Don’t Be a Liar

Archdiocese of Washington ^ | 01-03-19 | Msgr. Charles Pope

[Songcraft]

"It must have been buried in your volume of words."

Sorry I gave you too many words for you to handle there, Elsie.   In the future, I'll try to make the posts shorter, so the volume of words won't overwhelm you like that.   (That helps to explain the difficulties with biblical interpretation your posts so often display.   The volume of words in the Bible must totally pulverize you, in your quest to comprehend the truths "buried" there.)

[Songcraft]

"But MUCH less often than you IGNORE the clearly spoken words of JESUS.   Thank you, Father Guido Sarducci"

That is another stinking, bald-faced lie from your typing fingers, Mr. Elsie.   I NEVER ignore the words of Jesus, and you should be thoroughly ashamed for typing that filthy, disgusting, damnable lie.   (You forgot to add, "Thank you, father of all lies" for your totally false and contemptible post content there.)

I prayerfully study ALL the words of Jesus, and I interpret them correctly (exactly like the Apostle Paul did, when he also called a man father in Romans 4:11-12).   Your own interpretion obviously does not jive with the interpretation displayed by the Apostle Paul and the Holy Spirit, in that text in Romans 4:11-12, no matter how, or how often, you try to obfuscate it.

[af_vet_1981]

For having one's portion with the unbelievers, and being punished after the Lord's return according to one's deeds and accountability as in Lk. 12:41-48, is indeed clearly correspondent to the final judgment since it occurs after the Lord return, and souls are "judged every man according to their works

The Messiah, in that warning passage, listed four types of servants that could belong to "the little flock" so they can clearly be understood as disciples. Surely these disciples whom the Messiah personally addressed as "little flock" have a more certain pedigree than any reader here. He personally addressed them as "little flock" and they knew Him. Yet He warned them (not some others)


1. Servants who He finds watching when He comes for them
2. Servants who do not watch, harm others and eat and drink to excess
3. Servants who know His will and are neither ready, nor doing His will
4. Servants who do not know His will but do something worthy of a flogging

Only the second type of servant is assigned a portion with the unbelievers, and that because of his works.

If one holds that the other two types of servants punished are at the final judgment, and one holds that any punishment at the final judgment indicates hell (thus removing their names from the book of life and subjecting them to eternal damnation, for they were "little flock") then no one is effectively saved until they are judged and not punished (found watching (their behavior) and doing everything the LORD commanded).

It begs the question, why would someone be given many stripes or few stripes if cast into eternal fire and torment?
At that point, what difference would it make?

[Songcraft]

Well, boatbums, fist let me assure you that I never thought you were a man, based on your screen name.   (I must admit, however, that the thought has crossed my mind from time to time that you might be suffering from some kind of aberrant "multiple personality disorder", since you chose a screen mame that is plural, but, that's your business.)

Now, to address your other points, that's pretty weird, boatbums, that you think that is creepy to tell the truth about something.   I didn't say anything that was false, and I didn't say anything at all about Elsie being a homosexual.   That "homosexual" term came completely, 100% from your own mind, boatbums, so you might want to more closely examine your own strange thoughts, before you begin throwing despicably false stones at others.

I just pointed out the 100% honest truth that a male poster here uses a female screen name (Elsie).   Do you deny that simple truth, boatbums?   Do you have a problem with hearing the truth, boatbums?   Do you prefer to hide the truth, boatbums?

Do you have a problem with reading that Bible text, Deuteronomy 22:5, boatbums?   Does your Bible also contain the many texts that tell you (via St. Paul and others) that we Christians should admonish one another, when we think it is possibly needed, boatbums, as the Holy Spirit says that is the right thing to do?   Do you really believe those texts are the inspired Word of God, boatbums?

Quite frankly, I believe YOU should apologize, boatbums, for falsely claiming that I was implying Elsie was a homosexual, which is an utter, complete, bald-faced lie!   I implied no such thing.   That is all your own mind, boatbums.   I just used a text from the Holy Scriptures to warn Elsie about how God looks at men who falsely and deceptively pretend to be women.   Falsely pretending to be a woman, and being a homosexual, are two completely different things.   In fact, many transvestites are heterosexuals (just do a quick Google search on "heterosexual transvestites"), and it's likely that many men who prefer to use girly names are heterosexuals too.

The Bible talks about homosexuality in several other spots, but Deuteronomy 22:5 is not referring to homosexuality, but is referring specifically to men who pretend to be women, and declares that that kind of behavior "is an abomination to the Lord your God".   In the future, try to stick to the truth in your posts, boatbums.

[Mark17]

False statement; and thereby disqualifying the remainder of testimony

LOL. You come up with some good jokes bro. At least you didn’t randomly generate some verses. When I was a catholic, I was always told I had to earn my salvation, by hoping my good works, outweighed my bad works. Do all Catholics actually believe that? I don’t know, but I did. Now, that I am happily an ex catholic, I surely don’t. I no longer accept the worship of Nimrod either. I wonder why so many people do?

