of them. How is that Christian??? So basically, you think women should walk 3 feet behind you and not open their mouths unless its to ask permission to do something?

Thats BS....and I dont care if its in the bible or not. I think youve been brainwashed by this crap. Surely you arent this much of a Neanderthal?


All but one of the passages I cited are from the New Testament, parts of the Old Testament were specifically voided by Christ. The Old Testament allows for polygamy, the New Testament doesn't.

I was raised in the Roman Catholic Church until I saw it for an apostate church, and converted to Calvinism.

Well VE....it doesnt sound like a very nice form of religion. But if that is what you believe...then thats your choice. I just cant get behind something that says I'm not worthy to speak (not preach) in a church.

Go Peech :fluffle:

Well VE....it doesnt sound like a very nice form of religion. But if that is what you believe...then thats your choice. I just cant get behind something that says I'm not worthy to speak (not preach) in a church.


I think some Calvinist churches, depending on how they interpret it, let women sing in the churches, but never preaching. Also, a few interesting facts about Calvinists (Old School Baptists).


1) They don't celebrate Christmas. (Christ was born in the spring, it's commonly accepted. Anyway, we are not commanded to celebrate his birth, and anyway, the day was just made so pagans could get comfortable converting into Christianity and keeping all the holidays about the same as they were. It was to gain "Nominal" converts, to inflate the numbers. Calvinists have never been concerned with numbers)

2) They don't pass collection plates or accept your money (they consider using religion to get money, a grave wrong)

3) They don't have Sunday schools (the bible says not to keep little ones away from Christ, Christ didn't shun the young and send them off to "Sunday schools" to be taught little fables, most often by women)

4) There are no paintings, statues, idols, icons, or crucifixes in the church. (Idolatry is forbidden)

The "Sunday Schools" that I am familiar with, teach children about God in a way in which they can understand it. On their level. Children cant be expected to understand the scripture verbatim like we are discussing here. How can they be expected to do that? Sunday School isnt a bad thing for children. (for those who attend worship services. )

What would you do if your son, aged between 14 and 16, got a girl pregnant?


Well Kahta, I hope you have a good laugh at this answer.

I'd point and laugh, and tell him to deal with it his own damn self.
Good fun would be had by all, espically me, at his expense. I'd even make sure the girl he got pregnant had a really good laugh at him.

And then, many years later, I'd get my grandchild laughing at him.
Because we all know I'm just that mean.

Michael Servetus more like MichLOL Servetus

The "Sunday Schools" that I am familiar with, teach children about God in a way in which they can understand it. On their level. Children cant be expected to understand the scripture verbatim like we are discussing here. How can they be expected to do that? Sunday School isnt a bad thing for children. (for those who attend worship services. )


If God wants the children to be drawn unto Him, then His will shall make it so. A 5 year old could understand the gospel better than the Pope, if God willed it. Indeed only those God wills to understand and accept the truth, will understand and accept it.

Sunday school has no merit in scripture and only serves to distract and mislead children.

Michael Servetus more like MichLOL Servetus


Servetus explained:

http://www.mslick.com/we.htm

If God wants the children to be drawn unto Him, then His will shall make it so. A 5 year old could understand the gospel better than the Pope, if God willed it. Indeed only those God wills to understand and accept the truth, will understand and accept it.

Sunday school has no merit in scripture and only serves to distract and mislead children.



bah....we'll continue this tomorrow. I'm going to bed. night.

What would you do if your son, aged between 14 and 16, got a girl pregnant?

This would be my reply.

C'mere, son. No, no, it's okay, just come here. Right here...wait wait...just a little closer...

WHAM!

If I trusted and loved a woman enough to marry her, I'd not care if she bled, I'd take her word for it that she was a virgin if she said so.


..but it seems that if your son loved a woman enough to marry her, then you would care if she bled, yes?

..but it seems that if your son loved a woman enough to marry her, then you would care if she bled, yes?


Only if she told him that she was a virgin, and he believed her, and she was lying.

I'd be very stern with my son, no matter what the girl chose to do. If she got an abortion, I'd be fine with that, though my son would definitely have less free time on his hands. If she chose to give it up for adoption, same as above. If she chose to raise the baby, I'd force my son to marry her. Harsh, but that's consequences for ya.

-6.46? jk :p

I would probably try and support my son and his girlfriend as best I can. I probably wouldnt punish him and I wouldnt force him to get married.

Only if she told him that she was a virgin, and he believed her, and she was lying.

How do you prove if she was lying or not?


...and come to that, how come it is justified for you to lie and fabricate false rape charges against a woman, but it isn't okay for a woman to lie about her virginity?

How do you prove if she was lying or not?


Guess you'd never really know for sure, just get to know somebody so well that you can believe anything they say without hesitation.

How do you prove if she was lying or not?

Lie detector?

*shrugs*

Guess you'd never really know for sure, just get to know somebody so well that you can believe anything they say without hesitation.

I thought you were going to beat her if there was no blood on the bedsheets, no? - or does this apply only to your hypothetical daughter rather than your hypothetical daughter-in-law?

I thought you were going to beat her if there was no blood on the bedsheets, no? - or does this apply only to your hypothetical daughter rather than your hypothetical daughter-in-law?


I'd have no right to beat somebody else's daughter, none at all. The bible doesn't allow for that, period.

Anyway, if my son was convinced she was telling the truth, that's good enough for me I suppose.

If my son-in-law was convinced my daughter was the telling the truth, and so was I, that'd be good enough for me. (I think most parents will know if their kid is a virgin before the wedding night).

I'd have no right to beat somebody else's daughter, none at all. The bible doesn't allow for that, period.

But it allows bearing false witness, yes?

That is never an option, as a matter of fact, I'd let her realize, if she even considered it, I'd have her in court and charge her with raping my son, or taking advantage of somebody not emotionally mature enough to consent.

Anyway, if my son was convinced she was telling the truth, that's good enough for me I suppose.

If my son-in-law was convinced my daughter was the telling the truth, and so was I, that'd be good enough for me. (I think most parents will know if their kid is a virgin before the wedding night).

So why all the sordid malarky with collecting possibly soiled bedsheets?

So why all the sordid malarky with collecting possibly soiled bedsheets?

Now now, we all need a hobby.

But it allows bearing false witness, yes?





So why all the sordid malarky with collecting possibly soiled bedsheets?


You are allowed to lie to unbelievers, indeed it is commanded.

Ideally, there will be sheets that are bloodied, and they will be collected. It's just to keep the gal's reputation from being assailed by any who might seek to sully it.

(I think most parents will know if their kid is a virgin before the wedding night).

Hahahaha, that's priceless.

Actually I suggest you read Berand Langer's Plain and Amish. They are possibly the most devout christians in the US, and you would find their attitude towards sex (including premarital) interesting to say the least.

Edit: And they don't bother with the bedsheets thingy.

Anyway, if my son was convinced she was telling the truth, that's good enough for me I suppose.

If my son-in-law was convinced my daughter was the telling the truth, and so was I, that'd be good enough for me. (I think most parents will know if their kid is a virgin before the wedding night).

So would women that you know well and trust be allowed to play sports or not?

You are allowed to lie to unbelievers, indeed it is commanded.

Indulge me by pointing out where, would you? At what point was it determined that the members of the judicial system of the United States were unbelievers?

EDIT: come to that, why should I, as an unbeliever, believe you when you claim this?

Ideally, there will be sheets that are bloodied, and they will be collected. It's just to keep the gal's reputation from being assailed by any who might seek to sully it.


So, being banned form playing sports and being regularly beaten between the ages of about 12 and 18 - both of those are okay, but having her reputation assailed is just a step too far?

So would women that you know well and trust be allowed to play sports or not?



Hmmmm, this question would require much thought, I'm not totally decided one way or the other.

On one hand, I'd not want a daughter of mine to possibly get hurt. Also, I'd really not want her out of the house for activities I might not approve of.

On the other hand, it's a good way to stay in shape, meet people who might be nice (but again on the first-hand, they could be bad folks)... Hmmm, I suppose if I was there to supervise, so that nobody did anything lame (Hey, I played sports occasionally in the school yard and after school at nearby parks, I know how games go, folks get a game of "touch football" that turns into "Jump kick football")



I'm as of yet, undecided for sure.

I'll get back to you on this though, ask me again in a few days or weeks if you remember, and maybe I'll have thought about this enough to decide for sure.

And I have already been there - last summer as I was happily drinking a beer in a pub, I got a text message from my daughter, saying (I have saved it): "Mum, don't get angry or have a fit or anything, but you're going to be a grandmother in December, and that's that." Admittedly she's a bit older than 16, but I was still rather shocked Anyway, I have a beautiful granddaughter now, I love being a grandmother, it's fantastic Yay, someone with experience and who actually makes sense! :eek: I was beginning to lose hope. :p Well, ok, not really, since the majority of posters aren't batshit crazy, but I did aprpeciate your post. :)

And OMFG, how is allowing your daughter/close female to play sort even a question? If she wants to play, great. She'll get fit, meet people and have fun. Worried about illicit lockerroom activities or something? :rolleyes:

Indulge me by pointing out where, would you? At what point was it determined that the members of the judicial system of the United States were unbelievers?

EDIT: come to that, why should I, as an unbeliever, believe you when you claim this?




So, being banned form playing sports and being regularly beaten between the ages of about 12 and 18 - both of those are okay, but having her reputation assailed is just a step too far?


Most people in the USA deny or are ignorant of the 5 Points of Calvinism, thus they are not entitled to be treated as Christ commanded his followers to treat their spiritual brethren. We can lie to them if it serves the will of the Sovereign God.


Most judges render decisions which empower sodomites and those whom God has said are unclean, thus they may pay lip-service to God, but their actions, which speak louder than their words, mock Him.

Again, if a kid really needs a beating, it's pretty much up for the dad to decide, although he ought to let the mother have a say there too.

I'm as of yet, undecided for sure.

And what about lesbians, should they be allowed to play sports or not?

And what about lesbians, should they be allowed to play sports or not?

I don't care what they do, they're in a grave state of reprobation as it is, from their sin, whatever they do has no consequences of any importance that matter to me.

Most people in the USA deny or are ignorant of the 5 Points of Calvinism, thus they are not entitled to be treated as Christ commanded his followers to treat their spiritual brethren. We can lie to them if it serves the will of the Sovereign God.

1. How do you know if it does actually serve the will of the Sovereign God?

2. Where in the Bible are you commanded to lie to unbelievers?

3. Why should I believe your answers to questions #1 and #2?

4. Why should I believe your answer to question #3?

I don't care what they do, they're in a grave state of reprobation as it is, from their sin, whatever they do has no consequences of any importance that matter to me.

Ah, so the only women that you are certain should be allowed to play sports are lesbians and possibly your hypothetical daughters?



Edit: does this mean that lesbians carrying out abortions on heterosexual women have 'no consequences of any importance that matter' to you?

I don't care what they do, they're in a grave state of reprobation as it is, from their sin, whatever they do has no consequences of any importance that matter to me.

What sin? The bible doesn't say anything about lesbians.

Most judges render decisions which empower sodomites and those whom God has said are unclean, thus they may pay lip-service to God, but their actions, which speak louder than their words, mock Him.

IT is not only the judge that you would be lying to - but also the jury: if you found out that they were true Christians, then would you confess your lies and admit that you fabricated the rape charges out of whole cloth?

1. How do you know if it does actually serve the will of the Sovereign God?

2. Where in the Bible are you commanded to lie to unbelievers?

3. Why should I believe your answers to questions #1 and #2?

4. Why should I believe your answer to question #3?


1) I'm a human being, whatever I do, sin or good, is the will of God that I do it. I happen to also be Elect, thus it will be willed by God, that I walk the path of righteousness.

2) I think it's in the 5th book of Moses somewhere, I'd have to go specifically look it up, it'll take a while, I'm not sure where it is. But it says, "Thou may do this, but not unto thy brother" (brother= fellow believer)

3) You don't have to, it makes no difference to me.

4) #3 basically covers #4 here also.

What sin? The bible doesn't say anything about lesbians.

Womanfolk, thou shalt not wear comfortable shoes, nor shalt thou be friends of Dorothy, nor listenest thou to the works of Bikini Kill for they are unclean.

Leviticus.

Ah, so the only women that you are certain should be allowed to play sports are lesbians and possibly your hypothetical daughters?



Edit: does this mean that lesbians carrying out abortions on heterosexual women have 'no consequences of any importance that matter' to you?

It would have consequence, I mean I don't care what they do with their own lives, they're (in my opinion) headed to hell, so it just really doesn't matter to me what they do.

Womanfolk, thou shalt not wear comfortable shoes, nor shalt thou be friends of Dorothy, nor listenest thou to the works of Bikini Kill for they are unclean.
*snort* :D

Thou shall not play contact sports, nor shall ye sass back.

