doojable

So I guess the Bible is lying when it refers to burnt offerings as welll. Your literal approach to this is where your argument falls apart. "Holocaust" can refer figuratively to "total destruction and annihilation." To address that clip: So a fresh, moist, leg of lamb won't burn. So what? These bodies were ematiated from starvation and most likely not "fresh." Oh and I saw in the book that the bodies were burned in ditches and not out on an open beach. The set-up was not honest with this fact, either. Just ask anyone that ever lived in Emporia for any length of time, the stench is awful. Still - you chose to ignore THAT millions of people were killed.

Happy Birthday! Hope you have a great day!

He was old enough to be their grandfather!

"What is this bleeting in mine ears?" Isn't that what Samuel said when Saul tried to blame the people for "making him" not do what God directed Saul to do? He would have done the right thing - but the people wanted it differntly. ("OH I wanted to do the right thing but she made me do it! She sat there and sipped her drink with the drugs. I told God that if it was his will that I stop, to not let that girl fall asleep from the drugs. She passed out cold! I figured he gave me permission..." <_< ) "Shifting the blame" You just gave a classic example, Oldies. Gave it wings??? How are your math skills? If he was 60 and she was 17 that's 43 years age difference! I'd say he needed no wings. He was already on the runway looking for the signal for takeoff when he went out to see the Hippies and asked Do0P about orgies. As I recall he went LOOKING for something, anything that he could find that he could contrive as permission for his lasciviousness. How do you think these women got the notion that they could "Bless the MOG"? ... hmmmmm... Oh I know! It was vp telling them that if they were spiritual enough and could handle it.... or that they needed to think on whatsoever things were pure....or sometimes he was just crude. Geez! Who wants to tell the MOG they aren's spiritual enough? I'm calling BS on your whole thought process here. There are lots of possiblities. I'm not willing to say all I'm thinking at this time.

No, I actually spend little time thinking about that dead man. I don't curse him at all. I do say that what he did was wrong. And you would know this... HOW? First you said that these young women were mature adult females. Now you say they consented. Did you interview all of them? If they consented, then the drugs wouldn't have been necessary, would they? I already stated that I felt sure that there were women who consented. BUT - geez John!...I'm gonna assume you're a 50-something guy. If a 19 year old came and threw herself at you would you just go along for the ride? That middle school teacher is just as wrong as that man in that they are both having sex with minors. The man is seen as "more wrong" because he kidnapped the boys and made sex slaves out of them. You're not defending Christianity at all. What you were taught has nothing to do with the heinous actions of that man. You know, there is a reason why there are warnings in the Epistles for leaders to not lead people astray. God set a standard. vp didn't meet it. You and your wife come here and make fun of posters for spelling and grammatical errors. How loving and kind can that be? Let's see... if that's what YOU got from your Father in the Word, then I rest my case. Who do you think you're kidding? You think you're pleasing God? You're beholden to a dead, narcissistic pervert. You're still serving him nearly 20 years after his death. Protecting him. Helping to pass on his excuses for why he just had to do what he did. All the women belonged to him anyway... He was over-sexed... The girls wanted it... The devil made him do it... Go ahead and tell everyone here just how vp was pleasing God when he drugged and raped even ONE girl. You overestimate yourself if you think you're qualified to judge how peaceful another person is. You want to protect a memory? Fine. Don't fault the rest of us for wanting to keep that memory in perspective.

Thanks Skyrider. I was being conservative on purpose because I didn't know the exact numbers.

We have a lot of folks in the LA area. Highway39, wrdsandwrks, SonoftheMaster, I'm not sure who else. Basically, I'd say to just pray for that area.

At the top of your page, click "My Assistant" and there is a link called, "The Moderating Team." Not sure if this is what you want...

