delishpot:


Look brother, the children of the dark one can dedicate all the time in the world to seduce the weak. Can you see his steadfastness in converting and softening the hearts of men? Did you notice how he takes his time to write and breakdown every single word you use to condemn his evil gospel. When I see people like him, it makes me feel sorry for christians. The devil's agents can work their asses off and fully dedicate themselves to the gospel of their master while christians can not give half the time to stand for what God has shown through Christ Jesus. He is a true worker of his father.

I was really shocked when I saw his write up ...& actually the way he devotes time to twist gullible minds..
Just keep it strong dear...only the weak falls for that rubbish write up of his..

delishpot:

point out a bible passage where homosexuality is accepted, get behind me. I will not engage in this topic again unless you do as I have requested then we can analyze whatever proof or fact you have presented from the bible and discuss more.

I'd like to see that evidence too muttley. In all my reading about Christ, I can't recall him engaging with homosexuals. They don't seem to have turned up in the New Testament until Paul started ranting about them.

Glycolysis:
I was really shocked when I saw his write up ...& actually the way he devotes time to twist gullible minds..
Just keep it strong dear...only the weak falls for that rubbish write up of his..

Truth crushed to earth is truth still and like a seed will rise again, says Jefferson.

delishpot:
point out a bible passage where homosexuality is accepted, get behind me.
I will not engage in this topic again unless you do as I have requested then we can analyze whatever proof or fact you have presented from the bible and discuss more.

budaatum:
I'd like to see that evidence too muttley.
In all my reading about Christ, I can't recall him engaging with homosexuals.
They don't seem to have turned up in the New Testament until Paul started ranting about them.

Did you know it used to be a highly valued act in the Greek society long before the arrival of Jesus?
It was not unusual for wealthy Greeks, and Romans, to have their favorite male on the side, and for centuries after.

It was considered beneficial for the young male who acquired a teacher and benefactor (a "sugerdaddy", effectively),
and for the benefactor who acquired a soyoyo of the male form.
- budaatum ©

"No Israelite, whether man or woman, may become a temple prostitute."
- Deuteronomy 23:17

There were even male shrine prostitutes in the land;
the people engaged in all the detestable practices of the nations the LORD had driven out before the Israelites.
- 1 Kings 14:24

Committed, faithful, honest, lasting life time same sex relationships have been there from time immemorial Bud
Bud, Paul wasnt ranting about that.

What Paul was ranting about was the infidelity, promiscuity and the cult practice of having sex with patrons as a form of deity worship.
This custom was rampant and happened in the Old Testament in the lands before the Israelites arrived too.

Bud do you remember the screenshot I pasted
The one about with Leviticus', showing, what, is an abomination unto you and what, is abomination, to God
The screenshot clearly detailed what these are

We know Leviticus 20:13 is Leviticus 18:22 and vice versa
Paul actually re-echoed them with 1 Timothy 1:10 and 1 Corinthians 6:9,
because the problem which isnt about same sex relationships with fidelity
but something else entirely, reared its head with the Gentile

There is this strong common thread through Leviticus 20:13, 1 Timothy 1:10 and 1 Corinthians 6:9 and it ties them together
but it eludes the most astute

Peoples perception of the matter isnt what they think and learned it to be.
First step, will be, to review 1 Timothy 1:10 and 1 Corinthians 6:9, and look into what "malakois" and "arsenokoites" really means,
just as I earlier advised 9inches to do just that
but he opted to plastering that Catholic magazine entire article here instead.