[Songcraft]

Since your name was mentioned in this post, I meant to ping you as well..

[Songcraft]

"This one?"

No, this one, Brother Elsie.

"A woman shall not wear man’s clothing, nor shall a man put on a woman’s clothing; for whoever does these things is an abomination to the Lord your God."
Deuteronomy 22:5

[af_vet_1981]

The last line of your post, do you understand where that Bema Seat is?

• When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory:
• And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats:
• And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.
• Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:
• For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in:
• Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me.
• Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink?
• When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee?
• Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee?
• And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.
• Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:
• For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink:
• I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not.
• Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee?
• Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me.
• And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.
  
  ...
  
  
• Wherefore we labour, that, whether present or absent, we may be accepted of him.
• For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad.
• Knowing therefore the terror of the Lord, we persuade men; but we are made manifest unto God; and I trust also are made manifest in your consciences.

Matthew, Catholic chapter twenty five, Protestant verses thirty one to forty six ,
Second Corinthians, Catholic chapter five, Protestant verses nine to eleven ,
as authorized, but not authored, by King James

[aMorePerfectUnion]

RVG placemarker

[Songcraft]

Mr. Elsie, you mean you already forgot what I posted to you just 6 days ago, in links both here and here?!?!?!?

(Just to recap them for you, Catholics are NOT obligated to believe private revelations, one of which you are quoting there again, just like Protestants are not obligated to believe your fellow Protestants (like this popular preacher) either.)

Anti-Catholic Preacher

(For Anti-Catholic Preacher "Oy Oy Oy")

[af_vet_1981]

"Except there are six cases of the word used for loss, and in the first three from the Messiah, He says the man loses his own soul. The fourth case is this one, where a man is saved as by fire. The fifth case is hypothetical (Paul writing that godly sorrow and repentance prevented the loss). The sixth case (Paul) speaks to the loss of everything (except the soul)."

And just what how does that help you?

Because post 290 reads:
"for not only does "suffer loss" means "loss" in the majority of cases, " which is not the case; half of the cases are for loss of one's soul, and spoken by the Messiah Himself. None of the other cases are about loss of rewards, and this case does not read "loss of reward" but rather "he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire." It is established that the "gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble" are works, and that every man will be judged according to his works, those things done in his body, whether good or bad. Therefore, the loss is not rewards (there is no reword for bad works, only punishment), but it could be punishment for unacceptable works (wood, hay stubble). Yet he is saved, yet as by fire.

[boatbums]

Sure...as soon as you stick to the RULES of the forum and stop making personal attacks on others! You're kinda new here so maybe you aren't very familiar with them. I copied this from the Religion Moderator's page to help you:

Ad Hominems

The main guideline to posting on the Religion Forum: ”Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.”

Whereas posters may argue vigorously for and against beliefs on “open” Religion Forum threads it is never tolerable to use ad hominems in religious debate because they invariably lead to flame wars when the subject is one’s deeply held religious beliefs.

For something to be "making it personal" it must be speaking to another Freeper, personally.

"Protestants are heretics" is not making it personal. "You are a heretic" is making it personal. "Catholics worship Mary" is not making it personal. "You worship Mary" is making it personal. "Mormons worship many gods" is not making it personal. "You worship many gods" is making it personal.

However, when a poster paints with a brush that accuses an entire religion of criminal behavior - his post will be pulled as flame bait. For example, posts that say "Protestants kill babies" or "Catholics molest children" or "Mormons kill non-Mormons" will be pulled. However, if the post is specific about a non-Freeper, I will not pull it. For example "Rev. Doe says abortion and infanticide are not sin" or "Father Doe was convicted for molesting those kids" or "Mormons killed non-Mormons at Mountain Meadows" would not be pulled.

Statements formed as questions are rarely "making it personal." "Are you a heretic" is not making it personal. "You are a heretic" is making it personal.

Forms of "making it personal" include mind reading, attributing motive, accusing another Freeper of telling a lie (because it attributes motive, the intent to deceive) - making the thread "about" individual Freeper(s), following a Freeper from thread to thread and badgering a Freeper over-and-again with the same question.

The words "prevarication" "dishonesty" "slander" "deceit" "calumny" and "subterfuge" are synonymous with "lie" because they entail intent.

Words such as "false" "error" "wrong" "inaccurate" "misstatement" do not attribute motive and are not "making it personal." Other words push the envelope of motive but are not synonymous with "lie" for purposes of modding the RF.

However, they can be "making it personal" if applied to another Freeper, personally, in such a way the discussion becomes "about" the individual Freeper instead of the issues. Those words include "misrepresentation" "detraction" "disinformation" "distortion" "hyperbole" and "doublespeak."