What sin? The bible doesn't say anything about lesbians.


It mentions it once I do believe, I'll check into it, TG or IM me in a day or so, okay?


Thanks.

1) I'm a human being, whatever I do, sin or good, is the will of God that I do it. I happen to also be Elect, thus it will be willed by God, that I walk the path of righteousness.

So it is also the will of God that abortionsits do their thang?

IT is not only the judge that you would be lying to - but also the jury: if you found out that they were true Christians, then would you confess your lies and admit that you fabricated the rape charges out of whole cloth?




If any woman was going to abort a child of a son of mine, I'd do anything and everything I could do to get her into jail for as long as possible.

So it is also the will of God that abortionsits do their thang?



Yes, God is the author of all good and all bad.

He wills us to hate those He wills to do evil.

Thus He makes abortion doctors do abortions, and then He wills us to hate them for it.

Thou shall not play contact sports, nor shall ye sass back.

For clean bedsheets are unclean.

Womanfolk, thou shalt not wear comfortable shoes, nor shalt thou be friends of Dorothy, nor listenest thou to the works of Bikini Kill for they are unclean.

Leviticus.

Ah, but as we all know, a friend of dorothy is a gay man, not a lesbian. So as long as you are a lipstick lesbian with a penchant for easy listening you should roll in under the wire. ;)

Ah, but as we all know, a friend of dorothy is a gay man, not a lesbian.


Indeed. Mea culpa - but it would hardly be in the spirit of the original Leviticus if it the pastiche wasn't riddled with glaring logical errors, would it?

So as long as you are a lipstick lesbian with a penchant for easy listening you should roll in under the wire. ;)


Does rolling in under the wire come before or after passing through the eye of the needle?

Indeed. Mea culpa - but it would hardly be in the spirit of the original Leviticus if it the pastiche wasn't riddled with glaring logical errors, would it?

Though it is perfectly internally consitent to some.


Does rolling in under the wire come before or after passing through the eye of the needle?

Depends on the size of your camel.

How do you prove if she was lying or not?


...and come to that, how come it is justified for you to lie and fabricate false rape charges against a woman, but it isn't okay for a woman to lie about her virginity?
I'd like to see this one answered VE.

"Oh, for a forty-parson power to chant Thy praise, Hypocrisy! Oh, for a hymn Loud as the virtues thou dost loudly vaunt, Not practise!"
-- Lord Byron

I'd like to see this one answered VE.

"Oh, for a forty-parson power to chant Thy praise, Hypocrisy! Oh, for a hymn Loud as the virtues thou dost loudly vaunt, Not practise!"
-- Lord Byron


To save the life of an unborn child it would be considered holy to lie.


If I had a son who was say 14-15, and a girl say 15-17, had sex with him, got pregnant by him, and was considering abortion. I'd use the threat of rape charges, to scare her into having the baby. If she didn't want to raise it, she could sign it over to me and I'd raise it (when I say I, that = my wife and I, provided she wanted to raise it, if not, I'd raise it entirely on my own effort) and then I'd give the kid to my son when he got out of college and had a job of his own.

Oh dear, there are already some women who are willing to renounce equality and to be led by men. www.realwomenca.com

Isn't that the group with the male spokesperson? They're such great followers they can't even speak for themselves!

*jumps back into convo*

As a Seventeen year old male, in a steady relationship, I have some opinions.

Quite soon we will becoming sexually active. Right now we have "dry sex" and even then, Condoms are used. When we actually start, she will be getting the Pill (Covered by Insurance, ye ye!) and we will also be using a condom.

Now, if I actually got her pregnant, I would ask her to get an abortion, or put up for adoption. If she says no, well theres not much else to it. With me going to University next year, it would royally eff up my life, but whatever, it was our choice to have sex in the first place.

Now what I don't understand is the excuse, "Its the woman's body, and her child" well, half that baby is my child... does this mean I can abort half the fetus?

As a Seventeen year old male, in a steady relationship, I have some opinions.

Quite soon we will becoming sexually active. Right now we have "dry sex" and even then, Condoms are used. When we actually start, she will be getting the Pill (Covered by Insurance, ye ye!) and we will also be using a condom.

Now, if I actually got her pregnant, I would ask her to get an abortion, or put up for adoption. If she says no, well theres not much else to it. With me going to University next year, it would royally eff up my life, but whatever, it was our choice to have sex in the first place.

Now what I don't understand is the excuse, "Its the woman's body, and her child" well, half that baby is my child... does this mean I can abort half the fetus?
Lets' put it this way, if you was your bodily exits to expand to fit a babies skull, be my guest because technically a man can become pregnant after a surgery but both the man and baby would die during childbirth.

That would certainly hurt, but not at all relevant to what Im saying. Such statments imply that men have no control over a babies birth. Men are blamed for getting a woman pregnant, but when it comes to choosing the fate of the child, its the womans decision.

That would certainly hurt, but not at all relevant to what Im saying. Such statments imply that men have no control over a babies birth. Men are blamed for getting a woman pregnant, but when it comes to choosing the fate of the child, its the womans decision.
Also the womans burden... which was what I was getting at.

Lets' put it this way, if you was your bodily exits to expand to fit a babies skull, be my guest because technically a man can become pregnant after a surgery but both the man and baby would die during childbirth.
What in the nine Hells?
A surgery to give a man a uterus?
I had heard that wasn't possible...

What in the nine Hells?
A surgery to give a man a uterus?
I had heard that wasn't possible...
It was jsut successfully completed with a mouse in I believe Sweden... The mouse successfully bore the child, however it couldn't have contractions, so therefore died before the mice could be born. In theory tht would work with humans, also since the repoductive aspect is generally the same.

It was jsut successfully completed with a mouse in I believe Sweden... The mouse successfully bore the child, however it couldn't have contractions, so therefore died before the mice could be born. In theory tht would work with humans, also since the repoductive aspect is generally the same.
I looked it up, and it seems you are correct that a male can become pregnant.
Not only that, but if this site is real, then there is a pregnant male in existance right now:
http://www.malepregnancy.com/

To save the life of an unborn child it would be considered holy to lie.


If I had a son who was say 14-15, and a girl say 15-17, had sex with him, got pregnant by him, and was considering abortion. I'd use the threat of rape charges, to scare her into having the baby.

Really? This is what I found the Bible to say about lying.
Sorry, folks, this is going to be long.

Psalm 58:33 The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies.

Exodus 20:16 "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor."

The Lord Jesus Christ, when speaking of the dastardly character of Satan, said "for he is a liar, and the father of it." (John 8:44)

Jeremiah 14:14
14 Then the LORD said to me, "The prophets are prophesying lies in my name. I have not sent them or appointed them or spoken to them. They are prophesying to you false visions, divinations, idolatries [a] and the delusions of their own minds.

Lying for personal gain, Lev. 6:1-7, a sin, requiring repayment to the victim of 120% of the value, and a sacrifice to God of repentance ("sacrifice of broken and contrite spirit", Psa. 51:17).

Proverbs 12:22 - Lying lips are abomination to the LORD: but they that deal truly are his delight.

Col. 2:8"Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ." .

Jer. 23:26. "How long shall this be in the heart of the prophets that prophesy lies? yes, they are prophets of the deceit of their own heart;".

2 Corinthians 11:13-15
13For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ. 14And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. 15Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works.

Proverbs 6:16-19
16These six things doth the LORD hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him: 17A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, 18An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief, 19A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren.

(Col.3:8-10)."But now you also put off all these; anger, wrath, malice, blasphemy, filthy communication out of your mouth. Lie not one to another, seeing that you have put off the old man with his deeds; And have put on the new man, which is renewed in knowledge after the image of him that created him:".

(Prov 21:28 KJV) A false witness shall perish: but the man that hears speaks constantly.

(Prov 19:5 KJV) A false witness shall not be unpunished, and he that speaks lies shall not escape.

Prov 19:5: Verse 5. Those that tell lies in discourse, are in a fair way to be guilty of bearing false-witness.

(Prov 10:18 KJV) He that hides hatred with lying lips, and he that utters a slander, is a fool.

Prov 21:28: Verse 28. The doom of a false witness is certain.

(Psa 7:14 KJV) Behold, he travails with iniquity, and has conceived mischief, and brought forth falsehood.

(Psa 7:15 KJV) He made a pit, and digged it, and is fallen into the ditch which he made.

(Psa 7:16 KJV) His mischief shall return upon his own head, and his violent dealing shall come down upon his own pate.

Psa. 15:1-3."Lord, who shall abide in your tabernacle: who shall dwell in your holy hill? He that walks uprightly and works righteousness, and speaks the truth in his heart. He that backbites (slanders) not with his tongue, nor does evil to his neighbor, nor takes up a reproach against (disgraces) his neighbor."

Psa. 24:3-5."Who shall ascend into the hill of the Lord? or who shall stand in his holy place? He that has clean hands, and a pure heart: who has not lifted up his soul unto vanity, nor sworn deceitfully. He shall receive the blessing from the Lord, and righteousness from the God of his salvation."


Funny, it says nowhere that I can find that 'your neighbor or your brother are the Elect': it says do not lie.

I looked it up, and it seems you are correct that a male can become pregnant.
Not only that, but if this site is real, then there is a pregnant male in existance right now:
http://www.malepregnancy.com/
I don't know about that, but I guess it's possible.

[QUOTE=VoteEarly]To save the life of an unborn child it would be considered holy to lie.


If I had a son who was say 14-15, and a girl say 15-17, had sex with him, got pregnant by him, and was considering abortion. I'd use the threat of rape charges, to scare her into having the baby.QUOTE]



Funny, it says nowhere that I can find that 'your neighbor or your brother are the Elect': it says do not lie.


Remember, I don't consider non-Elect to be my brother or my neighbor. I'd do the work of God and if that meant having to lie to non-Elect, that'd be fine with me.

[QUOTE=Katganistan]Economic 7.50. Social 8.97
Mine's like the exact opposite. I'm around -8.95 social and -8.34 economic. lol

[QUOTE=Katganistan]


Remember, I don't consider non-Elect to be my brother or my neighbor. I'd do the work of God and if that meant having to lie to non-Elect, that'd be fine with me.

You are adding then to the word of God to fit your own needs; what you are preaching is NOT in God's word.

I'm going to switch the perspective liek we did last night, if someone got my daughter pregnant and she was 14-16, I would beat the shit out of them I'd scare them so badly they wouldn't leave their house every again and neither would she for that matter. I'm a teacher, so I'd take a bit off and homeschool her. It's just one of those things that if it was my daughter as opposed to my son in the situation I'd be stricter.

[QUOTE=VoteEarly]

You are adding then to the word of God to fit your own needs; what you are preaching is NOT in God's word.


I'm basing a great deal on the words of the prophet John Calvin, you need to take his work into account also, it's as important as the bible, since he was a prophet of God, sent to set straight folks who were being misled by the Roman Church.

john calvin? predestination was doomed from the start

misled? you forget that the catholic church is the only one officially sanctioned by Jesus.

[QUOTE=Katganistan]


I'm basing a great deal on the words of the prophet John Calvin, you need to take his work into account also, it's as important as the bible, since he was a prophet of God, sent to set straight folks who were being misled by the Roman Church.
So where in the bible does it sanction lying to the "non-elect".

john calvin? predestination was doomed from the start

misled? you forget that the catholic church is the only one officially sanctioned by Jesus.


I believe that since the "Doctrine of Grace" (Calvinism) existed since way before Calvin was born (Indeed Abel was the first Calvinist, it just wasn't called Calvinism then, Calvin wasn't born yet and thus couldn't have popularized it and made it widely known) But anyway, Christ ordained a church that was to be in his ways, not a church where the leader lives in a palace (Vatican), not a church were indulgences were peddled to ignorant people. Not a church of worldly trappings and wealth.

Calvinist churches are almost all very plain and simple, almost without exception.

[QUOTE=VoteEarly]
So where in the bible does it sanction lying to the "non-elect".


There is something called "The Day of Visitation" Elect from heaven will be allowed to go around (quite likely, from what I know of this, they'll get to go into hell) they'll be allowed, by God, to torment the non-Elect who will be in hell.

If God is going to allow you to spend eternity mocking people (indeed as He mocks them now, Proverbs 1:24-28) then why would we be expected to be honest with these people who are working so hard against us?

Don't lie for reasons of monetary gain though, but to save your seed-line, you may lie, at least that is how I see it.

I believe that since the "Doctrine of Grace" (Calvinism) existed since way before Calvin was born (Indeed Abel was the first Calvinist, it just wasn't called Calvinism then, Calvin wasn't born yet and thus couldn't have popularized it and made it widely known) But anyway, Christ ordained a church that was to be in his ways, not a church where the leader lives in a palace (Vatican), not a church were indulgences were peddled to ignorant people. Not a church of worldly trappings and wealth.