Milk cow(s) alright but make your own cheese
Dont offer bottled milk, passed on, as if yours

The epiphany of what the "the detestable customs that were practiced"
in Leviticus 18:22, Leviticus 20:13, 1 Timothy 1:10 and 1 Corinthians 6:9 were, will occur, after the review

It is an insufferable practice
and that's why God is reprehensive about the detestable custom being practised

It's the only ONE reason that this sexual sin,
that this particular sexual immorality, is condemned as committing abomination unto God
but other sexual sins or other sexual immoralities like,
adultery in Leviticus 20:10, incest in Leviticus 20:11-14 or bestiality in Leviticus 20:15,
escape the mention to be condemned as an abomination unto God
or as one thing, God dislikes intensely

So many other places in the bible about this satanic ritual, sex orgy and detestable custom being practised
a few case in points, like Deuteronomy 23:17 and 1 Kings 14:24, are mirror versions of Paul's 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 and 1 Timothy 1:10.
God, so much, disliked intensely, the practice.
Imagine the cheek of it. Excuse the pun

I can show you THE evidence of Jesus engaging with homosexual(s),
but it will be in camera, and under conditions.
Bud, you dont know how shockingly close you were, in knowing about this, with that your above inverted commas remark up there.
You will beat yourself up Bud, for not being consciously aware of it.

cc Ubenedictus

MuttleyLaff:
Truth crushed to earth is truth still and like a seed will rise again, says Jefferson.



Did you know it used to be a highly valued act in the Greek society long before the arrival of Jesus?
It was not unusual for wealthy Greeks, and Romans, to have their favorite male on the side, and for centuries after.

It was considered beneficial for the young male who acquired a teacher and benefactor (a "sugerdaddy", effectively),
and for the benefactor who acquired a soyoyo of the male form.
- budaatum ©

"No Israelite, whether man or woman, may become a temple prostitute."
- Deuteronomy 23:17

There were even male shrine prostitutes in the land;
the people engaged in all the detestable practices of the nations the LORD had driven out before the Israelites.
- 1 Kings 14:24

Committed, faithful, honest, lasting life time same sex relationships have been there from time immemorial Bud
Bud, Paul wasnt ranting about that.

What Paul was ranting about was the infidelity, promiscuity and the cult practice of having sex with patrons as a form of deity worship.
This custom was rampant and happened in the Old Testament in the lands before the Israelites arrived too.

Bud do you remember the screenshot I pasted
The one about with Leviticus', showing, what, is an abomination unto you and what, is abomination, to God
The screenshot clearly detailed what these are

We know Leviticus 20:13 is Leviticus 18:22 and vice versa
Paul actually re-echoed them with 1 Timothy 1:10 and 1 Corinthians 6:9,
because the problem which isnt about same sex relationships with fidelity
but something else entirely, reared its head with the Gentile

There is this strong common thread through Leviticus 20:13, 1 Timothy 1:10 and 1 Corinthians 6:9 and it ties them together
but it eludes the most astute

Peoples perception of the matter isnt what they think and learned it to be.
First step, will be, to review 1 Timothy 1:10 and 1 Corinthians 6:9, are look into what "malakois" and "arsenokoites" really means,
just as I earlier advised 9inches to do just that
but he opted to plastering that Catholic magazine entire article here instead.

Milk cow(s) alright but make your own cheese
Dont offer bottled milk, passed on, as if yours

The epiphany of what the "the detestable customs that were practiced"
in Leviticus 18:22, Leviticus 20:13, 1 Timothy 1:10 and 1 Corinthians 6:9 were, will occur, after the review

It is an insufferable practice
and that's why God is reprehensive about the detestable custom being practised

It's the only ONE reason that this sexual sin,
that this particular sexual immorality, is condemned as committing abomination unto God
but other sexual sins or other sexual immoralities like,
adultery in Leviticus 20:10, incest in Leviticus 20:11-14 or bestiality in Leviticus 20:15,
escape the mention to be condemned as an abomination unto God
or as one thing, God dislikes intensely

So many other places in the bible about this satanic ritual, sex orgy and detestable custom being practised
a few case in points, like Deuteronomy 23:17 and 1 Kings 14:24, are mirror versions of Paul's 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 and 1 Timothy 1:10.
God, so much, disliked intensely, the practice.
Imagine the cheek of it. Excuse the pun

