[H. Montague Worthington]

Re: What to do about non-Republicans

By simply executing all violent offenders and drug users, the country would save money and reduce crime all at the same time.

I was in favor of Electric Bleachers when the Electric Chair was being debated in my state.

I think that potential violent offenders and drug users should be pre-emptively executed. After all, it worked to keep Saddam from using his massive stockpiles of Weapons of Mass Distruction in America's Heartland.

[Marshall]

Re: What to do about non-Republicans

I think that potential violent offenders and drug users should be pre-emptively executed.

You can't just execute every darky and Mexican.
The Godless Liberals would have a field day!

[SalvationSeeker]

Re: What to do about non-Republicans

You can't just execute every darky and Mexican.
The Godless Liberals would have a field day!

Then we'll execute them too for betraying America, I'd say..

[Brother Temperance]

Re: What to do about non-Republicans

This has nothing to do about my source...because the source I used was the exact same one as Jeb's. I thought I made this clear.

If my conclusions are invalid, so are Jeb's.

No, you both started out with the same source, but Jeb reached the right, logical conclusion, you somehow twisted the "facts" so they came out wrong. Seriously, why would you want to do something like that?

[raylu]

Re: What to do about non-Republicans

Depends on the crime.
All crimes involving any kind of theft or violence (against those who'm God hasn't commanded one to kill) is a sin..
That's a whole lot of crimes that can be classified as sins.
Also, breaking human law can be a sin in itself. (Ezra 7:26 & 1 Peter 2:13-16)

But not all, which is why sin and crime are not equivalent.

If you know that, how comes you ignore it?
Why do you hate God?

I would make the same argument to you from my interpretation of the Bible, which is why I refrain from doing so.
I have other reasons, too. I get the feeling that they would be too complex for you to understand, though, so I'm starting small.

No, you both started out with the same source, but Jeb reached the right, logical conclusion, you somehow twisted the "facts" so they came out wrong. Seriously, why would you want to do something like that?

I quoted the article. I quoted the article.

[Jeb Stuart Thurmond]

Re: What to do about non-Republicans

I would make the same argument to you from my interpretation of the Bible.

Do it. Let's see who is the real Christian who follows every word of the Bible literally, and who is the phoney.

You've implied that we are not 100% blood-bought, born again in the blood of the lamb slaves of Christ, well, time to put your money where your mouth is.

[raylu]

Re: What to do about non-Republicans

No. In the sentence immediately after the one you quoted, I said I would refrain from doing so because such debate is pointless.

You must first accept that words must be interpreted and hold no inherent meaning before such a discussion would be meaningful; otherwise, it would be a complete waste of my time.

[Jeb Stuart Thurmond]

Re: What to do about non-Republicans

No. In the sentence immediately after the one you quoted, I said I would refrain from doing so because such debate is pointless.

You must first accept that words must be interpreted and hold no inherent meaning before such a discussion would be meaningful; otherwise, it would be a complete waste of my time.

Okay, I accept that words must be interpreted and hold no inherent meaning.

What's your excuse to flee debate now?

[Pastor Ezekiel]

Re: What to do about non-Republicans

No. In the sentence immediately after the one you quoted, I said I would refrain from doing so because such debate is pointless.

You must first accept that words must be interpreted and hold no inherent meaning before such a discussion would be meaningful; otherwise, it would be a complete waste of my time.

All of this twaddle is a complete waste of Jesus' time and a waste of bandwidth. Have you tithed yet? Hit the Paypal button below and let Jesus know how much you love Him, Rayla-Jean.