Calvinist churches are almost all very plain and simple, almost without exception.

That does not answer the question: I have listed chapter and verse prohibiting lying. It is in the ten commandments themselves. You claim it is right to lie to the non-elect. Where in the Bible does it say you may do this?

Where in the Bible does it say anything about Christians gaining the Kingdom of Heaven through any means other than Jesus Christ and his teachings?

Well, seeing as how I've had two different women accuse me of "getting them pregnant," I can tell you how my father reacted. First off, even though we'd had intercourse, numerous times, in both cases, in only one had I had unprotected sex, and even then only twice. So I knew offhand the first one was lying, unless something had seriously gone wrong, in which case the fact that I work for a lawyer would have meant that I could have sued "Lifestyles" for having a really sucky condom. However, the second case was not nearly as much fun. We had a DNA test done to find out if it was mine. Luckily, it wasn't. The way I was raised, if it was mine I would have taken care of it of my own accord. It's a southern thing I suppose, and the church seems to have imbued us all with a sense of responsibility in that area.

Anyways, in the first case my Dad congratulated me on f&$%ing the biggest whore I had ever dated, and nearly knocked my head off (he was being extremely sarcastic). The second time, even he was surprised that the girl was sleeping around. I was too by the way.

And then there was another case where a woman I had broken up with claimed she was pregnant, but wasn't. Now, THAT time I was truly pissed.

Anyways, let this be a lesson for the young'uns. It really ain't no fun getting that phone call and finding out your girl is pregnant. It doesn't matter how much you trust her though, at least have a test done. And if it's yours, then be prepared for a long, hard life.

That does not answer the question: I have listed chapter and verse prohibiting lying. It is in the ten commandments themselves. You claim it is right to lie to the non-elect. Where in the Bible does it say you may do this?

Where in the Bible does it say anything about Christians gaining the Kingdom of Heaven through any means other than Jesus Christ and his teachings?

He doesn't know what the heel he's talking about. he's the kind of elitist ass that gives Christians a bad name. And that is coming from another Christian, by the way.

Well, seeing as how I've had two different women accuse me of "getting them pregnant," I can tell you how my father reacted. First off, even though we'd had intercourse, numerous times, in both cases, in only one had I had unprotected sex, and even then only twice. So I knew offhand the first one was lying, unless something had seriously gone wrong, in which case the fact that I work for a lawyer would have meant that I could have sued "Lifestyles" for having a really sucky condom. However, the second case was not nearly as much fun. We had a DNA test done to find out if it was mine. Luckily, it wasn't. The way I was raised, if it was mine I would have taken care of it of my own accord. It's a southern thing I suppose, and the church seems to have imbued us all with a sense of responsibility in that area.

Anyways, in the first case my Dad congratulated me on f&$%ing the biggest whore I had ever dated, and nearly knocked my head off (he was being extremely sarcastic). The second time, even he was surprised that the girl was sleeping around. I was too by the way.

And then there was another case where a woman I had broken up with claimed she was pregnant, but wasn't. Now, THAT time I was truly pissed.

Anyways, let this be a lesson for the young'uns. It really ain't no fun getting that phone call and finding out your girl is pregnant. It doesn't matter how much you trust her though, at least have a test done. And if it's yours, then be prepared for a long, hard life.
And to be fucked over royal if you're young.

Where in the Bible does it say anything about Christians gaining the Kingdom of Heaven through any means other than Jesus Christ and his teachings?


We are saved by faith alone, with is a gift from God that he gifts the Elect with.




Ephesians 2:8
8For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith–and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God–


Romans 8:28-33
28And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.
29For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.
30Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.
31What shall we then say to these things? If God be for us, who can be against us?
32He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all things?
33Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God's elect? It is God that justifieth.



Romans 11:1-7
1I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin.
2God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew. Wot ye not what the scripture saith of Elias? how he maketh intercession to God against Israel saying,
3Lord, they have killed thy prophets, and digged down thine altars; and I am left alone, and they seek my life.
4But what saith the answer of God unto him? I have reserved to myself seven thousand men, who have not bowed the knee to the image of Baal.
5Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace.
6And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then it is no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.
7What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded.




Romans 9:10-23
10Not only that, but Rebekah's children had one and the same father, our father Isaac.
11Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad–in order that God's purpose in election might stand:
12not by works but by him who calls–she was told, “The older will serve the younger.”
13Just as it is written: “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”
14What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all!
15For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.”
16It does not, therefore, depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy.
17For the Scripture says to Pharaoh: “I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth."
18Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.
19One of you will say to me: “Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?”
20But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? “Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, ‘Why did you make me like this?’ ”
21Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use?
What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath–prepared for destruction? 23What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory–

*slaps the religion debaters*

Where in the Bible does it say anything about Christians gaining the Kingdom of Heaven through any means other than Jesus Christ and his teachings?



Indeed Christ will even forgive those who are Elected who have mocked Him. But not the Holy Spirit.

Matthew 12:32
32Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.

Yes I do, and none of your business. I'm not going to give you information which would help you locate me.

Whoa, I was just curious if it was a real school or some bible college thats all. As much as I disagree with you I wouldn't actually go to the States to look for you:)

Yes, God is the author of all good and all bad.

He wills us to hate those He wills to do evil.

Thus He makes abortion doctors do abortions, and then He wills us to hate them for it.

There is something called "The Day of Visitation" Elect from heaven will be allowed to go around (quite likely, from what I know of this, they'll get to go into hell) they'll be allowed, by God, to torment the non-Elect who will be in hell

Is it just me or is this veiw of god very sadistic?

VoteEarly= :headbang: :headbang: :headbang:

What was the question?

I would make him get a job. I would make him see that htere is no way he can put that responsibility in someone elses lap. I would make sure he understands the consequences of what he has done. I would expect him to move out of my house within the year.

wait, VE, then what's your stance on free will?
And the reason for God creating us?

Thus He makes abortion doctors do abortions, and then He wills us to hate them for it.
Get thee to a nunnery.

And the reason for God creating us?
most religious types will say to have a relationship with him

*slaps the religion debaters*

If you have nothing to contribute, then don't. But don't flamebait.
Vote Early is stating that he is a Christian and that unless one believes as he does regarding women and religion, they are going to hell.

I am refuting him.

If you don't like it, you need not read it.

What would you do if your son, aged between 14 and 16, got a girl pregnant?

I do not have children but if I did and that would happen to my son I would stand with him and help both of them with this.
They could live in my house if they want and finish school and find jobs after that or go to University.
It's not the end of the world.

Is it just me or is this veiw of god very sadistic?
i'm curious as to why anybody would worship a God like that. i'm obviously curious as to why anybody would BELIEVE in a God like that, but even if you get beyond belief to the point where you are sure that God is real you are still left with the question of why we would worship such a vicious creature. seems like some people are really determined to find excuses for hatred; whether or not their God exists, their character is exposed by their eagerness to follow hate and cruelty.

Remember, I don't consider non-Elect to be my brother or my neighbor. I'd do the work of God and if that meant having to lie to non-Elect, that'd be fine with me.

Nowhere has it been determined that the judge and the jury in this spurious case that you are dragging through the courts are in fact non-Elect: nor have you provided a criterion by which this can be decided.

[QUOTE=Its too far away]Is it just me...QUOTE]


http://www.bible.com/answers/afalse.html

It's not just you.

wait, VE, then what's your stance on free will?
And the reason for God creating us?


Man has no free will in the regards that he can do absolutely nothing to achieve his own salvation. If we are saved, it is because God himself willed it to be so.


God created man because it pleased him to do so. As Paul said, most men were predestinated for hell (the words were along the lines of "Made so as to allow God to demonstrate his prepared wrath") and some men were predestinated for heaven (the words were along the lines of "Made so as to allow God to demonstrate his prepared mercy")

God made man because it suited him to do so, he owes man nothing, and the natural state of man, without God, would be everybody goes to hell. By the very fact that a tiny few (elect) go to heaven, thus escaping hell, we are shown God has mercy.

Nowhere has it been determined that the judge and the jury in this spurious case that you are dragging through the courts are in fact non-Elect: nor have you provided a criterion by which this can be decided.


You can tell an Elect from a non-Elect. Indeed the number of Elect can, at any time, pretty much be known to man, and it won't change by a single digit.

You can tell an Elect from a non-Elect.

How?

And returning to the question: what if you could tell that the jury contained a member of the Elect - would you still lie to them?

How?

And returning to the question: what if you could tell that the jury contained a member of the Elect - would you still lie to them?



Powerful signs in their life. Allow me to list a few.

Signs of Election:
1) Most Powerful- Accepting Calvinism as the only truth of God in the Earth.
2) Quite Powerful- Having been drawn, inexplicably to accept Calvinism.
3) Quite Powerful- Being compelled, by God, to live a virtuous and upright life of faith. (Faith is a gift from God)


Signs of Reprobation:

1) Most Powerful- Sodomy and/or Mocking the Holy Spirit. Two things for which there is no forgiveness.
2) Incredibly Powerful- Openly and overtly attacking the 5 Points of Calvinism and being unable to see it as the truth due to being blinded/hardened by God (Romans 11:7)
3) Quite Powerful- Persecuting, harassing, tormenting, and otherwise harming, the Elect.
4) Very Powerful- Perverting the words of the New and Old Testament to support social agendas in the church (Women preachers, gay marriage, gay preachers, gay bishops, religious begging, evangelism, missionaryism, Christmas celebrations, Sunday schools, etc)

(Note, that is just my take on it, I'm sure other Calvinists would have their own opinions, but most if not all, likely regard homosexuality/bestiality/etc as the most powerful sign of reprobation and predestination to eternal damnation)

I wouldn't have to, if the said juror was truly Elect, they'd understand what I was trying to do and would use their vote to vote however I needed them. At least that is how I feel, Elect have to help each other, since the world, in a state of constant reprobation, is always out to harm the Elect.

I wouldn't have to, if the said juror was truly Elect, they'd understand what I was trying to do and would use their vote to vote however I needed them. At least that is how I feel, Elect have to help each other, since the world, in a state of constant reprobation, is always out to harm the Elect.
but if you were testifying in court you wouldn't be able to speak directly and privately to that single juror. you would have to give testimony before all the jurors. so, if you would lie to make your case to the non-Elect jurors, then you would also have to be lying to the Elect juror. alternatively, if you wanted to be honest to the Elect juror you would have to give honest testimony before all the jurors.

Powerful signs in their life. Allow me to list a few.

Signs of Election:
1) Most Powerful- Accepting Calvinism as the only truth of God in the Earth.
2) Quite Powerful- Having been drawn, inexplicably to accept Calvinism.
3) Quite Powerful- Being compelled, by God, to live a virtuous and upright life of faith. (Faith is a gift from God)


Signs of Reprobation:

1) Most Powerful- Sodomy and/or Mocking the Holy Spirit. Two things for which there is no forgiveness.
2) Incredibly Powerful- Openly and overtly attacking the 5 Points of Calvinism and being unable to see it as the truth due to being blinded/hardened by God (Romans 11:7)
3) Quite Powerful- Persecuting, harassing, tormenting, and otherwise harming, the Elect.
4) Very Powerful- Perverting the words of the New and Old Testament to support social agendas in the church (Women preachers, gay marriage, gay preachers, gay bishops, religious begging, evangelism, missionaryism, Christmas celebrations, Sunday schools, etc)

(Note, that is just my take on it, I'm sure other Calvinists would have their own opinions, but most if not all, likely regard homosexuality/bestiality/etc as the most powerful sign of reprobation and predestination to eternal damnation)

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but you wouldn't be able to determine these thigns about a jury?

I wouldn't have to, if the said juror was truly Elect, they'd understand what I was trying to do and would use their vote to vote however I needed them. At least that is how I feel, Elect have to help each other, since the world, in a state of constant reprobation, is always out to harm the Elect.

So are you planning to actively conspire with them behind the scenes?

In the end it seems all somewhat counterproductive to say the least: securing an utterly false rape conviction wouldn't stop the woman from getting an abortion, would it?

but if you were testifying in court you wouldn't be able to speak directly and privately to that single juror. you would have to give testimony before all the jurors. so, if you would lie to make your case to the non-Elect jurors, then you would also have to be lying to the Elect juror. alternatively, if you wanted to be honest to the Elect juror you would have to give honest testimony before all the jurors.


You're asking situations that would likely never arise, and you're doing it for absolutely no reason at all other than to annoy me. Therefore I'm not going to answer this except with one last post about it, then I'm done discussing this particular thing, with you. If you wish to discuss something other than a trial example, we may.