[s]I can show you THE evidence of Jesus engaging with homosexual(s),
but it will be in camera, and under conditions.
Bud, you dont know how shockingly close you were, in knowing about this, with that your above inverted commas remark up there.
You will beat yourself up Bud, for not being consciously aware of it.[/s]

cc Ubenedictus

Like I said, show me the passage in the bible or forever stop mentioning me. Bla bla bla bla is all I read here. You rotate like a faulty fan and then land by saying I would show you but I have to do it in camera. Paul spoke about many sins the fact that he mentioned temple prostitutes at one point or the other doesn't mean he is overlooking others. You like to take things too literally, if I say stealing is bad, cheating is evil, lying is bad greed is an abomination and killing is evil, would you say one of those sins was more or less looked upon favourably by God than the other? Why concern yourself so much about the language used? The bottom line is they are all sins and an abomination Unto God. Focus on the fact that it is a sin, forget about the big grammar and focus on the sin part. That fact is what you are rejecting. To you sodomy is right and was never a problem to Jesus. Even without paul saying or not saying anything,the bible condemned the act of homosexuality without emphasising where the act takes place. It did not say only the ones done in the temple for money or as a means of worship to false Gods are an abomination to God. It condemns all acts irrespective of where or to what purpose the act was done. so save your upside down gospel. I ain't buying it. What is hidden so badly in the bible that you can not point it out? You have pointed passages where the act was condemned why would it take conditions to show a passage from that same bible where Jesus welcomed the lifestyle? Jesus visited many sinners that doesn't mean he encouraged their lifestyle. Stop joking with me abeg. Post passage here. The book, the chapter and verse let me see it. I am not ready to meet conditions with you. UNTIL THEN I SHALL SAY NO MORE: I just decided to announce this fact again so you don't act all super winning when next I use to reply your quotes. It simply means still no proof? Still running around and evading my own requests? That is what it means when I reply your mention with those little faces.

MuttleyLaff:
It is true.

Do you think, I made up that:
"Jesus was even willing to visit someone in a same sex relationship but persuaded it wasnt necessary"

Just so it's said, your above in italics ("was willing but persuaded", is an example of your unclearlessness.

You know my vested interest is that what you claim is true, but I can't go about claiming " muttley said"! Besides, you've never been shy about posting book, chapter and verse in the past muttley, so do not disappoint now please.

1. Who was the person in a same sex relationship that Jesus was willing to visit?

2. Who persuaded him it wasn't necessary?

3. Where in the Bible (or anywhere) did you get this from?

delishpot:
Like I said, show me the passage in the bible or forever stop mentioning me.

Have you ever thought about quoting me properly and correctly, when you ask to be shown the passage in the bible.
Maybe, just maybe, I might if you start or begin to do so.

delishpot:
Bla bla bla bla is all I read here.

It is impossible for a person to learn, what he thinks he already knows, that's why all you read is blah blah blah blah

delishpot:
You rotate like a faulty fan and then land by saying I would show you but I have to do it in camera.

Whoever is careless with the truth in small matters, cannot be trusted with important matters.
Is your moniker ID budaatum?
Yes, I mentioned I'll under conditions, in camera, show budaatum, but not you nau

delishpot:
Paul spoke about many sins the fact that he mentioned temple prostitutes at one point
or the other doesn't mean he is overlooking others.

And what exactly, is the other, Paul isnt overlooking, my dear sister?
Are you saying, it is a sin to be in a honest, loving, committed, lasting a lifetime same gender sexual relationship?

delishpot:
You like to take things too literally,
if I say stealing is bad, cheating is evil,
lying is bad, greed is an abomination and killing is evil,
would you say one of those sins was more favourable to God than the other?

My sister, I love you to death, for this postulation & question.
Let's go there, let's discuss it.