Is rape ever Okay? No. (I don't believe anyone would disagree with me there.) The Viagra argument is moot since there was no drug of this nature around at the time. The drugs we're talking about are drugs that knock a person out. The bottom line here is that vp used his position to manipulate young women into trusting him. he was married. They were at least 30 years younger than he was. Would anyone here say, "Well, it's Okay since she was 21? (Even though he's 51.) Imagine this young woman is your daughter. She's off at college and a 51 year old uses a drug on her then has his way with her. She's devastated. Are you really going to say to her, "Oh honey, you're an adult mature female now. He just wanted to loosen you up sexually."? Now say she's 17 and he's 51. Say she's 17 and he's 47. Does it really make you feel any better about the situation? Sheesh! I'd be upset if a 17 year old was drugged and raped by a young man her own age. The age difference just increases the level of responsibility that would be expected from that man.

Larry, I'm more than happy to apologize. Here's what I responded to: Given the age of most of the 'young women' that vp took advantage of, I thought first and foremost of an older teen/young woman - 17-21. I was thinking of a High School and early college. I should have specified that in my post. I wasn't accusing Oldies of being a pedophile, but as the mother of two girls, one of them a teen, I naturally had a knee-jerk reaction. Oldies, I apologize. I should have been more specific and clear headed in my wording. I was and still am deeply offended by this post. That is no excuse for how I worded my own post to you. johniam, You said this: There is quite a difference between a mature adult female and a young woman. My teen is a young lady (she is a lady and not just a female or woman.) I already explained my thinking at the time of the post. I never mean to imply "young girls." Now just what are you implying here? I apologized. Can you?

First, I've never read a thing that says that Viagra knocks you unconscious. You don't like to deal with that. NO it's not OKAY! What moral gymastics class did you attend? You're just coming up with another way of saying that all these women were asking for it and wanted it. The sirens are sounding loud and clear... So now you're going to project all your innermost thoughts and desires on men you don't even know? And even in your perverse inner world, you seem to think that not only do all men fantasize about young women but that all young women are power seeking sexpots that fantasize about older men.

Don't call him a puppy. That an insult to puppies... So Oldies - tell me, what is the payoff for this behaviour? Or are you an expert on lying and being gay?

See... now I'm wondering if Oldies even believes what he posts or just tries to play devil's advocate. Oh wait! He doesn't have to try... What's the payoff for you Oldies?

Heheheheh Groucho! Look at the nametag.... see how pretty it is? Go to your happy place.... you're getting sleepy... very, very sleeepy.... When you wake up you will treat every suggestion like it is tantamount to an order. You'll jump and only ask, "How high?" Then you'll send all your money to The Teacher...

Are you sure about that? I've only heard that from one source all my life. Just that line alone ought to set off sirens in your moral center. Oh I get it! They wanted him, but they just didn't know it yet. He had to give them drugs to loosen them up and make the experience better for him, and maybe for them too. How compassionate of him. <_< Yea...right. That might fly if the women weren't UNCONCIOUS when he was doing it. Good Lord! I pray you don't live near a school.

Ahhh...... So loving. I bet you're proud. Did that make you feel powerful? Compensating?

This is from YOUR site: I used the Wikipedia site because all I wanted was a straight meaning of the word. Notice that I didn't put a link to the site. I wanted the basic meaning of the word "Holocaust" so that I could determine why it was used at all. There were the Greek root words - etymolgy isn't biased. Most of the other sites I found were from Holocaust Museums - surely they would have not been to your liking. Your site is only more accurate for you, because it supports your claims. (Although they spelled kaustos wrong and used caust instead.) I wasn't looking to support any claims. I was just looking for the etymology of the word. Oh and you still seem to have a problem with the term "parrot." To parrot is to mimic, meaning that you must have knowlege of the original. I didn't parrot anything. BTW - I don't patronize you. I pity you.

Show me where Solomon drugged and raped women. Show me where he taught that he'd heal them with his 'manhood.' The issue isn't vp's amount of sexual desire, nor is it the time period that he was born, The issue is HOW he chose to use people - young girls at that - to fulfill his sexual desires. Another issue is manipulation. The very fact that you're so impressed with his amount of sexual desire says more about you than it does about anyone else. The amount isn't evil. The desire isn't evil. Even a GREAT amount isn't evil. Manipulation, drugging, lying and rape are evil.