I would lie if I felt it necessary, and the Elect hearing the lie would be no worse off because of it. My lying to him would not affect either of us getting into heaven, so it wouldn't matter at all.

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but you wouldn't be able to determine these thigns about a jury?



So are you planning to actively conspire with them behind the scenes?

In the end it seems all somewhat counterproductive to say the least: securing an utterly false rape conviction wouldn't stop the woman from getting an abortion, would it?

Next step would be to coerce her into marrying my son, and then have her declared mentally incompetent so my son would have the right to decide for her, and thus she'd be carrying to term.

Perhaps get her to marry him by dropping the rape charges if she marries him, or something like that.

You're asking situations that would likely never arise, and you're doing it for absolutely no reason at all other than to annoy me. Therefore I'm not going to answer this except with one last post about it, then I'm done discussing this particular thing, with you. If you wish to discuss something other than a trial example, we may.

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8341103&postcount=9

That is never an option, as a matter of fact, I'd let her realize, if she even considered it, I'd have her in court and charge her with raping my son, or taking advantage of somebody not emotionally mature enough to consent.


I would lie if I felt it necessary, and the Elect hearing the lie would be no worse off because of it. My lying to him would not affect either of us getting into heaven, so it wouldn't matter at all.

Then presumably neither would letting the woman have an abortion rather than trying to intimidate her with the threat of a spurious rape trial which you now seem to be somewhat reticent to go through with.

All but one of the passages I cited are from the New Testament, parts of the Old Testament were specifically voided by Christ. The Old Testament allows for polygamy, the New Testament doesn't.

I was raised in the Roman Catholic Church until I saw it for an apostate church, and converted to Calvinism.

Okay - this isn't intended as a flame - more an exercise in analysis...

If it offends you, that wasn't the goal - but I would be interested in your response.

You said in an earlier post, that your mother was abusive, right? And, eventually she and your father divorced.

If you'd like to fill in the gaps there, I don't really recall, exactly... but, what I got from it was that your father tried to keep the peace, and, in the end, the situation became untenable, and the mother-figure leaves the equation.

Is this right?

It seems like this is the root of your problems at school - your incapability to deal with women as equals, or to be civilised towards them... it would seem that you are blaming all women for the perceived sins of your mother...

Effectively - casting your mother as the 'whore', and then revisiting her on every other female.

This leads to the issue of your father. The version you tell of your father is of a kind, loving man (although it is hard to tell how much of that is coloured by your relationship to your mother). But, on some level - I think you are trying to compensate for what YOU perceived as weakness in him.

Perhaps, you think he should have resolved the family situation much earlier.

Whatever, you seem to now be looking for a new 'father figure', in a way - a 'stronger' father figure... one that will punish those that act against you, and that will deal with all the 'whores'. Basically - the father-figure that you have idealised around your own father.

And, THAT would be why Calvinism (or YOUR version of it) appeals so much. This 'father-figure' is absolute, and will punish ALL who step away from him. He also has 'chosen' you (which opens up a whole load of other issues), and ALLOWS you to act in a barbaric way towards women, through biblical 'rationales'. Now, instead of being the victim, you get to be part of the 'bully' gang. Instead of the often-lonely child, you get to be special, and wanted. Instead of being weak, and impotent, you are now empowered and justified.

Anyway - just random thinking. How does it sound?

You're asking situations that would likely never arise, and you're doing it for absolutely no reason at all other than to annoy me.

actually, i was genuinely curious to know what you would do, because it's informative about your value system. if you feel annoyed by the questions you might have considered saying so. you also might want to consider the fact that not everybody is out to get you...you seem to have the impression that the whole world (with the exception of the precious few Elect) is directing all its energy at attacking you, and i can personally assure you that is not the case.

Therefore I'm not going to answer this except with one last post about it, then I'm done discussing this particular thing, with you. If you wish to discuss something other than a trial example, we may.

why with me, precisely? i asked one, and only one, question about the trial, yet you seem to be objecting to my question in particular.


I would lie if I felt it necessary, and the Elect hearing the lie would be no worse off because of it. My lying to him would not affect either of us getting into heaven, so it wouldn't matter at all.okay, we can drop the trial issue (since it really seems to piss you off), but let's talk about this...what you appear to be saying is that lying is okay in any situation. you can lie to the non-Elect because it doesn't matter, and you can lie to the Elect because it doesn't matter. so honesty appears to have no value for you. is that correct?

Then presumably neither would letting the woman have an abortion rather than trying to intimidate her with the threat of a spurious rape trial which you now seem to be somewhat reticent to go through with.

The problem is, VoteEarly's theoretical grandchild is Elect, so aborting it would make a huge difference to the balance of the universe etc.

Next step would be to coerce her into marrying my son, and then have her declared mentally incompetent so my son would have the right to decide for her, and thus she'd be carrying to term.

Perhaps get her to marry him by dropping the rape charges if she marries him, or something like that.

The fact that she would be able to stand up in court and say that you are attempting to blackmail her into not having an abortion doesn't worry you?

Is it actually possible for the father of someone to charge someone else with raping their son? (honest question)

So, it is a better thing for a woman to be blackmailed, bullied, declared wrongfully mentally incompetent and then a mockery made of your beliefs with regard to virginity on the night of the marriage, than for an abortion to take place?

The problem is, VoteEarly's theoretical grandchild is Elect, so aborting it would make a huge difference to the balance of the universe etc.

If it is Elect and is aborted, then it remains Elect, and so no difference is made: however, if we do allow that the theoretical unborn child may be Elect, we see that we are completely unable to determine if it is or not on the basis of the list of signs that VoteEarly provided up the page.

If it is Elect and is aborted, then it remains Elect, and so no difference is made: however, if we do allow that the theoretical unborn child may be Elect, we see that we are completely unable to determine if it is or not on the basis of the list of signs that VoteEarly provided up the page.

True enough - an elect dead foetus would only go to heaven all the quicker. I have conflicted buddhist/catholic perspectives on abortion.

Do you think VoteEarly would mind if the unelect was aborted?

You're asking situations that would likely never arise, and you're doing it for absolutely no reason...

It seems to me that this is hardly a display of the kind of tenacity which would be required to produce a spurious rape conviction.

Okay - this isn't intended as a flame - more an exercise in analysis...

If it offends you, that wasn't the goal - but I would be interested in your response.

You said in an earlier post, that your mother was abusive, right? And, eventually she and your father divorced.

If you'd like to fill in the gaps there, I don't really recall, exactly... but, what I got from it was that your father tried to keep the peace, and, in the end, the situation became untenable, and the mother-figure leaves the equation.

Is this right?

It seems like this is the root of your problems at school - your incapability to deal with women as equals, or to be civilised towards them... it would seem that you are blaming all women for the perceived sins of your mother...

Effectively - casting your mother as the 'whore', and then revisiting her on every other female.

This leads to the issue of your father. The version you tell of your father is of a kind, loving man (although it is hard to tell how much of that is coloured by your relationship to your mother). But, on some level - I think you are trying to compensate for what YOU perceived as weakness in him.

Perhaps, you think he should have resolved the family situation much earlier.

Whatever, you seem to now be looking for a new 'father figure', in a way - a 'stronger' father figure... one that will punish those that act against you, and that will deal with all the 'whores'. Basically - the father-figure that you have idealised around your own father.

And, THAT would be why Calvinism (or YOUR version of it) appeals so much. This 'father-figure' is absolute, and will punish ALL who step away from him. He also has 'chosen' you (which opens up a whole load of other issues), and ALLOWS you to act in a barbaric way towards women, through biblical 'rationales'. Now, instead of being the victim, you get to be part of the 'bully' gang. Instead of the often-lonely child, you get to be special, and wanted. Instead of being weak, and impotent, you are now empowered and justified.

Anyway - just random thinking. How does it sound?

I don't agree, and I don't believe in trying to do an analysis of people from a psychological/psychiatric point of view (I, as do most Calvinists, consider psychiatry to be a science of satan)


1) I don't need to cast my mother as a whore, she's done a wonderful job of that herself.


2) If you live in Western Europe or the USA, you don't need me to tell you most women are whores, look around outside in any major city (New York, Amsterdam, Copenhagen, London, Los Angeles)

3) I don't care what the law says about it, my father was weak for not beating her. The bible says he ought to have done it, and in that case he surely should have.

4) I've never acted in a barbaric way to women. I've only rejected the offers on sins of whores, let them know they were whores, and moved on with my business.

Is it actually possible for the father of someone to charge someone else with raping their son? (honest question)

yes, as long as their son is a minor. a parent may press charges against somebody else for raping their under-age child.

yes, as long as their son is a minor. a parent may press charges against somebody else for raping their under-age child.

Fair enough.

The fact that she would be able to stand up in court and say that you are attempting to blackmail her into not having an abortion doesn't worry you?

Is it actually possible for the father of someone to charge someone else with raping their son? (honest question)

So, it is a better thing for a woman to be blackmailed, bullied, declared wrongfully mentally incompetent and then a mockery made of your beliefs with regard to virginity on the night of the marriage, than for an abortion to take place?


1) I wouldn't be worried, God would defend me against her lies and false charges. If I had to, I'd make ad hominem attacks against her, and label her as the fornicator she would obviously have to be to be in such a position in the first place.

2) Yes, women can rape men too you know.

3) Yes, it really and truly is. I think the best way to stop abortion being used as birth control would be to treat such cases (abortion being used as birth control) as 1st degree murder.

2) If you live in Western Europe or the USA, you don't need me to tell you most women are whores, look around outside in any major city (New York, Amsterdam, Copenhagen, London, Los Angeles)

Would you define what you mean by whore here, or are you actually claiming that more than 50% of women in Western Europe and the USA have sex for money?

I don't agree, and I don't believe in trying to do an analysis of people from a psychological/psychiatric point of view (I, as do most Calvinists, consider psychiatry to be a science of satan)


1) I don't need to cast my mother as a whore, she's done a wonderful job of that herself.

did you start to despise your mother as a result of her actions, or as a rationalisation of the suffering you endured as a child?


2) If you live in Western Europe or the USA, you don't need me to tell you most women are whores, look around outside in any major city (New York, Amsterdam, Copenhagen, London, Los Angeles)

If you define a whore as a woman who doesn't give a fuck what you think of her attitude to her sexuality, hooray for whores.


3) I don't care what the law says about it, my father was weak for not beating her. The bible says he ought to have done it, and in that case he surely should have.

Beating women is barbaric. Do you care or not care about what the bible says about it? Should Jesus have beat Mary Magdalene?


4) I've never acted in a barbaric way to women. I've only rejected the offers on sins of whores, let them know they were whores, and moved on with my business.

Is it because you're weak that you've never behaved barbarically toward women?

actually, i was genuinely curious to know what you would do, because it's informative about your value system. if you feel annoyed by the questions you might have considered saying so. you also might want to consider the fact that not everybody is out to get you...you seem to have the impression that the whole world (with the exception of the precious few Elect) is directing all its energy at attacking you, and i can personally assure you that is not the case.

why with me, precisely? i asked one, and only one, question about the trial, yet you seem to be objecting to my question in particular.

okay, we can drop the trial issue (since it really seems to piss you off), but let's talk about this...what you appear to be saying is that lying is okay in any situation. you can lie to the non-Elect because it doesn't matter, and you can lie to the Elect because it doesn't matter. so honesty appears to have no value for you. is that correct?


You're allowed to kill in service of God (war, etc) even though it says not to kill (technically it was murder). So you ought to be allowed to lie in service of God.

If it is Elect and is aborted, then it remains Elect, and so no difference is made: however, if we do allow that the theoretical unborn child may be Elect, we see that we are completely unable to determine if it is or not on the basis of the list of signs that VoteEarly provided up the page.


God hates abortion, that is why, he wouldn't want the unborn child to be aborted.

2) Yes, women can rape men too you know.

It is extremely difficult for a woman to rape a man, because it involves getting the man hard against his will. This isn't easy, particularly if the man is genuinely scared. It can be acheived with drugs.

It is extremely difficult for a woman to rape a man, because it involves getting the man hard against his will. This isn't easy, particularly if the man is genuinely scared. It can be acheived with drugs.
actually, rape does not require insertion of a penis into a vagina. most rapes perpetrated against men involve insertion of a penis or foreign object into the victim's anus. remember that rape is about violation, not about penile stimulation...no penis need be involved at all for an act to be rape.

You're allowed to kill in service of God (war, etc) even though it says not to kill (technically it was murder). So you ought to be allowed to lie in service of God.

You're allowed to do what you like, because somewhere in the VoteEarly bible it says, after every commandment, every proverb, every exhortation, "except if you think you're serving God"?

You are clearly insane.

1) I wouldn't be worried, God would defend me against her lies and false charges.