We can see you, saying in your postulation, what's bad and/or what's evil
then when you got to "greed", you changed tone
and reverted back with "killing"
There surely is a reason, why you singled out "greed", ONLY, to be something intensely disliked.

adultery in Leviticus 20:10, even though this one, according to Jesus, most commit this in the heart
incest in Leviticus 20:11-14
or bestiality in Leviticus 20:15, imagine this one, what could be more vile than this
are all sexual sins or sexual immorality
but each escape the mention, to be condemned as an abomination unto God

There is only ONE reason that, its ONLY Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13,
ALONG WITH BEING CONDEMNED AS sexual sin or sexual immorality
IT IMPORTANTLY ALONE IS AN ABOMINATION unto God
whereas other sexual sins or other sexual immoralities werent

The issue about this whole matter, isnt per se, about one sin being more favourable to God than the other,
instead, its about a statement of fact
and a strong objection to something specially done when Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13, back in the day, is being done or carried out

Fast forward, to 4000 years therabout later, the detestable custom of Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13 is still worse
so Paul, with 1 Timothy 1:10 and 1 Corinthians 6:9 writes about it along with the "malakois" and "arsenokoites"

Deuteronomy 23:17 and 1 Kings 14:24, are mirror versions of Paul's 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 and 1 Timothy 1:10

God has a reason for disagreeing with the practice associated with Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13
The reason, certainly, isnt about consenting adults in a honest, loving, committed, lasting a lifetime same gender sexual relationship
so what really, gangan, is the reason?

delishpot:
Why concern yourself so much about the language used?

Because misinterpreting,
especially the meaning of the language used plus the context of how and why the language was used,
leads people, similar to you, to make the bible incorrectly say, what it never said or intended to say

delishpot:
The bottom line is they are all sins and an abomination unto God

They, all, rightfully are sexual sins,
but only Leviticus 18:22 and/or Leviticus 20:13 sexual sin, did God class as an abomination unto Him.

The bottom line, is, you're commiting a deliberate act of deviating from the truth, hoping it will go unnoticed
and you know it.

delishpot:
Focus on the fact that it is a sin, forget about the big grammar and focus on the sin part.
That fact is what you are rejecting.

Its increasingly becoming more and more apparent, it's you, who likes to take things too literally.
It's you, who can't wrap the "big grammar" (i.e. I suppose abomination) around the head
It's you, who is focusing on an absent sin part

delishpot:
That fact is what you are rejecting.

Honest fact and truth aren't always pretty, aren't always easy to get through

Just because a pseudo fact has been widely held doesnt mean it isnt utterly absurd
In this matter, the truth is more important than your pseudo fact

delishpot:
To you sodomy is right and was never a problem to Jesus.

The great advantage about telling the truth is that someone whose learned like you never believes it.

This truly, must be confusing for you
because there you go again, confusing the word sodomy and likening it to someone who loves others of their own sex

Have you ever thought about why Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13's "not lie with a male as with a woman" doesn't in the slightest have a mention and/or reference to the story of Sodom and Gomorrah?

The truth & fact is, nowhere would it be found in the bible that the sin of people of Sodom and Gomorrah was anything related to Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13

delishpot:
Even without paul saying or not saying anything

I smile at seeing "even"

delishpot:
the bible condemned the act of homosexuality so save your upside down gospel.

SMH
Why not be specific?
Ordinarily quoting Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13 or saying "not lie with a male as with a woman" would not wash
Why not clearly define or identify, like budaatum would want, what part exactly the bible condemned in the act of homosexuality?

delishpot:
I aint buying it.

I aint selling you anything
besides, I am not responsible for convincing you

delishpot:
What is hidden so badly in the bible that you can not point it out?

I am not pointing it out for you, especially when you arent ready

delishpot:
You have pointed passages where the act was condemned
why would it take conditions to show a passage from that same bible where Jesus welcomed the lifestyle?

I never gave passages where "the act" as you put it, was condemned.
Please, enough already, ah-ha.
This is becoming too much
Nobi by force nau.

delishpot:
why would it take conditions to show a passage from that same bible where Jesus welcomed the lifestyle?