[Jeb Stuart Thurmond]

Re: What to do about non-Republicans

It seems he's willing to debate, but is to cowardly to do it in public. The D.O.F. has intercepted this exchange:

(2007-09-27 16:20:02) rayllu: i assume jesus can help everyone?
(2007-09-27 16:20:23) pastor.billy_reuben: Of course He can. Please capitalize Jesus's name.
(2007-09-27 16:20:40) rayllu: and i also assume He can help them better than you can?
(2007-09-27 16:21:12) pastor.billy_reuben: Yes, but He uses me as one of His instruments. I am commanded to spread His Word.
(2007-09-27 16:21:46) rayllu: as far as i know, Jesus only helps people indirectly, through "instruments"
(2007-09-27 16:22:32) pastor.billy_reuben: As far as you know maybe, but Jesus does work miracles, amen.
(2007-09-27 16:22:59) rayllu: so Jesus does appear physically on earth and helps people directly?
(2007-09-27 16:24:15) pastor.billy_reuben: Sometimes. He will never appear to the unfaithful, however.
(2007-09-27 16:24:35) rayllu: so Jesus will never directly save someone?
(2007-09-27 16:25:14) pastor.billy_reuben: On the contrary, a person can ONLY be saved if Jesus directly intervenes.
(2007-09-27 16:25:38) pastor.billy_reuben: Mankind is to depraved to even have the desire to get saved, without the Lord's intervention.
(2007-09-27 16:25:55) rayllu: but if you need saving...doesn't that imply you are unfaithful?
(2007-09-27 16:27:26) pastor.billy_reuben: I am using the words unfaithful and unelect interchangeably. Let me clarify by switching to the word unelect. Jesus will never appear to the unelect. He directly intervenes in the lives of the elect, and that is how they become saved.
(2007-09-27 16:28:55) rayllu: i have never heard the word "elect" used to describe any group of people by a christian - except the Puritans
(2007-09-27 16:29:02) rayllu: so you'll have to explain to me what it means
(2007-09-27 16:30:15) pastor.billy_reuben: sorry, I had a telephone call. I'm back now.
(2007-09-27 16:31:46) pastor.billy_reuben: It's in the Bible. Perhaps you just haven't been exposed to good fundamentalist preaching.
(2007-09-27 16:33:36) pastor.billy_reuben: Mark 13:
19 For in those days shall be affliction, such as was not from the beginning of the creation which God created unto this time, neither shall be.
20 And except that the Lord had shortened those days, no flesh should be saved: but for the elect's sake, whom he hath chosen, he hath shortened the days.
21 And then if any man shall say to you, Lo, here is Christ; or, lo, he is there; believe him not:
22 For false Christs and false prophets shall rise, and shall shew signs and wonders, to seduce, if it were possible, even the elect.
(2007-09-27 16:34:29) pastor.billy_reuben: God has chosen the elect, and it is impossible for even the Anti Christ, with all his lying signs and wonders, to seduce them.
(2007-09-27 16:35:06) rayllu: i see...so how many "elect" are there and how does one know if he is one?
(2007-09-27 16:35:38) pastor.billy_reuben: Romans 11:7 What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded.
-- God gives his grace to the elect, and blinds the rest.
(2007-09-27 16:36:26) pastor.billy_reuben: I don't know absolute numbers, but the elect are vastly outnumbered by the unelect -- for many are called but few are chosen.
(2007-09-27 16:39:47) pastor.billy_reuben: You know if you are saved if you adhere to what God's Word says. You can't rely on your feelings to tell you if you are saved, because feelings mislead us. http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...er=5&version=9 1 John 5 tells you how to know if you are saved.
(2007-09-27 16:40:10) pastor.billy_reuben: A saved person loves God and keeps His commandments.
(2007-09-27 16:41:57) rayllu: so there is no feedback as to whether you are elect?
(2007-09-27 16:42:58) pastor.billy_reuben: I just told you there was.
(2007-09-27 16:43:35) pastor.billy_reuben: If you have no desire to do anything other than the Father's will, then you are saved.
(2007-09-27 16:43:49) pastor.billy_reuben: Oh wait, maybe I misunderstood your question.
(2007-09-27 16:43:54) rayllu: how do you know if your actions coincide with the Father's will?
(2007-09-27 16:45:08) pastor.billy_reuben: Before we are called by Jesus, before the Holy Spirit convicts us of our sins in our hearts, we have know way of knowing whether we are elect or not. It is only after we have been saved that we can know.
(2007-09-27 16:45:18) pastor.billy_reuben: By reading the Bible.
(2007-09-27 16:45:26) pastor.billy_reuben: Learning what is the Father's will.
(2007-09-27 16:46:29) rayllu: but you believe that many have misinterpreted the bible, don't you?
(2007-09-27 16:47:59) pastor.billy_reuben: I know that many people haven't read it at all, and still call themselves Christians. I know that many people read it, and don't like it because it denies their carnal desires, so they "interpret" to mean something other than what it says.
(2007-09-27 16:48:20) pastor.billy_reuben: I don't think it is possible to "interpret" the Bible at all without misinterpreting it.
(2007-09-27 16:48:25) rayllu: but those people believe they are following His will