Exactly which lies and false charges are these?

That is never an option, as a matter of fact, I'd let her realize, if she even considered it, I'd have her in court and charge her with raping my son, or taking advantage of somebody not emotionally mature enough to consent.

If she says 'I am being dragged into court on spurious charges in an attempt to coerce me into not having an abortion', exactly which part is either false or a lie?

... If I had to, I'd make ad hominem attacks against her, and label her as the fornicator she would obviously have to be to be in such a position in the first place.

Being a fornicator isn't technically against the law, is it? Would you also label your son as the fornicator that he obviously would have to also be?

2) Yes, women can rape men too you know.

It was actually a question regarding the US legal system and who can press charges, rather than asking if male rape exists (as a sideline here, for example in Ireland male-rape is not actually classified as rape by the law).

It is extremely difficult for a woman to rape a man, because it involves getting the man hard against his will. This isn't easy, particularly if the man is genuinely scared. It can be acheived with drugs.

actually, rape does not require insertion of a penis into a vagina. most rapes perpetrated against men involve insertion of a penis or foreign object into the victim's anus. remember that rape is about violation, not about penile stimulation...no penis need be involved at all for an act to be rape.

a WOMAN to rape a man... and we're specifically talking, here, about the possible resulting pregnancy. If my wife stuck a bottle up my arse (pun intended) I'd be surprised to say the least if she got pregnant.

did you start to despise your mother as a result of her actions, or as a rationalisation of the suffering you endured as a child?

If you define a whore as a woman who doesn't give a fuck what you think of her attitude to her sexuality, hooray for whores.

Beating women is barbaric. Do you care or not care about what the bible says about it? Should Jesus have beat Mary Magdalene?

Is it because you're weak that you've never behaved barbarically toward women?


1) My mother is a hateful monster who hates men, hates women, hates everybody, she even hates herself. When your mother tells you, "Meh, I wish I had a girl instead of you." it's pretty hard not to not like her.

2) I define a whore as girls in Middle and High School who offered me sexual favors, pestered me,

3) It can be barbaric, if you're just hitting somebody because you're angry, and it depends too on the sort of hitting (punching vs. slapping) and then how you slap them (location, force of the blow). I think somebody ought to write a manual for the proper way for a Christian to discipline unruly children and an unruly wife (See, older children, particularly males, can handle a more determined beating than say a woman)

4) No, it's because I've never been personally put through what my father has (he was cheated on repeatedly for years). Anyway, a friend of mine once said he was sitting in a jacuzzi and much to his surprise, the girl next to him just started performing oral sex on him. If some whore tried that number on me, she'd damn well better expect to get slapped and pushed off of me.

I don't agree, and I don't believe in trying to do an analysis of people from a psychological/psychiatric point of view (I, as do most Calvinists, consider psychiatry to be a science of satan)


1) I don't need to cast my mother as a whore, she's done a wonderful job of that herself.


2) If you live in Western Europe or the USA, you don't need me to tell you most women are whores, look around outside in any major city (New York, Amsterdam, Copenhagen, London, Los Angeles)

3) I don't care what the law says about it, my father was weak for not beating her. The bible says he ought to have done it, and in that case he surely should have.

4) I've never acted in a barbaric way to women. I've only rejected the offers on sins of whores, let them know they were whores, and moved on with my business.

Man, are YOU ever conflicted... and I didn't even go near what I think the real problems are.

1) You do realise that your very words "I don't need to cast my mother as a whore, she's done a wonderful job of that herself"... illustrate that you HAVE cast your mother as the 'whore' in your psychodrama, yes? You have, it appears, utterly disconnected her from any elements of humanity, so that you could objectify her as a uterus, effectively.

2) I have lived in both Western Europe and the USA, and I strongly disagree that most women are whores. I think you objectify women as vessels, and that justifies the view in YOUR mind that they are nothing more than uterus-bearers.

I don't think that has any impact on, or relation to, reality.

3) Your father wasn't weak, he loves her. You blame your father for that weakness, which is why you look for a 'strong' father figure in your 'god'... a father that WOULD beat the 'whore'. That would also explain why you are looking for a god that doesn't 'love', since you now perceive 'love' as a weakness, especially as it pertains to 'whores'.

4) You make many proclomations of your refusal of whores. I find it hard to believe you've had to turn away many females, given your apparent attitudes, but the truth of that is between you and your god.

Regardless - your assertions of cruelty on the hypothetical daughter-in-law, and your conviction that women SHOULD be beaten, are all the evidence I need that you THINK in a barbaric way towards women, even if you haven't yet actually acted in such a fashion.

Again - tell me what you think, please.

God hates abortion, that is why, he wouldn't want the unborn child to be aborted.

But he also makes the abortionists carry out abortions, yes?

Would you define what you mean by whore here, or are you actually claiming that more than 50% of women in Western Europe and the USA have sex for money?

1) Moral bankruptcy

2) Abject promiscuity

3) Devoid of sexual standards

4) Given to frequent fornication with multiple partners

5) Bisexuality

a WOMAN to rape a man... and we're specifically talking, here, about the possible resulting pregnancy. If my wife stuck a bottle up my arse (pun intended) I'd be surprised to say the least if she got pregnant.
i was simply trying to clarify about the concept of rape.

furthermore, statutory rape of a male wouldn't necessarily be the least bit difficult for a woman to perpetrate. if a male is 16 and a 25 year old woman has sex with him, she is (in most states) guilty of rape. i think we all know that getting the average 16 year old boy to become erect and ejaculate doesn't require any particular skill or effort.

You are clearly insane.


Then in that case, I'm done replying and conversing with you until you

1) Stop flaming/baiting me with ad hominem insults.

2) Apologize.

God hates abortion, that is why, he wouldn't want the unborn child to be aborted.

Actually - the Bible clearly states that abortion is okay, provided the 'father' approves, and the mother is not injured.

It is extremely difficult for a woman to rape a man, because it involves getting the man hard against his will. This isn't easy, particularly if the man is genuinely scared. It can be acheived with drugs.


I know of a case where a guy got wasted and drunk off his butt, passed out, and then a woman who was trying to get him into bed, gave him oral sex to try to prove she'd do anything for him.

It happened at a college in my area, we were told about this in 10th grade health class as an example that rape works both ways.

Anyway, the guy never reported it because he actually thought it was funny... (rolls eyes)

1) My mother is a hateful monster who hates men, hates women, hates everybody, she even hates herself. When your mother tells you, "Meh, I wish I had a girl instead of you." it's pretty hard not to not like her.

2) I define a whore as girls in Middle and High School who offered me sexual favors, pestered me,

3) It can be barbaric, if you're just hitting somebody because you're angry, and it depends too on the sort of hitting (punching vs. slapping) and then how you slap them (location, force of the blow). I think somebody ought to write a manual for the proper way for a Christian to discipline unruly children and an unruly wife (See, older children, particularly males, can handle a more determined beating than say a woman)

4) No, it's because I've never been personally put through what my father has (he was cheated on repeatedly for years). Anyway, a friend of mine once said he was sitting in a jacuzzi and much to his surprise, the girl next to him just started performing oral sex on him. If some whore tried that number on me, she'd damn well better expect to get slapped and pushed off of me.


It's no wonder your scared to death of psychoanalysis, you screwball. So you define *whore* as the girls in high school who offered you sex? How many of these were there? really?

When I tell my kids "i wish i had a girl instead of you" or "i wish i had a life instead of you" or "i wish i had candy and a trip to jamaica instead of you" they say "well i never asked to be born fatso". We all love each other tremendously.

and 4) so you're quite prepared to be barbaric if necessary?

Then in that case, I'm done replying and conversing with you until you

1) Stop flaming/baiting me with ad hominem insults.

2) Apologize.

I'm with VoteEarly on this one.

Exactly which lies and false charges are these?

If she says 'I am being dragged into court on spurious charges in an attempt to coerce me into not having an abortion', exactly which part is either false or a lie?

Being a fornicator isn't technically against the law, is it? Would you also label your son as the fornicator that he obviously would have to also be?

It was actually a question regarding the US legal system and who can press charges, rather than asking if male rape exists (as a sideline here, for example in Ireland male-rape is not actually classified as rape by the law).


You don't need to insert anything up the anus to rape somebody, a man cannot control whether or not he gets an erection. A woman could orally stimulate him to achieve erection, and then rape him.

i was simply trying to clarify about the concept of rape.

furthermore, statutory rape of a male wouldn't necessarily be the least bit difficult for a woman to perpetrate. if a male is 16 and a 25 year old woman has sex with him, she is (in most states) guilty of rape. i think we all know that getting the average 16 year old boy to become erect and ejaculate doesn't require any particular skill or effort.

statutory rape maybe, but if said 16yo is scared or unhappy about the situation, he is not so easy to embone.

When I tell my kids "i wish i had a girl instead of you" or "i wish i had a life instead of you" or "i wish i had candy and a trip to jamaica instead of you" they say "well i never asked to be born fatso". We all love each other tremendously.

However, if you are beating them repeatedly between the ages of 12 and 18 or thereabouts, then I think it is fairly safe to say that these statements could be taken in a somewhat different context, no?

Actually - the Bible clearly states that abortion is okay, provided the 'father' approves, and the mother is not injured.



Yes, maybe in the Old Testament, but what does the New Testament say? Christ said the worst thing to do is harm children, and unborn children are even more defenseless and as such, it's worse to harm them.


I place the most importance on the following (in order)

New Testament
Writings of John Calvin
Old Testament

You don't need to insert anything up the anus to rape somebody, a man cannot control whether or not he gets an erection. A woman could orally stimulate him to achieve erection, and then rape him.

A man cannot control whether or not he gets an erection? No wonder you call women whores if you're blaming them for your priapism. A scared or unwilling man doesn't get hard easily at all VoteEarly - i think you have to accept your complicity in your own life, and stop telling yourself that God has preordained everything that you choose to be.

You're allowed to kill in service of God (war, etc) even though it says not to kill (technically it was murder). So you ought to be allowed to lie in service of God.

Not murder - premeditated killing (which CAN be murder, but isn't always).

Theoretically, killing in god's name is STILL a sin.

Also, Exodus 20:16 leaves absolutely no lee-way for you to weasel your way around. Explicitly, it states: "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour".

From the Hebrew " 'anah Sheqer"... literally, to give a 'deceptive answer'.

There is no loop-hole. The Bible doesn't carry 'get-out' clauses on lying.

However, if you are beating them repeatedly between the ages of 12 and 18 or thereabouts, then I think it is fairly safe to say that these statements could be taken in a somewhat different context, no?

if they "are" in a different context, they should be "taken" in a different context. Was VoteEarly beaten by his mum when he was 18? That can't have done much for his self-image.

statutory rape maybe, but if said 16yo is scared or unhappy about the situation, he is not so easy to embone.
of course...emotional state does have a significant impact. however, we should all remember that our bodies don't necessarily obey us. female rape victims often experience lubrication and increased blood flow to the vagina, both of which are signs of PHYSICAL arousal, even though they are most certainly not aroused by the situation. similarly, men will sometimes become physically aroused even in situations where they very much do NOT want to be. just because a person is showing biological arousal doesn't mean they aren't being raped.

i think you and i are on the same side of this, i just like to be really really clear on points like this. so many people have misconceptions about rape, after all, and i like to make sure that anybody and everybody who might be reading this thread gets the message that physical arousal does NOT equal consent.

It's no wonder your scared to death of psychoanalysis, you screwball. So you define *whore* as the girls in high school who offered you sex? How many of these were there? really?

When I tell my kids "i wish i had a girl instead of you" or "i wish i had a life instead of you" or "i wish i had candy and a trip to jamaica instead of you" they say "well i never asked to be born fatso". We all love each other tremendously.




I'm not answering this for the sake of answering you, and indeed I'm still not talking to you, this is for the sake of other posters who might wonder..

1) Yes, at least 1/2 dozen.

2) Most people that joke with their kids, don't ever slap them in the face or hit them with a woodboard, or threaten to kill them, while they're supposedly "joking". Anyway, when somebody says it to you, stone-cold serious, not kidding at all, "I wish I had a girl instead of you." you can tell when it's serious.

Yes, maybe in the Old Testament, but what does the New Testament say? Christ said the worst thing to do is harm children, and unborn children are even more defenseless and as such, it's worse to harm them.


I place the most importance on the following (in order)

New Testament
Writings of John Calvin
Old Testament

I don't personally CARE which order you place them in, friend... if you want to place a text that is (by the standards of both Old AND New Testaments) heretical, before part of the scripture, that is your choice.

I don't recall Jesus ever mentioning abortion - which means that Old Testament Law still stands on that issue.

Calvin can take it up with Moses, if he wishes. Jesus can e-mail us the results.