SMH.
Yes, Jesus welcomed someone living that lifestyle and was glad to help him and his partner out
You can grovel, shout till your throat goes sore or crawl over broken bottles as much as you like,
the offer to show the passage in camera but on conditions was extended to budaatum and not you
You are not proven, worthy yet, to be privy to that information or passage

delishpot:
Jesus visited many sinners that doesn't mean he encouraged their lifestyle.

I can give a list of a fair amount of sinners Jesus visited or helped where He publicly discouraged their lifestyle and meant it
one thing is certain, He never discouraged the lifestyle of consenting adults in a honest, loving, committed, lasting a lifetime same gender sexual relationship

He even praised the partner of the consenting adults in the honest, loving, committed, lasting a lifetime same gender sexual relationship

delishpot:
Stop joking with me abeg.
Post passage here.
The book, the chapter and verse let me see it.
I am not ready to meet conditions with you.
UNTIL THEN I SHALL SAY NO MORE:

You are the alawada keri keri joker here
Everyone except you knows, the offer was to budaatum and not you

delishpot:
I just decided to announce this fact again
so you don't act all super winning when next I use to reply your quotes.
It simply means still no proof?
Still running around and evading my own requests?
That is what it means when I reply your mention with those little faces.

Dont be like that.
"... there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth..." will not be your portion, my sister (Amen)

MuttleyLaff:
It is true.

Do you think, I made up that:
"Jesus was even willing to visit someone in a same sex relationship but persuaded it wasnt necessary"

The source is the bible

budaatum:
Just so it's said, your above in italics ("was willing but persuaded''), is an example of your unclearlessness.

The reason is,
"These people will look and look, but never see.
They will listen and listen, but never understand.
If they did, they would turn to God and be forgiven."
- Mark 4:12

Bud, surely, it must have occurred to you that,
maybe I don’t want to be too clear because of the likes of the Ubenedictus, 9inches, delishpot and that halitosis Glycolysis of this world

You see, nothing worth knowing and/or worth having, comes quickly or easy.
If it did, I doubt we'll ever learn something new or grow

budaatum:
You know my vested interest is that what you claim is true,
but I can't go about claiming " muttley said"!
Besides, you've never been shy about posting book, chapter and verse in the past muttley,
so do not disappoint now please.

I already mentioned that I am prepared to tell you book, chapter and verse
but it'll be in camera and under conditions

You're right, I am not known for hoarding information
and so why I dont mind giving you in camera and on my terms

budaatum:
1. Who was the person in a same sex relationship that Jesus was willing to visit?

On camera, let's just say, someone in dire need of immediate assistance for another.

budaatum:
2. Who persuaded him it wasn't necessary?

The same person in a same sex relationship did

budaatum:
3. Where in the Bible (or anywhere) did you get this from?

I've already told you, source is from the bible nau.
Since you added "anywhere"
Yeah, anywhere else from the bible, corroborates it as well,
even you too, unintentionally or without being aware, have also.

I've tried now, haven't I, considering you havent yet agreed, on my conditions yet

MuttleyLaff:
Peoples perception of the matter isnt what they think and learned it to be.
First step, will be, to review 1 Timothy 1:10 and 1 Corinthians 6:9, are look into what "malakois" and "arsenokoites" really means,
just as I earlier advised 9inches to do just that
but he opted to plastering that Catholic magazine entire article here instead.

Milk cow(s) alright but make your own cheese
Dont offer bottled milk, passed on, as if yours

Actually, you are not allowed to forge your own subjective interpretation of Christianity (or the bible) in the Catholic church. The bible is not confusing to the Church; the Church compiled the bible and was the ONLY body instituted by Christ through which unadulterated Christianity can be taught and learned.

So, yes! We already have our milk bottled for hundreds of centuries; and it comes with original seal of authenticity. Why selfishly replicate and risk corruption?