(2007-09-27 16:48:47) pastor.billy_reuben: The best way to understand the Bible is to read it as a child would read it. There are no secret codes or hidden meanings.
(2007-09-27 16:49:05) rayllu: i don't think it's possible to gain meaning from words without interpreting it. i believe that words don't inherently hold meaning and the process of word to meaning conversion is termed "interpreting"
(2007-09-27 16:49:45) pastor.billy_reuben: I think some of them would like to believe that they are following His will, but they know in their heart that they are just doing whatever they feel like.
(2007-09-27 16:50:04) rayllu: but those people would say the same about you
(2007-09-27 16:50:51) pastor.billy_reuben: You're just talking about reading comprehension. That's different from interpreting. Interpreting is taking a literal fact and calling it a "metaphor" or a "sacred story".
(2007-09-27 16:51:02) rayllu: again, my example:
(2007-09-27 16:51:06) rayllu: "I put him to sleep."
(2007-09-27 16:51:55) pastor.billy_reuben: I can't take a single sentence like that. I need context.
(2007-09-27 16:52:38) pastor.billy_reuben: that's what these heretics I'm talking about do. They take a handful out of context verses and build a whole new cult around it.
(2007-09-27 16:55:28) pastor.billy_reuben: I've heard some liberal "theologians" try to claim that the Bible doesn't condemn homosexuality, and the men of Sodom weren't homosexuals. Utterly ridiculous. They Sodomite men wanted to have sex with the men (angels) who came to visit Lot, and when Lot offered his daughters to them instead, the crowd wanted no part of it.
(2007-09-27 16:56:37) rayllu: interpretation...then what is this?
http://www.landoverbaptist.org/news1...turbation.html
(2007-09-27 16:57:11) pastor.billy_reuben: I don't understand your question.
(2007-09-27 16:57:12) rayllu: it seems that the passage (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...02;&version=9;) that is used to allow masturbation was taken out of context
(2007-09-27 16:57:21) rayllu: my first link shows your church interpreting the bible
(2007-09-27 16:57:39) rayllu: and the second was the original justification for allowing masturbation
(2007-09-27 16:58:51) pastor.billy_reuben: I don't understand your point. That's what the verse in question plainly says.
(2007-09-27 1634) rayllu: if it were plain, why did it need to be posted?
(2007-09-27 1639) rayllu: the verse actually never mentions masturbation at all
(2007-09-27 17:03:13) pastor.billy_reuben: God said, let thy hand be strengthened, to a widower. The language of the Bible uses coy euphemisms to refer to sex, like when Jacob "went in unto" Leah.
(2007-09-27 17:05:11) rayllu: so you don't need to interpret the metaphors, but we need pastors to interpret the "coy euphANisms?"
(2007-09-27 17:05:51) pastor.billy_reuben: what's a euphANism?
(2007-09-27 17:07:19) pastor.billy_reuben: a euphemism is just an idiom, and doesn't need to be "interpreted"
(2007-09-27 17:07:57) rayllu: oops; for some reason, i thought it was spelled with an "an"
(2007-09-27 17:08:38) rayllu: i highly doubt a child could understand the euphemisms...without a pastor (or literal father) to interpret it for him
(2007-09-27 17:09:30) pastor.billy_reuben: that's why the sexual language is couched in euphemisms, so that the children reading the Bible don't understand them
(2007-09-27 17:10:27) pastor.billy_reuben: I would hope a pastor or parent would be smart enough to refrain from explaining the sexual euphemisms to a child.
(2007-09-27 17:10:44) pastor.billy_reuben: What kind of pervert are you, that you would want sexually explicit material in children's hands?
(2007-09-27 17:10:55) rayllu: i would hope that none of your pastors "explain" anything to you True Christians
(2007-09-27 17:11:10) rayllu: since nothing in the Bible requires interpretation
(2007-09-27 17:11:23) rayllu: and, by the way, I did not interpret that passage to mean masturbation
(2007-09-27 17:11:50) pastor.billy_reuben: I didn't "interpret" it that way either. I just read it as it is.
(2007-09-27 17:14:27) pastor.billy_reuben: I don't interpret scripture for my congregation. I read scripture, give encouragement, reprove, rebuke, as needed.
(2007-09-27 17:15:24) rayllu: to me, "strong thy hand" simply means become more powerful. the passage mentions him becoming king of various regions and such
(2007-09-27 17:15:49) pastor.billy_reuben: sounds like you are leaning to your own understanding
(2007-09-27 17:17:28) rayllu: actually, i'm just trying to point out that we all must interpret words because they don't inherently hold meaning
(2007-09-27 17:19:14) pastor.billy_reuben: again, I think you are confusing "interpret" with "language comprehension". Of course points of light on a screen, blobs of ink on a page, or sound waves striking the hair cells in a cochlea don't have inherent meaning.
(2007-09-27 17:20:00) pastor.billy_reuben: but there is a huge difference between accepting what is said plainly, and reading between imaginary lines to find a hidden meaning that isn't there.
(2007-09-27 17:20:27) pastor.billy_reuben: I'm going to have to go now. My wife just took the pot roast out of the oven and it smells delicious. We can continue this another time.
(2007-09-27 17:20:42) rayllu: ok