I don't personally CARE which order you place them in, friend... if you want to place a text that is (by the standards of both Old AND New Testaments) heretical, before part of the scripture, that is your choice.

Are you also thus claiming that the Koran is heretical?

...a man cannot control whether or not he gets an erection...

What a curious thing to say.

Not true, either.

I find it interesting that you would try to push on a (supposedly) intelligent jury, the idea that your (alleged) son was orally stimulated, then consumated TO ORGASM, entirely against his will.

It MIGHT work with the jury, if your son turns out to be about 120lbs... and suffering from a sex-mania...

What a curious thing to say.

Not true, either.

I find it interesting that you would try to push on a (supposedly) intelligent jury, the idea that your (alleged) son was orally stimulated, then consumated TO ORGASM, entirely against his will.

It MIGHT work with the jury, if your son turns out to be about 120lbs... and suffering from a sex-mania...
or if his son were under the age of consent while the lady in question was an adult.

it also IS possible for a man to be raped in the way you describe, though (obviously) the size difference between men and women would probably require that he be physically restrained in some way while this was going on. for exmaple, stimulation of the prostate could be employed to induce ejaculation, theoretically. men also can become erect and even be stimulated to ejaculation when they are NOT willing, though it is extremely rare.

i'm just trying to stick up for the male rape victims, here, so don't get me wrong...i think VE would have no chance at all of proving rape in the situation he seems to be presenting. i just want to make sure everybody understands that men CAN be raped in this way, and that a male's physical response to stimulation does NOT equate to consent.

Are you also thus claiming that the Koran is heretical?

In terms of the Old and New Testaments, yes.

To me... no. All scripture is equal, to me... even the "Book of Mormon".

But the Pentatauch clearly denies that any extra text should be added (which obviously didn't work, as evidenced by:) the book of Psalms also expressly forbids amendment to the 'word of god'. Furthermore, some argue that Revelation denies the addition or removal of text from scripture.

By all three of those markers (despite their INTERNAL inconsistency), Calvin, and Mohammed, are both Herertics.... at least, within the direct Judeo-Christian heirarchy.

of course...emotional state does have a significant impact. however, we should all remember that our bodies don't necessarily obey us. female rape victims often experience lubrication and increased blood flow to the vagina, both of which are signs of PHYSICAL arousal, even though they are most certainly not aroused by the situation. similarly, men will sometimes become physically aroused even in situations where they very much do NOT want to be. just because a person is showing biological arousal doesn't mean they aren't being raped.

i think you and i are on the same side of this, i just like to be really really clear on points like this. so many people have misconceptions about rape, after all, and i like to make sure that anybody and everybody who might be reading this thread gets the message that physical arousal does NOT equal consent.

Actually, it is well documented (google it) that although female physical sexual arousal is very much physically based, and relies hardly at all on mental state, male sexual arousal is deeply connected to mental state.

So I join you in saying that arousal does NOT equal consent, and stand by my statement that an unwilling man is difficult to arouse.

or if his son were under the age of consent while the lady in question was an adult.

Which depends which defence he was trying to argue... if he is claiming that the 'boy' is unwilling, he has a 'hard' battle ahead of him.

If he allows that the 'boy' may have been consensual, but not OLD enough to give legal consent - he has an easier battle on his hands, but the problem of a 'fornicator' for a son.

Which, by VoteEarly standards, must be a terrible reflection on parenting skills.

I'm not answering this for the sake of answering you, and indeed I'm still not talking to you, this is for the sake of other posters who might wonder..

1) Yes, at least 1/2 dozen.

2) Most people that joke with their kids, don't ever slap them in the face or hit them with a woodboard, or threaten to kill them, while they're supposedly "joking". Anyway, when somebody says it to you, stone-cold serious, not kidding at all, "I wish I had a girl instead of you." you can tell when it's serious.

At the time, I *am* serious. So are my kids, but they get over it. You've obviously had some trauma in your life, to which you have reacted extremely badly. You should get help.

So I join you in saying that arousal does NOT equal consent, and stand by my statement that an unwilling man is difficult to arouse.

Difficult does not mean impossible.

Actually, it is well documented (google it) that although female physical sexual arousal is very much physically based, and relies hardly at all on mental state, male sexual arousal is deeply connected to mental state.

um, wow, not at all. in fact, almost the opposite has been demonstrated in many journal articles i have read.

i recommend not relying on google for your sources, since there's a lot of pseudo-science and pop culture myth floating about. try searching through Medline or Psychinfo for articles on human sexuality, or even using an engine like JSTOR (which might or might not have anything relavent).


So I join you in saying that arousal does NOT equal consent, and stand by my statement that an unwilling man is difficult to arouse.
difficult, just not impossible. for the sake of male rape victims, that point needs to be very clear. we cannot place men in the position of being blamed when they are raped, and we should not perpetuate the idea that a man who gets an erection must necessarily be enjoying himself.

i'm just trying to stick up for the male rape victims, here, so don't get me wrong...i think VE would have no chance at all of proving rape in the situation he seems to be presenting. i just want to make sure everybody understands that men CAN be raped in this way, and that a male's physical response to stimulation does NOT equate to consent.


Firstly, let me agree, arousal does not mean consent.

Secondly, it can be considered rape if they have "undue influence" (trusted psychiatrist has sex with an emotionally distraught patient) (a teacher has sex with a student, aside from the fact it's most likely going to be statutory)

Anyway, I think I could push for a charge of rape on the grounds that my boy was not in the proper state of mind to consent to sex. If the woman was 18 or older, all the better, it'd be statutory, open and shut case.

Difficult doesn't mean impossible. I don't think getting a boner when raped implies consent. But it is still difficult.

Which depends which defence he was trying to argue... if he is claiming that the 'boy' is unwilling, he has a 'hard' battle ahead of him.

If he allows that the 'boy' may have been consensual, but not OLD enough to give legal consent - he has an easier battle on his hands, but the problem of a 'fornicator' for a son.

Which, by VoteEarly standards, must be a terrible reflection on parenting skills.


If my son was predestinated to be a fornicating sinner, I'd not really lose any sleep over it (okay, so I would, but I wouldn't admit it). Although, if God wants to damn whatever children I have to hell, that's his right, he is the absolute sovereign God. I'd hope though that my children will indeed be Elect. But if my first child isn't Elect, I can always have another, another, etc

(Indeed I'd like to have 5-15 kids, I must admit though, quite likely, at least 1 or 2 won't be Elect, as God said, "Jacob have I loved, But Esau have I hated." (Malachi 1:2-3) they were twin brothers in the womb, and one He already hated, the other, He loved. So yeah, it can happen)

If my son was predestinated to be a fornicating sinner, I'd not really lose any sleep over it (okay, so I would, but I wouldn't admit it). Although, if God wants to damn whatever children I have to hell, that's his right, he is the absolute sovereign God. I'd hope though that my children will indeed be Elect. But if my first child isn't Elect, I can always have another, another, etc

(Indeed I'd like to have 5-15 kids, I must admit though, quite likely, at least 1 or 2 won't be Elect, as God said, "Jacob have I loved, But Esau have I hated." (Malachi 1:2-3) they were twin brothers in the womb, and one He already hated, the other, He loved. So yeah, it can happen)

So all this palaver was over nothing? Because your son isn't elect? So if he got a girl pregnant, you'd say ho hum whatever?

No wonder your mum beat you with a wooden board - she could probably tell by your sulky sensitive demeanour that you're not Elect.

If my son was predestinated to be a fornicating sinner, I'd not really lose any sleep over it (okay, so I would, but I wouldn't admit it). Although, if God wants to damn whatever children I have to hell, that's his right, he is the absolute sovereign God. I'd hope though that my children will indeed be Elect. But if my first child isn't Elect, I can always have another, another, etc

(Indeed I'd like to have 5-15 kids, I must admit though, quite likely, at least 1 or 2 won't be Elect, as God said, "Jacob have I loved, But Esau have I hated." (Malachi 1:2-3) they were twin brothers in the womb, and one He already hated, the other, He loved. So yeah, it can happen)

You speak as though children are disposable, and if they are not chosen by God to be elect...then the heck with them....you can always have more. ????

And you and I were discussing something else last night in this thread.....I'm back.

You know what I haven't had in a while? Big League Chew...

If my son was predestinated to be a fornicating sinner, I'd not really lose any sleep over it (okay, so I would, but I wouldn't admit it). Although, if God wants to damn whatever children I have to hell, that's his right, he is the absolute sovereign God. I'd hope though that my children will indeed be Elect. But if my first child isn't Elect, I can always have another, another, etc

(Indeed I'd like to have 5-15 kids, I must admit though, quite likely, at least 1 or 2 won't be Elect, as God said, "Jacob have I loved, But Esau have I hated." (Malachi 1:2-3) they were twin brothers in the womb, and one He already hated, the other, He loved. So yeah, it can happen)

Or, alternatively - your children will turn out how you raise them.

No wonder your mum beat you with a wooden board - .


I won't even dignify this with a reply.

You speak as though children are disposable, and if they are not chosen by God to be elect...then the heck with them....you can always have more. ????

And you and I were discussing something else last night in this thread.....I'm back.

Personally, as I've said before... judging by the apparent attitude to women (or 'whores' as he calls them)... we don't have to worry about VoteEarly having any problems with 'children'....

I can't imagine many women will willingly sign on for repeated abuse.

You speak as though children are disposable, and if they are not chosen by God to be elect...then the heck with them....you can always have more. ????

And you and I were discussing something else last night in this thread.....I'm back.

Children aren't disposable, but Noah's one son sodomized him on the Ark (from what I gather, it was oral sex on Noah as he slept). Lot's daughters, thinking they were the last two women left in the world after Sodom was destroyed, got him drunk and slept with him so they could repopulate the world.

Elect need not get too upset if their children are doing such evil sins, it's ideal that the children be Elect too, but only God can make that call.

Anyway, what were we discussing? Help jog my memory up a bit, please.

You know what I haven't had in a while? Big League Chew...


On the same totally off-topic post, I haven't had Red Man Chew in a while.

I won't even dignify this with a reply.

I agree that it was a little unnecessary.. but it DID make me think...

What if your MOTHER is Elect?

Personally, as I've said before... judging by the apparent attitude to women (or 'whores' as he calls them)... we don't have to worry about VoteEarly having any problems with 'children'....

I can't imagine many women will willingly sign on for repeated abuse.


When did I ever say I'd be abusive?

Also, please do tell me, what do you consider women who openly offer sex to men they hardly know or just met? Is not the term 'whore' appropriate?

On the same totally off-topic post, I haven't had Red Man Chew in a while.

Sorry, making up my own jokes...

I agree that it was a little unnecessary.. but it DID make me think...

What if your MOTHER is Elect?


Adultering whores are never Elect. As I said, God wills it that His elect be compelled to live upright lives.

I can't imagine many women will willingly sign on for repeated abuse.

You'd be surprised then

Adultering whores are never Elect. As I said, God wills it that His elect be compelled to live upright lives.

hahaha

When did I ever say I'd be abusive?

Also, please do tell me, what do you consider women who openly offer sex to men they hardly know or just met? Is not the term 'whore' appropriate?

Do you want me to go back and find your 'all women are whores' and 'the only way to deal with women is to beat them' type posts?

What do you consider men who openly offer sex to women they hardly know or just met?

I don't think the word 'whore' is appropriate, no.

Human, perhaps.

Children aren't disposable, but Noah's one son sodomized him on the Ark (from what I gather, it was oral sex on Noah as he slept). Lot's daughters, thinking they were the last two women left in the world after Sodom was destroyed, got him drunk and slept with him so they could repopulate the world.

Elect need not get too upset if their children are doing such evil sins, it's ideal that the children be Elect too, but only God can make that call.

Anyway, what were we discussing? Help jog my memory up a bit, please.


About the church and women and your opinion of women and how I said that Calvinism must not respect women or hold them very high in the scheme of things. Is that so?

Adultering whores are never Elect. As I said, God wills it that His elect be compelled to live upright lives.

Not at all.

Elect means Elect... you can be an adulterer, murderer, paedophile, and STILL be elect... because you are ALREADY chosen, so you can't be UNCHOSEN.

So - what if your mother was Elect?

That would mean that your 'self-assurance' of your own election, MUST be wrong....

What do you consider men who openly offer sex to women they hardly know or just met?



Whore monger, lecherous, fornicator, etc. Take your pick.

I can't imagine many women will willingly sign on for repeated abuse.


Too many already have. :(

Not at all.

Elect means Elect... you can be an adulterer, murderer, paedophile, and STILL be elect... because you are ALREADY chosen, so you can't be UNCHOSEN.

So - what if your mother was Elect?

That would mean that your 'self-assurance' of your own election, MUST be wrong....