MuttleyLaff:

I am beginning to wonder if you really want to receive it, as if/when you're ready, you surely know where I am, what to do and how to holler at me

So, I have to put in some special request for information you've claimed you'd provide? Next, muttley, you be asking me to pay for it too!

I'm afraid that until you decide to disabuse me of my ignorance, I'll just stick to my position, which, at least, we do seem to share.

budaatum:
So, I have to put in some special request for information you've claimed you'd provide?

Special request ke.
I declared I have no qualms providing you ALL the information,
I actually said the ONLY I'll do it will be in camera
plus providing the info is based on and/or down to your accepting the conditions
The ball has ever been in your court mate,
hanging in the air, waiting for your response, to whack, chest down and kick, head, or throw back.

budaatum:
Next, muttley, you be asking me to pay for it too!

You've mistaken me for someone else

budaatum:
I'm afraid that until you decide to disabuse me of my ignorance, I'll just stick to my position, which, at least, we do seem to share.

My position, and where I stand has been clearly defined.
I am afraid, I can only be sorry, if you've missed it

MuttleyLaff:
Special request ke.
I declared I have no qualms providing you ALL the information,
I actually said the ONLY I'll do it will be in camera
plus providing the info is based on and/or down to your accepting the conditions

So, I have to pay?

I think I should start calling you Laff, muttley!

delishpot:
when next I use to reply your quotes. It simply means still no proof? Still running around and evading my own requests? That is what it means when I reply your mention with those little faces.

Or, 'Laff'!

budaatum:
So, I have to pay?

...Give these things without charging,
since you received them without paying
- Matthew 10:8b

You know bud, you really made me laugh. SMH.
I thought your first mention about pay was a freudian slip
but hey, here you're again, mentioning pay. SMHx2

budaatum:
I think I should start calling you Laff, muttley!

Call me whatever strikes your fancy
It can't be worse than delishpot's
who had resorted to calling me all sorts of ill-informed & uncouth adjectives imaginable under the sun she could think of

delishpot:
when next I use to reply your quotes.
It simply means still no proof? Still running around and evading my own requests?
That is what it means when I reply your mention with those little faces.

budaatum:
Or, 'Laff'!

You know what to do, when you're ready
and willing to accept the terms for giving you the information.

MuttleyLaff:
...Give these things without charging,
since you received them without paying
- Matthew 10:8b

So, what's with your "conditions" then, muttley? Are your "conditions" not a form of 'charge'?

Take your own advise and give us freely, and without charge, what we've been asking for, please. Or are you just pulling strings on a puppet?

budaatum:
So, what's with your "conditions" then, muttley?

What took you so long?
The conditions have to DO with honour and mutual NDA

budaatum:
Are your "conditions" not a form of 'charge'?

Sorry, if you're disappointed.
Unfortunately, it is not in any form of charge.
It's far simpler than a form of charge
To start with it will be given in camera
AND the term(s) of condition(s) are harmless to you.

budaatum:
Take your own advise and give us freely, and without charge, what we've been asking for, please.
Or are you just pulling strings on a puppet?

Dont forget, I singled you out and no more, to share the information with.
Delishpot was trying to gatecrash and snuggle herself in.
Can you imagine that

MuttleyLaff:
What took you so long?
The conditions have to DO with honour and mutual NDA

Sorry, if you're disappointed.
Unfortunately, it is not in any form of charge.
It's far simpler than a form of charge
To start with it will be given in camera
AND the term(s) of condition(s) are harmless to you.