[SalvationSeeker]

Re: What to do about non-Republicans

But not all, which is why sin and crime are not equivalent.

Which is why I said "depends on the crime".
A bit on the blind side eh?

I would make the same argument to you from my interpretation of the Bible, which is why I refrain from doing so.

You what?
For all your attempts at sounding educated, you failed to make any sense whatsoever.
What argument would you make "to me"? The one I made? - That you admitted that God exists?
How is that an argument against my POV?

I have other reasons, too. I get the feeling that they would be too complex for you to understand, though, so I'm starting small.

Your self-delusion is spectacular..
But don't worry, you're not the first one.
We get people like you in here all the time, thinking you are intelligent when you're really nothing but obstinate and cursed with inflated egos..
Don't think you are special, my foolish friend.. Cause you aren't nearly as clever as you think you are.

[raylu]

Re: What to do about non-Republicans

Okay, I accept that words must be interpreted and hold no inherent meaning.

What's your excuse to flee debate now?

At this point, you can no longer claim that other interpretations of the Bible are not valid. In other words, you are no longer the only True Christians.

All of this twaddle is a complete waste of Jesus' time and a waste of bandwidth. Have you tithed yet? Hit the Paypal button below and let Jesus know how much you love Him, Rayla-Jean.

And, since I can interpret the Bible in my own way, I see no reason to tithe to Landover.

It seems he's willing to debate, but is to cowardly to do it in public. The D.O.F. has intercepted this exchange:

I made few, if any, new arguments in that exchange.

Which is why I said "depends on the crime".
A bit on the blind side eh?

No. In order for them to be the same, they must be the same unconditionally. If they are equivalent only sometimes...they are not equivalent.

You what?
For all your attempts at sounding educated, you failed to make any sense whatsoever.
What argument would you make "to me"? The one I made? - That you admitted that God exists?
How is that an argument against my POV?