A. You're not Jesus. B.I don't want to deny Jesus Christ anything. A. I couldn't deny God anything even if I wanted to. B. Likewise I don't want to put words in His mouth. C. A commentary is hardly a reformatting of the Scriptures. You really do change the argument to suit your needs, don't you?

The problem with this logic is that the PFAL book and collaterals still POINT to the KJV. At best they are a commentary and not a "reformatting." Jesus Christ has been seated at the right hand of God for how long now? I'd say that as the head of the Body he's up to speed on God's Word and will.

Thanks! Gonna try one of those this week!

Hopefully this isn't completely off-topic: John 10:11-13 (King James Version) 11. I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep. 12. But he that is an hireling, and not the shepherd, whose own the sheep are not, seeth the wolf coming, and leaveth the sheep, and fleeth: and the wolf catcheth them, and scattereth the sheep. 13. The hireling fleeth, because he is an hireling, and careth not for the sheep. Yes, these men are to be held to a higher standard. As those that claimed to be leaders of God's people they accepted the role of a shepherd. Seems to me they are acting more like hirelings. That's what happens when you make the care and concern of people a business. If these people aren't willing to really face their actions, to stand up for God's people then what are they doing in their positions of "Gawdly auth-ori-tay"? They entered into dangerous doctrine, sucked the life out of folks with that, then when it proved to no longer pay off like they wanted, they ran. No facing the consequences of their actions, no accountability. Hirelings! They came here and feigned wanting to "tell the truth" in a drive-by posting - then LEFT! Hirelings! So while CES followers come here for information, all they really have is an invitation to "call us." It seems to me that to make a public outcry and then to dictate that questions and answers be made only in private is a recipe for disaster. It leaves way too much room for even more lies, rumors, and innuendo.

You might be walking by the five senses... ...If you think that keeping cold medication in the house just in case someone gets sick Is NOT going to bring on sickness through negative believing. And... ...if when someone in your family does indeed come down with a cold, you know that it's because everyone in the school has been getting sick, and that you didn't cause it with negative believing.

Happy Birthday, Paisano! Have something good to eat like some Tiramisu!

From Wikipedia: It seems that WTH's problem isn't with the killing of millions. He seems fixated on the "ovens." So.... If that's his sticking point, remove the point. IMHO, the killing of millions of people - real people with lives, jobs, families were killed. These were men, women, children. They were parents, grandparents, toddlers, teens. WTH - You don't like the term"Holocaust" - "completely burnt"? You say that without the ovens there is not Holocaust. Well, so what? The ovens aren't the focal point. You want some more accurate terms? What about "genocide"? What about "mass murder"? How about this: A program of deliberate extermination I think you're being too literal in the dislike of the term. There is a scorched earth military tactic. The term doesn't always refer to burning crops. I don't believe your "proofs". BUT the discussion is stuck because you are stuck. You're nitpicking a term that has come to represent the murder of millions and being hyper-literal with it's use. "Completely burnt" could just as easily be "totally dead." Tell you what... I don't care if the ovens were used to set off cyanide gas, or bake pumpernickel bread. The point still remains that millions of people (humans - remember what they are? They kinda sorta look like you, but without the potato head and the funny helmet,) MILLIONS OF PEOPLE were murdered. You can say that Hitler was a German Betty Crocker and fed these folks strudel all day long (which he baked in those fine ovens <_< ) The fact still remains that he incarcerated them and they died! He took them from their homes and put them in concentration camps. He put them on trains and sent them to live in squalor, behind barbed wire fences with soldiers brandishing rifles and bayonets. A mass slave force perhaps? You might want to argue that - but how is it better? Then of course you have another sticky point to deal with.... If Hitler was such a great guy, then why was there a war at all?