Another example, calling a group of Freepers "anti-Mormon" attributes motive to them as a group which is not technically "making it personal" - but saying that another Freeper, personally, is anti-Mormon instead of anti-MormonISM is an ad hominem. It is "making it personal."

Another example, a poster may say on an “open” RF thread that a particular belief, diety, religious authority, etc. is "Satanic." But he must not say "You are Satanic." That would be "making it personal." The Bible is always a legitimate source on the Religion Forum, so a poster might quote the Bible where Jesus called Peter "Satan." If a post serves no debate purpose (flame bait or 'making it personal' by devious means) - it would be pulled. When in doubt, avoid the use of the pronoun "you" and Freeper's names - or put yourself in the other guy's shoes.

[Songcraft]

"Sure...as soon as you stick to the RULES of the forum and stop making personal attacks on others!"

So, boatbums, in your post #297, you said it was "creepy" of me to criticize a fellow FReeper, and called my criticism "off-the-wall" and "snide", and falsely accused me of "implying he [Elsie] might be a homosexual/transexual based on his screen name", and said that was "dumb", and yet all of that nonsensical garbage you posted there is not "making personal attacks on others"?!?!?

Let me then rephrase what I told you in my post #304.

Your claim that I was implying that Elsie was a homosexual/transsexual, is 100% false, 100% inaccurate, 100% wrong, 100% erroneous.   I said absolutely nothing about Elsie being a homosexual.   You are the only one there who brought that "homosexual" term up, not me.   I was simply referring instead to the Bible text from the Holy Word of God that has you all upset there (Deuteronomy 22:5), which essentially says that when a man (falsely and deceptively, of course) pretends he is a woman, that is "an abomination to the Lord your God".   That has absolutely nothing to do with "homosexuality", like your post # 297 falsely claimed.

The only transsexual I spoke about in my earlier post, was Bruce Jenner/Caitlyn Jenner. He didn't start out as a full transgender, but first changed his name, then started dressing up like a woman, then finally had the radical "sex-change operation".

If you catch one of your kids taking their first puff on a cigarette, you don't wait until later, when they're dying in the hospital from lung cancer, to warn them of the dangers of smoking, but you try to warn them as soon as you detect their first few puffs.   You might even go so far as to show them videos of painfully dying smokers, or even live cases at a clinic someplace, in order to try to safely redirect their steps in that smoking regard.

The same should hold true for Christian brothers and sisters, who start giving some small signs or indications that they like to somehow pretend to be the opposite sex (like self-applying name changes -- Bruce ==> Caitlyn).   Knowing that pretending to be a woman is "an abomination to the Lord your God", it is actually a very good thing to gently admonish them about the way God really views their falsely and deceptively pretending to be a woman.

You may not like that, boatbums, but God does.

[boatbums]

Yeah, sure, Mom! Give me a break.

You castigate me for falsely accusing you and making it personal in my defense of Elsie, demand I apologize, then you proceed to school me on what the Bible says about cross-dressing - as if I wasn't aware - and then try to mom-splain why you don't like an anonymous FReeper's screen name! Yeah, I do think it is creepy and unnecessary. Elsie has been here for 20 years, if he hasn't transitioned yet, I doubt he will.;o)

Repeating the same PERSONAL attacks - that have NO basis in facts - doesn't enhance nor prove your contention. I've not met Elsie in person but I have no doubt in my mind that he is a normal, Christian, heterosexual man who is happily married and likes to push people's buttons who don't seem to be able to tell when someone is joking, jesting, jousting or just sharing his knowledge and beliefs about the serious issues of the Christian faith - and he certainly can.

Maybe spend some more time reading through the threads to get a feel for the many personalities that contribute to this great Conservative site and you might just find you grow less offended with opposing views and start to experience growth in grace, love and tolerance.

Have a nice Sunday.

[Songcraft]

So, it's okay for you to attack me, and falsely say that I implied Elsie was a homo, but it's not okay for me to respond, and rebut you.   Got it.   (You sound like a democrat!)        :-)

You have a nice Sunday too, boatbums.   I have to head back to my studies now, but I really do wish you (and Elsie) well, and pray that the true light of God illumines both your paths in the future.

[Mark17]

Sorry bro. I don’t agree with your theology. What you describe is the great white throne judgment. It ain’t the bema seat. Try again bro. Have I ever agreed with any theology you have raised? Probably not, but I am comfortable with that. 👍😁

[Elsie]

Sorry I gave you too many words for you to handle there, Elsie.

Call no man father.

[Elsie]

I NEVER ignore the words of Jesus,

Call no man father...

(Umbrage duly noted.)

[Elsie]

...and I interpret them correctly...

Francis; I think one of your followers has exposed a frailty in his spirit.

I suggest remedial CC classes to begin at ONCE!!

--As always, Screwtape

[Elsie]

I NEVER ignore the words of Jesus,

Yes; you do.

Yes; YOU do!

YES; you sure as heck DO!!!

Call no man father