I have not admitted God exists. My actions are not necessarily based on the same interpretation of the Bible as yours. I think that yours show your hatred of God - the same argument you made to me.

Don't think you are special, my foolish friend.. Cause you aren't nearly as clever as you think you are.

Don't think that I think that I am special.
Don't think that you are as clever as you think you are - oh wait, I said I would refrain from making these arguments. Though, last time I tried, you didn't seem to catch the meaning.

[SalvationSeeker]

Re: What to do about non-Republicans

No. In order for them to be the same, they must be the same unconditionally. If they are equivalent only sometimes...they are not equivalent.

So murder (a sin) doesn't equal murder (a crime)? It's not the same?
You would be right if crime was ONE thing, but it's not.
It's a common name for a whole range of various activities..
Really, as PBR said, you need to take an introductionary course in logic..
You're only arguing for the sake of arguing here.

Why are you even here, seriously?

I have not admitted God exists. My actions are not necessarily based on the same interpretation of the Bible as yours. I think that yours show your hatred of God - the same argument you made to me.

You said God wrote the Bible, fool!
So how could He have written it if He didn't exist?

My hatred for God? Care to explain how you reached that "conclusion"?
Cause you're basically saying then that following the Bible in its entirety equals hatred for God?
It doesn't seem like you're actually reaching any conclusions here, nor thinking, but more acting like an obstinate child:
"No, it's you who hate God! nyah nyah!"


I obey God even though the world may hate me for it.
I may even personally disagree with His orders:
But I know that God knows best, so I obey Him unquestioningly.
What about you?

Don't think that I think that I am special.

Well, only a very "special" person would make a word-play like that..

[raylu]

Re: What to do about non-Republicans

So murder (a sin) doesn't equal murder (a crime)? It's not the same?

You gave a specific example of a crime and a specific example of a sin. I have already agreed that there is overlap but I have told you that many are not equal.
Homosexuality (a sin) does not equal homosexuality (not a crime in most places).

You would be right if crime was ONE thing, but it's not.
It's a common name for a whole range of various activities..

Actually, this is for you. There are a wide range of crimes and a wide range of sins. If every single action that was a crime was also a sin and vice-versa, you would be correct.

You said God wrote the Bible, fool!
So how could He have written it if He didn't exist?

I said God wrote the Bible because I knew you wouldn't disagree with it. I am using your definitions against you.

My hatred for God? Care to explain how you reached that "conclusion"?
Cause you're basically saying then that following the Bible in its entirety equals hatred for God?

Yes, I will explain: your interpretation of the Bible is anti-Christian.
Following it in its entirety is OK, but you are wrong if you believe that your interpretation is correct, let alone the only correct one.

"No, it's you who hate God! nyah nyah!"

This is why I didn't want to get into the topic that you have preemptively struck me on.
My argument was that because you think others who call themselves Christian are wrong and those people say the exact same thing as you (or, in your words, "nyah nyah"), the point is less than moot.

I obey God even though the world may hate me for it.
I may even personally disagree with His orders:
But I know that God knows best, so I obey Him unquestioningly.
What about you?

I believe that He doesn't want unquestioning...anything. It's worthless to Him.

Well, only a very "special" person would make a word-play like that..

So you think that I'm special? Let's look at what you just quoted:

Don't think that I think that I am special.

I ask you to not think that I think I'm special and you refute it with "I think you're special."

[Brother Temperance]

Re: What to do about non-Republicans

I quoted the article. I quoted the article.

You quoted the article that Jeb summarised, which makes it all the more confusing that you somehow managed to get it wrong. What's wrong with you?

At this point, you can no longer claim that other interpretations of the Bible are not valid. In other words, you are no longer the only True Christians.


And, since I can interpret the Bible in my own way, I see no reason to tithe to Landover.

So are you claiming that all interpretations are equally valid? In that case, I interpret your post as meaning that you admit we are 100% right about everything and your check is on its way to Landover now. Being a relativist, you cannot claim that my interpretation of your sentence is not valid. I hope you're not planning on turning yourself into a liar, boy.