NO, NO, NO! You don't get it!


God will make those He elects, walk the path of righteousness, thus they will show powerful signs, in their life, of their election.

No pedophile is ever elect, ever!

You are twisting and distorting the idea of Election.

About the church and women and your opinion of women and how I said that Calvinism must not respect women or hold them very high in the scheme of things. Is that so?


No, Calvinism respects women, Calvinists just don't believe the bible (Old and New Testament in this case) is meant to be held hostage to social trends (Feminism)

Anyway, if you get on AOL, we can talk more about this.

Whore monger, lecherous, fornicator, etc. Take your pick.

You are offering me fornicators?

Is pimping allowed in calvinism, then?

NO, NO, NO! You don't get it!


God will make those He elects, walk the path of righteousness, thus they will show powerful signs, in their life, of their election.

No pedophile is ever elect, ever!

You are twisting and distorting the idea of Election.

You're making the idea of election up as you go along. Given your obvious tendency to externalise your personal trauma and your conviction about paedophilia, I'm bound to ask what your childhood sexual experiences were like?

Is pimping allowed in calvinism, then?


Please don't ask stupid questions.

NO, NO, NO! You don't get it!


God will make those He elects, walk the path of righteousness, thus they will show powerful signs, in their life, of their election.

No pedophile is ever elect, ever!

You are twisting and distorting the idea of Election.

I must be really confused, but if youre saying that God chooses who is elect, and that no pedophile, murderer, whore....whatever labels are on the "Calvins list of naughty people".... then sinners cannot be saved. Isnt that a major contradiction of the word of God? Cant anyone be saved? Isnt the only unforgiven sin blasphemy of the holy ghost? I mean heck...if thats the case....then whats the point?

NO, NO, NO! You don't get it!


God will make those He elects, walk the path of righteousness, thus they will show powerful signs, in their life, of their election.

No pedophile is ever elect, ever!

You are twisting and distorting the idea of Election.

On the contrary, YOU are twisting and distorting the idea of election.

Show me a bible verse that says a paedophile cannot be elect?

Show me the bible verse that says that someone CAN be taken from the hand of god, ONCE they are in?

God can't 'make' those he elects 'walk the path of righteousness'... he can elect them (predestining them to 'heaven', no matter what), and then encourage them to be upright, and punish them if they are not...

But, the paedophile who was elected, is stuck there... and god can't break his/her OWN rules, to remove them... so - no matter WHAT punishment he metes out... the paedophile is Elect, and WILL be given grace.

Please don't ask stupid questions.

How about, I don't ask what you consider to be 'stupid questions', if you don't make what I consider to be 'stupid statements'?

I must be really confused, but if youre saying that God chooses who is elect, and that no pedophile, murderer, whore....whatever labels are on the "Calvins list of naughty people".... then sinners cannot be saved. Isnt that a major contradiction of the word of God? Cant anyone be saved? Isnt the only unforgiven sin blasphemy of the holy ghost? I mean heck...if thats the case....then whats the point?


Here is a fairly good site which covers it all.
http://www.mslick.com/

Anyway, most folks believe everybody and anybody can be saved because they let their preacher/priest read the bible for them, and they never open one for themselves. They go through life listening to some demon such as Jerry Falwell, Billy Graham, or Pat Robertson, telling them that God forgives all, and all folks need to do is repent (and send them money) and they can be saved.

They are telling people what their "itching ears" seek to hear. The lie that Christ died for all and that God loves everybody.

Most folks can't stand to hear the truth since they'd realize they're most likely not Elect, and are more than likely headed straight to hell the instant they die.

Here is a fairly good site which covers it all.
http://www.mslick.com/

Anyway, most folks believe everybody and anybody can be saved because they let their preacher/priest read the bible for them, and they never open one for themselves. They go through life listening to some demon such as Jerry Falwell, Billy Graham, or Pat Robertson, telling them that God forgives all, and all folks need to do is repent (and send them money) and they can be saved.

They are telling people what their "itching ears" seek to hear. The lie that Christ died for all and that God loves everybody.

Most folks can't stand to hear the truth since they'd realize they're most likely not Elect, and are more than likely headed straight to hell the instant they die.

Just out of curiousity... you do realise that, the simple fact that Jesus was killed, means he cannot be "Messiah", and therefore, cannot have saved anyone - not even the elect?

Show me the bible verse that says that someone CAN be taken from the hand of god, ONCE they are in?



Once saved always saved, if you are Elect, you are always Elect.

John 10:27-28 "My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they will never perish."

1 John 2:19 "They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us. But they went out, that it might become plain that they all are not of us."

Philippians 1:6 "And I am sure of this, that he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ."



But, pedophiles will never be Elect, nor will those who have committed the "sin which causes death".

The New Testament made it clear, some sins are worse than others.

Just out of curiousity... you do realise that, the simple fact that Jesus was killed, means he cannot be "Messiah", and therefore, cannot have saved anyone - not even the elect?


That's the most blasphemous thing I've heard in a while, and I've spoken with Methodists before.

You don't get it, Christ laid down His life for His sheep (His Elect) and if you don't get that, you never will.

Here is a fairly good site which covers it all.
http://www.mslick.com/

Anyway, most folks believe everybody and anybody can be saved because they let their preacher/priest read the bible for them, and they never open one for themselves. They go through life listening to some demon such as Jerry Falwell, Billy Graham, or Pat Robertson, telling them that God forgives all, and all folks need to do is repent (and send them money) and they can be saved.

They are telling people what their "itching ears" seek to hear. The lie that Christ died for all and that God loves everybody.

Most folks can't stand to hear the truth since they'd realize they're most likely not Elect, and are more than likely headed straight to hell the instant they die.

Whos truth are you speaking??? It seems you are basing your beliefs not on the word of GoD (which you quote verbatim all the time) but on the Calvinistic preacher youve spoken of. I cant remember his name-sorry. Either you live according to the word or you dont. You cant take the scripture and condense it, shape it, mold it to the way your preacher wishes you to believe. Do you....honestly believe in all the teachings of Calvinism or is this an outlet for some emotional issues that have caused you pain in the past? I cant understand all this contradiction. And I cant understand how you can omit all the parts of the Bible that speak of a loving God who forgives. You choose the most extreme views the Bible speaks of and focus on that and that only.

Once saved always saved, if you are Elect, you are always Elect.

John 10:27-28 "My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they will never perish."

1 John 2:19 "They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us. But they went out, that it might become plain that they all are not of us."

Philippians 1:6 "And I am sure of this, that he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ."



But, pedophiles will never be Elect, nor will those who have committed the "sin which causes death".

The New Testament made it clear, some sins are worse than others.

Doesn't matter - as you just pointed out, once you are in, you are in.

Thus - thou you claim to be elect, if you decided to murder someone tomorrow, you would be no less elect than you are now.

Once you are in, you are in.

So - heaven will be filled with a multitude of sinners, because they got the golden ticket... and you have to face the prosepct that - since you CANNOT prove otherwise - your arrival at the pearly gates might be your reunion with your earthly mother.

Or maybe, she's going there.. and you are just deluded..

Makes you think, doesn't it.

Whos truth are you speaking??? It seems you are basing your beliefs not on the word of GoD (which you quote verbatim all the time) but on the Calvinistic preacher youve spoken of. I cant remember his name-sorry. Either you live according to the word or you dont. You cant take the scripture and condense it, shape it, mold it to the way your preacher wishes you to believe. Do you....honestly believe in all the teachings of Calvinism or is this an outlet for some emotional issues that have caused you pain in the past? I cant understand all this contradiction. And I cant understand how you can omit all the parts of the Bible that speak of a loving God who forgives. You choose the most extreme views the Bible speaks of and focus on that and that only.


I really have no idea where you people keep getting the idea that God is love, unless as I've speculated, you're not actually reading your bibles, but rather you're letting your preacher/priest decide for you and tell you what is what.

Crack a bible and start reading, I'd suggest you read the Gospel of Matthew, Romans, Ephesians, Timothy, Peter, Isaiah, Ezekiel, and that ought to do it for starters.

Please don't ask stupid questions.

There are no stupid questions: just stupid answers.

I assume from your response that pimping isn't allowed in Calvinism. What makes this of a distinctly different nature from bearing false witness then (which according to you is permitted)?

Doesn't matter - as you just pointed out, once you are in, you are in.

Thus - thou you claim to be elect, if you decided to murder someone tomorrow, you would be no less elect than you are now.

Once you are in, you are in.

So - heaven will be filled with a multitude of sinners, because they got the golden ticket... and you have to face the prosepct that - since you CANNOT prove otherwise - your arrival at the pearly gates might be your reunion with your earthly mother.

Or maybe, she's going there.. and you are just deluded..

Makes you think, doesn't it.

You've completely ignored the points I made that God MAKES the Elect behave righteously, or they're not really Elect! Since you've continued to ignore this (I presume just to hassle me), I'm going to start ignoring you.

That's the most blasphemous thing I've heard in a while, and I've spoken with Methodists before.

You don't get it, Christ laid down His life for His sheep (His Elect) and if you don't get that, you never will.

Not blasphemy - YOUR claiming that ONLY the Elect will enter heaven (against the express teaching of Jesus) would be far more blasphemous.

I was just thinking, since the Book of Habakkuk 3:13 (in the Tenach) says "You come forth to save your people, to save your anointed one. You crush the heads of the wicked, you lay bare their bases at the neck…"

That means that 'Messiah' cannot be killed, not by mortal intervention.

Similarly: Psalms 91:1-12 makes it equally clear: "He that dwelleth in the secret place of the most High shall abide under the shadow of the Almighty... I will say of the LORD, He is my refuge and my fortress: my God; in him will I trust.... Surely he shall deliver thee from the snare of the fowler, and from the noisome pestilence.... There shall no evil befall thee, neither shall any plague come nigh thy dwelling.... For he shall give his angels charge over thee, to keep thee in all thy ways....They shall bear thee up in their hands, lest thou dash thy foot against a stone."

Angels would physically intervene to stop harm coming to Messiah.

Those are the prophecies of 'messiah'.

If Jesus doesn't fulfill the prophecies of Messiah, then he IS NOT Messiah... therefore, 'elect' or not... you aren't saved, because Messiah hasn't been here yet.

No wonder your mum beat you with a wooden board - .

Attack the argument, not the poster. You're out of line.

You've completely ignored the points I made that God MAKES the Elect behave righteously, or they're not really Elect! Since you've continued to ignore this (I presume just to hassle me), I'm going to start ignoring you.
In other words - you are losing this argument.. so you are going to run away?

Listen carefully...

God cannot MAKE the 'elect', or anyone else, act in any way... he can only guide, and then reprimand. He can send an evil spirit upon you, if you beleive THOSE parts of scripture.

So.

He can 'elect' you. Once elected, he can guide you.

If you 'sin' against him, he can punish you... even kill you.

But he cannot MAKE you obey.

And there is the problem - if you chose NOT to obey.. he can kill you, but you are STILL 'elect'... so you are still 'IN'.

I really have no idea where you people keep getting the idea that God is love, unless as I've speculated, you're not actually reading your bibles, but rather you're letting your preacher/priest decide for you and tell you what is what.

Crack a bible and start reading, I'd suggest you read the Gospel of Matthew,...


"For if you love those who love you, what reward have you? Do not even the tax-gatherers do the same? "And if you greet your brothers only, what do you do more than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? "Therefore you are to be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect. (Matthew 5:46-48).

Not blasphemy - YOUR claiming that ONLY the Elect will enter heaven (against the express teaching of Jesus) would be far more blasphemous.

I was just thinking, since the Book of Habakkuk 3:13 (in the Tenach) says "You come forth to save your people, to save your anointed one. You crush the heads of the wicked, you lay bare their bases at the neck…"

That means that 'Messiah' cannot be killed, not by mortal intervention.

Similarly: Psalms 91:1-12 makes it equally clear: "He that dwelleth in the secret place of the most High shall abide under the shadow of the Almighty... I will say of the LORD, He is my refuge and my fortress: my God; in him will I trust.... Surely he shall deliver thee from the snare of the fowler, and from the noisome pestilence.... There shall no evil befall thee, neither shall any plague come nigh thy dwelling.... For he shall give his angels charge over thee, to keep thee in all thy ways....They shall bear thee up in their hands, lest thou dash thy foot against a stone."

Angels would physically intervene to stop harm coming to Messiah.

Those are the prophecies of 'messiah'.

If Jesus doesn't fulfill the prophecies of Messiah, then he IS NOT Messiah... therefore, 'elect' or not... you aren't saved, because Messiah hasn't been here yet.

Prophecies by a people (Israelites) who had a tendency to be possessed by demons. Indeed Christ was always chasing demons out of the Judeans, or haven't you ever cracked a bible?


