Posted on 02/22/2002 6:17:19 AM PST by ArGee
Hmmm. In other posts you have been relatively quick to assume what I mean without asking for details. Now you have asked me twice to specifically name those who I consider "the perverts."
Does this fishing expedition have a purpose? Is this how people get suspended?
If I am falsely accusing you of setting a trap, please forgive me. But you have never asked me for many specifics that I very much wanted to give to you. Why now do you suddenly become demanding of specifics?
Shalom.
Yes, I have. I would think that if you have the audacity to call those who oppose you philosophically as "the perverts", that perhaps you'd actually have enough integrity and courage to name them. But.... I guess not.
Does this fishing expedition have a purpose?
Fishing expedition? You chose the words... not me. You'd think you'd be man enough to stand up and say what you meant.
Is this how people get suspended?
I don't know. I'm not involved in such decisions. But maybe you ought to take a moment and think about the nature of such a comment, if it makes you wonder whether you might be suspended for it.
It is a rather rude thing to say, and that's precisely how you meant it.
All for Jesus of course.
Maybe the subject comes up most often, because you participate in threads creating "talking points" on the subject, and bump just about every thread you participate in to a list of people who are fixated on homosexuals.
Just a guess though.
If you have not seen me ask specific questions in the past, I'd submit that you weren't paying very close attention.
You have seen no posts on the topic, because you and your friends are not obsessed with them, as you are with homosexuals.
That was kinda the point.
Strange things have been occurring on this site as of late and it is disconcerting to those like JMJ333 who desire sincere, intelligent debate rather than venomous rhetoric and name calling. I pray she finds a forum worthy of her brilliance.
God Bless,
EODGUY
P.S. My computer has not been working for 4 days. It was only luck that I got on-line tonight. I hope I can get it repaired so I can recover e-mail I haven't received for 4 days.
OWK, I've not looked at your profile to check up on you, so to speak, so I'm only going to base what I've seen on our SASU threads. I personally, do not consider you a pervert. I've gotten sick of the way it seems that there's SO MANY new people on FR who only want to post for the joy of throwing out dirty comments. Now, I'm no prude....but I've gotta tell you, OWK, I was on a thread Saturday (?) night that almost caused me to leave FR too.
I've made some incredible friends here, so I don't know if I could truly leave. Who knows what God's got in store for me.
OWK, please, please, PLEASE, try to read what everyone's trying to say to you regarding God and His rules. HIS rules that we're trying to follow. Please don't try to "read between the lines" and make a mountain out of a mole-hill. It is our deepest desire that you, OWK, spend eternity with us in Heaven.
I'd recommend, as the Un-Official Gramma of This Group, that you pray and ask God to reveal to you what He'd like you to learn. You see, you're really not arguing with us, it's His laws.
Sorry for the rant, but I care about each and every one of you.
Khepera, welcome back! Hope you had a grand and groovy (snert, snert) vacation.
One can not be certain how much of this is serious, but it is better to be safe than sorry. Please join me in prayer for a friend of ours.
Shalom.
It is rude. It is also precise and accurate.
From Dictionary.com:
n. (pûrvûrt)
One who practices sexual perversion.
But, once again, you are generally quick to assume what I mean, even when the word doesn't have as well known a meaning as pervert. Why, this time, were you asking me for details? You have never asked me what I mean by 'morality' or 'morals', for example. Yet we have discussed it many times and I have begun to think that you don't use the terms the same way I do, so clarification is needed. But in this case you ask.
When someone changes character so abruptly, it does cause others to wonder why.
Shalom.
P.S. I don't know if you are a pervert or not. You haven't discussed your sexual behavior with me, for which I am profoundly greatful. You have defended perversion. But that does not make you a pervert.
If someone is not serving others then he can't rule them as a Christian.
Jesus placed all others before himself, up to dying. So did his apostles (most of whom were martyrd) and a large number of early disciples. and a large number of missionaries, and a large number of parents and church leaders and common every day folk. Did they all (except Jesus) do it perfectly? Of course not, but they (and we) are called to do their best at it.
me->Christianity and tyranny are mutually exclusive concepts.
I would think that history would tend to disagree with your observation..... strongly.
Let me quote myself from the prior post:
If someone is a behaving as a tyrant then you can bet that they are not a Christian as they are violating Gods word by being a tyrant.
A person cannot be a tyrant and be a Christian. the concepts are mutually exclusive. A man can only have one master. He either serves God or he serves himself. Tyrants serve themselves. Christians serve God (and in that service serve the people they are accountable for).
Can you give me a few examples of "benevolent" (non-tyranical) Christian "rulers"?
Jesus, David, Solomon, George Washington and the Founding Fathers (sounds like a rock group of the fifties). History is full of Christian leaders who did well for their people and it's full of leaders who called themselves Christian but acted anti-Christ. You have to look at their words AND their actions to see if they were truly Christian.
All your objections still point out that you don't understand.
God Bless OWK and open his eyes to your truth.
God Save America (Please)
And why does he disrespect the rights of others? Because he places himself above them, (as I said).
Please try to understand. Knowledge, even to one who knows, is useless without understanding.
GSA(P)
About whom is it accurate?
One would think that a man bold enough to toss the word around, would have the courage and integrity to stand behind it, and tell us who he is talking about.
But I guess that's a lot to ask.
Jesus was not a political leader in any sense of the word.
David, and Solomon were tyrants.
And George Washington was a Deist.
Out of curiosity, can you understand the difference between condemnation of government imprisonment (or worse) of consenting adult homosexuals, and endorsement or defense of their behavior?
I know it's a complex thought, but take a moment and consider it.
You are replying to post 73, where I was very specific about who perverts are. You attack my courage and integrity for failing to do precisely what I have done. I don't mind our civil debate, but calling names is beneath you. Maybe you need to rephrase your question or reread my answer. But you don't need to smear me. Would you care to try again in a civil manner?
You should know that when Khepera got suspended my idea of fair play on this board changed dramatically. I will be far less patient with personal attacks than I have been in the past. Partly I want to know what the rules are here on FR, and partly I want to be sure that the conservatives aren't hampered in a one-sided way. So I'll put it back to you. Go back to post 73 and read my answer. I believe it precisely answers your question. If you disagree, try rephrasing your question. But please don't attack my courage or integrity again without a quote to back it up.
FR is intended to be a civil discussion board.
Shalom.
He was the greatest political leader. But we weren't discussing political leaders. We were discussing rulers. And Jesus is the King of Kings (ruler of rulers).
David, and Solomon were tyrants.
David and Solomon were monarchs, but they were not tyrants. Soloman moved in that direction in his later years, althoug it was his son who pushed it into tyranny. But David was a servant of his people. He was imperfect, but his heart was good. I just finished 2 Samuel and have a pretty fresh memory of David's actions and heart.
And George Washington was a Deist.
George Washington may not have had the same beliefs about G-d's intervention that I do, but he was not someone who believed that G-d does not intervene in the hearts of men. And he was an excellent example of a Christian ruler, whether a Christian or not.
Shalom.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.