I keep telling you, to say that Christ wasn't meant to die is the ultimate blasphemy, you're never going to change my mind, you're wasting your time, I suggest you pick a topic that will achieve something meaningful, and we can discuss something else then.

Prophecies by a people (Israelites) who had a tendency to be possessed by demons. Indeed Christ was always chasing demons out of the Judeans, or haven't you ever cracked a bible?


I keep telling you, to say that Christ wasn't meant to die is the ultimate blasphemy, you're never going to change my mind, you're wasting your time, I suggest you pick a topic that will achieve something meaningful, and we can discuss something else then.

Oh, you ARE good.

So - the people who prophecied Messiah were possessed by demons?

Excellent.

Couldn't have done better, myself... and my guess is, you don't ene know what you just did.

I really have no idea where you people keep getting the idea that God is love, unless as I've speculated, you're not actually reading your bibles, but rather you're letting your preacher/priest decide for you and tell you what is what.

Crack a bible and start reading, I'd suggest you read the Gospel of Matthew, Romans, Ephesians, Timothy, Peter, Isaiah, Ezekiel, and that ought to do it for starters.


ok......

1 John 4:7-8 KJV)
(7) Beloved, let us love one another: for love is of God; and every one that loveth is born of God, and knoweth God. (8) He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love.

John 15:12-14,17 KJV)
(12) This is my commandment, That ye love one another, as I have loved you. (13) Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends. (14) Ye are my friends, if ye do whatsoever I command you. (17) These things I command you, that ye love one another.

John 3:16 KJV)
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

did you say Romans?
Romans 8:38-39 KJV)
(38) For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, (39) Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.


(Jeremiah 31:3 KJV)
The Lord hath appeared of old unto me, {saying}, Yea, I have loved thee with an everlasting love: therefore with lovingkindness have I drawn thee.

What say you?

Comments on Calvinism

I am a Calvinist. That is, I hold to the basic tenets of Reformed theology1 as described in TULIP. Nevertheless, I do not believe that if someone rejects these tenets that I must reject them or that they are not Christians. Nor do I maintain that those who have examined and rejected Calvinist principles are simply "wrong." Rather, according to Rom. 14:1-12 a person should believe as they do based upon an honest evaluation of God's word. If someone examines God's word and does not agree with the tenets of Calvinism, that is perfectly fine with me. I have said this many times.
Nevertheless, I believe what I believe because I have examined the Bible and hold to those principles based upon what I have seen. Of course, I believe I am right. But I also admit that it is possible I could be wrong. Whichever is the truth, I am obligated to believe according to what I think is most biblically correct.
I do not parade my Reformed beliefs, do not insist that people adhere to them. Nor do I look down upon any who do not accept them. I hope that others will not look down upon me for believing what I do regarding Reformed theology.

Taken from the site that VE posted(http://www.mslick.com/). My bold, but very interesting contrast in viewpoint, no?

"For if you love those who love you, what reward have you? Do not even the tax-gatherers do the same? "And if you greet your brothers only, what do you do more than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? "Therefore you are to be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect. (Matthew 5:46-48).


Matthew 18:7 sort of knocks to hell the notion that Christ loved everybody, and that the message of God was love.

"Woe unto the world, because of offenses." (Matthew 18:7)

or haven't you ever cracked a bible?


Just by the way... you are on losing ground on this one... unless you have read the bible in Latin, and in the original Hebrew/Aramaic/Greek.

Don't try to pull 'bible-reading-superiority on me, friend.

It'd be like asking a porcupine for an ass-kicking contest.

What you have most likely read, is one of the horribly flawed English 'translations'. Am I right?

Comments on Calvinism

I am a Calvinist. That is, I hold to the basic tenets of Reformed theology1 as described in TULIP. Nevertheless, I do not believe that if someone rejects these tenets that I must reject them or that they are not Christians. Nor do I maintain that those who have examined and rejected Calvinist principles are simply "wrong." Rather, according to Rom. 14:1-12 a person should believe as they do based upon an honest evaluation of God's word. If someone examines God's word and does not agree with the tenets of Calvinism, that is perfectly fine with me. I have said this many times.
Nevertheless, I believe what I believe because I have examined the Bible and hold to those principles based upon what I have seen. Of course, I believe I am right. But I also admit that it is possible I could be wrong. Whichever is the truth, I am obligated to believe according to what I think is most biblically correct.
I do not parade my Reformed beliefs, do not insist that people adhere to them. Nor do I look down upon any who do not accept them. I hope that others will not look down upon me for believing what I do regarding Reformed theology.

Taken from the site that VE posted. My bold, but very interesting contrast in viewpoint, no?


Not all Calvinists believe the same, I don't want to force my beliefs on others, and I frankly don't care if others accept the 5 Points or not. If they don't, it's a sign of their reprobation and I really don't care who goes to hell and who doesn't, since God owns the universe and it's all His call anyway. I'm not going to question God.

Ham did nothing of the sort to Noah, VoteEarly:

18 The sons of Noah who came out of the ark were Shem, Ham and Japheth. (Ham was the father of Canaan.) 19 These were the three sons of Noah, and from them came the people who were scattered over the earth.
20 Noah, a man of the soil, proceeded [a] to plant a vineyard. 21 When he drank some of its wine, he became drunk and lay uncovered inside his tent. 22 Ham, the father of Canaan, saw his father's nakedness and told his two brothers outside. 23 But Shem and Japheth took a garment and laid it across their shoulders; then they walked in backward and covered their father's nakedness. Their faces were turned the other way so that they would not see their father's nakedness.

His crime was in going and telling his brothers of his father's weakness and his nakedness -- in other words, shaming Noah. Where did you get the idea that sex was involved?

Matthew 18:7 sort of knocks to hell the notion that Christ loved everybody, and that the message of God was love.

"Woe unto the world, because of offenses." (Matthew 18:7)

Not at all, friend - that just says that sin will be punished.

Of course - being 'saved' washes away sin.... so, if everyone gets saved, no-one needs to get punished.

In other words - you are losing this argument.. so you are going to run away?

Listen carefully...

God cannot MAKE the 'elect', or anyone else, act in any way... he can only guide, and then reprimand. He can send an evil spirit upon you, if you beleive THOSE parts of scripture.

So.

He can 'elect' you. Once elected, he can guide you.

If you 'sin' against him, he can punish you... even kill you.

But he cannot MAKE you obey.

And there is the problem - if you chose NOT to obey.. he can kill you, but you are STILL 'elect'... so you are still 'IN'.



Men are nothing to God and He can do with us as He pleases, you don't seem to understand, God owns the world and owns all people on it. People are his to do with as he so pleases. He can damn us all to hell if he so wanted, but by the very fact that he elects some, it shows he has mercy.

God can make you do anything he wants, indeed he does, for this false notion of free will you speak of, it's nothing but Arminian heresy.

Men exist as little more than puppets, totally subject to either the wrath, or the mercy, of God.

Attack the argument, not the poster. You're out of line.

Actually I was attacking the argument. I was demonstrating the absurdity of his point that he must be elect and his mother must not be elect.

Crack a bible and start reading, I'd suggest you read the Gospel of Matthew, Romans, Ephesians, Timothy, Peter, Isaiah, Ezekiel, and that ought to do it for starters.

I recommend reading Gospels and the rest of the new testament, especially Paul's writings because they were purposely meant for Gentile Christians.

The old testament, their written for the jews. Unless you want to observe the Sabbath day and don't eat pork or other dirty animal :p

Matthew 18:7 sort of knocks to hell the notion that Christ loved everybody, and that the message of God was love.

"Woe unto the world, because of offenses." (Matthew 18:7)

Misery or bad-fortune is not the contradiction of love: did you not claim yourself that you would beat your hypothetical children (ie. inflicting woe on them) does this mean you would not love them?

Men exist as little more than puppets, totally subject to either the wrath, or the mercy, of God.

So why are you constantly harping on about whores? These whores of which you speak are God's puppets. Who are you to castigate them for carrying out the tasks that have been ordained for them by God?

Oh, you ARE good.

So - the people who prophecied Messiah were possessed by demons?

Excellent.

Couldn't have done better, myself... and my guess is, you don't ene know what you just did.


Do you deny that man folks in those days (as many are today) were possessed by demons?

Actually I was attacking the argument. I was demonstrating the absurdity of his point that he must be elect and his mother must not be elect.

"No wonder your mother beat you with a board" is an ad hominem attack.

ok......

1 John 4:7-8 KJV)
(7) Beloved, let us love one another: for love is of God; and every one that loveth is born of God, and knoweth God. (8) He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love.

John 15:12-14,17 KJV)
(12) This is my commandment, That ye love one another, as I have loved you. (13) Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends. (14) Ye are my friends, if ye do whatsoever I command you. (17) These things I command you, that ye love one another.

John 3:16 KJV)
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

did you say Romans?
Romans 8:38-39 KJV)
(38) For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, (39) Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.


(Jeremiah 31:3 KJV)
The Lord hath appeared of old unto me, {saying}, Yea, I have loved thee with an everlasting love: therefore with lovingkindness have I drawn thee.

What say you?


Matthew 10:34 "Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace unto the Earth, for I did not come to bring peace, but a sword."

Matthew 18:7 "Woe unto the world because of offenses."


I'd cite more, but I have to leave in a few minutes to get to class, I'll be around later though.

Ham did nothing of the sort to Noah, VoteEarly:

18 The sons of Noah who came out of the ark were Shem, Ham and Japheth. (Ham was the father of Canaan.) 19 These were the three sons of Noah, and from them came the people who were scattered over the earth.
20 Noah, a man of the soil, proceeded [a] to plant a vineyard. 21 When he drank some of its wine, he became drunk and lay uncovered inside his tent. 22 Ham, the father of Canaan, saw his father's nakedness and told his two brothers outside. 23 But Shem and Japheth took a garment and laid it across their shoulders; then they walked in backward and covered their father's nakedness. Their faces were turned the other way so that they would not see their father's nakedness.

His crime was in going and telling his brothers of his father's weakness and his nakedness -- in other words, shaming Noah. Where did you get the idea that sex was involved?

This is from Genesis 9, for those interested.

Do you deny that man folks in those days (as many are today) were possessed by demons?

This could of course, all just be a lie spread by the Elect...

Men are nothing to God and He can do with us as He pleases, you don't seem to understand, God owns the world and owns all people on it. People are his to do with as he so pleases. He can damn us all to hell if he so wanted, but by the very fact that he elects some, it shows he has mercy.

God can make you do anything he wants, indeed he does, for this false notion of free will you speak of, it's nothing but Arminian heresy.

Men exist as little more than puppets, totally subject to either the wrath, or the mercy, of God.

I said nothing of 'free will'.

I just said god can't MAKE you do anything... he can only push you, and reprimand.

If your 'god' could MAKE men do anything (rather than shape and reprimand) then there would be no possibility of blasphemy against the spirit... because god wouldn't allow THAT sin.

I like the fact that you cling to the belief that SOME will be saved. It seems more likely that the 'god' as you describe him, will condemn ALL... and that this notion of 'elect' is a desperate hope by some, that they will be spared.

Just by the way... you are on losing ground on this one... unless you have read the bible in Latin, and in the original Hebrew/Aramaic/Greek.

Don't try to pull 'bible-reading-superiority on me, friend.

It'd be like asking a porcupine for an ass-kicking contest.

What you have most likely read, is one of the horribly flawed English 'translations'. Am I right?

1611 King James is the perfect translation, also the 1599 Geneva Bible is perfect as well.

Matthew 10:34 "Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace unto the Earth, for I did not come to bring peace, but a sword."

Matthew 18:7 "Woe unto the world because of offenses."


I'd cite more, but I have to leave in a few minutes to get to class, I'll be around later though.


Well is this the battle of scriptures or what? Do the ones youve sited cancel out the ones I posted that speak of a loving God? Either he loves or he doesnt.......

Ham did nothing of the sort to Noah, VoteEarly:

18 The sons of Noah who came out of the ark were Shem, Ham and Japheth. (Ham was the father of Canaan.) 19 These were the three sons of Noah, and from them came the people who were scattered over the earth.
20 Noah, a man of the soil, proceeded [a] to plant a vineyard. 21 When he drank some of its wine, he became drunk and lay uncovered inside his tent. 22 Ham, the father of Canaan, saw his father's nakedness and told his two brothers outside. 23 But Shem and Japheth took a garment and laid it across their shoulders; then they walked in backward and covered their father's nakedness. Their faces were turned the other way so that they would not see their father's nakedness.

His crime was in going and telling his brothers of his father's weakness and his nakedness -- in other words, shaming Noah. Where did you get the idea that sex was involved?



Oral tradition passed down in the form of Oral Torah, which is acceptable in some cases for historical matters.