Dont forget, I singled you out and no more, to share the information with.
[s]Delishpot was trying to gatecrash and snuggle herself in. [/s]
Can you imagine that

LoL

This is for anyone considering selling his soull to the devil through meeting in Camera and signing a contract (aka NDA)

My dear if there was anywhere in the bible Jesus even as much as hugged openly gay people, believe you me, the gays would have rubbed it in the face of anyone and everyone who stood against them based on biblical teaching since time immemorial. Even if the African gays did not find it, the white ones who have read, investigated and studied every copy of the bible and have read them in their original form both approved and discarded would have pointed it out and used it to silence the Church for saying No to Homosexuality. This I am posting for those who seem to be romancing the thought of signing their souls to the devil in exchange for so called knowledge that is in the bible but needs a contract to be explained. It sure baffles me how a person would not wonder why someone would ask him to see in camera and sign an NDA to be shown what is already in the bible. LOL. If only the person has been following this topic they would have seen that lies are not far from the lips of the merchant of souls Who speaks with a forked tongue


. Romans 12 Therefore, I urge you, brothers and sisters, in view of God’s mercy, to offer your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and pleasing to God—this is your true and proper worship. 2 Do not conform to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God’s will is—his good, pleasing and perfect will.

9inches:
Actually, you are not allowed to forge your own subjective interpretation of Christianity (or the bible) in the Catholic church.

I know.
Martin Luther paid the price
and it wasnt as if his interpretation of the bible was subjective, it wasnt politically motivated

9inches:
The bible is not confusing to the Church;

Doing the classic Acts 17:11 Berean
is not because the bible is confusing to the church 9inches
but is all about examining the bible daily, to see if things are really so, as led to believe.

9inches:
the Church compiled the bible

Yes, this is correct, that the catholic church compiled the bible as we know and most generally used
but if not for the likes of Martin Luther et al, the whole world wouldnt be personally reading the bible in their own tongue
and seeing the text with their own korokoro eyes

9inches:
[s]and was the ONLY body instituted by Christ through which unadulterated Christianity can be taught and learned.[/s]

Good try,
but I am not going to fall for that bait.
No way Jose

9inches:
So, yes!
We already have our milk bottled for hundreds of centuries; and it comes with original seal of authenticity.

But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, (i.e. will send as My representative)
will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have told you.
- John 14:26

Yet when the Spirit of Truth comes, he'll guide you into all truth.
He won't speak on his own accord,
but he'll speak whatever he hears and will declare to you the things that are to come
- John 16:13

"Dont offer bottled milk, passed on, as if yours"
was making reference to the plastering of that Catholic magazine entire article here without giving credit to author or source

Never mind, as was glad, you admitted your mistake when you acknowledged budaatum's advice when he typed:
"Next time do include links please. People get vilified on here for plagiarism."

9inches, you do remember Mark 8:27-30, dont you?
Well you might have "...milk bottled for hundreds of centuries; and it comes with original seal of authenticity" sic
but it doesnt stop God asking you the famous "But what about you?" question

God will say, what about you 9inches, you have/had the milk, you've got the milk,
so where is your cheese, what of the cheese, what about your cheese you've made from the milk?

9inches:
Why selfishly replicate and risk corruption?

The manner Jorge Mario Bergoglio sometimes acts and/or speaks,
can only be due to being privy to certain books kept in the Vatican vault that the average Joe Public hasnt access to
I am quite sure the alleged lost "book of the Righteous/Upright" or the "book of the Just Man" is in there
(i.e. the unknown book of Jaspher mentioned in the OT)

Why not for once, objectively say what the bible says, 9inches
as it happens, I can proffer you a list relating to the thread's subject matter
instead of selfishly reproducing corrupted words or erroneous expressions, that we know are changed from their original meaning and/or state.

MuttleyLaff:


The reason is,
"These people will look and look, but never see.
They will listen and listen, but never understand.
If they did, they would turn to God and be forgiven."
- Mark 4:12

Bud, surely, it must have occurred to you that,
maybe I don’t want to be too clear because of the likes of the Ubenedictus, 9inches, delishpot and that halitosis Glycolysis of this world

You see, nothing worth knowing and/or worth having, comes quickly or easy.
If it did, I doubt we'll ever learn something new or grow

I already mentioned that I am prepared to tell you book, chapter and verse
but it'll be in camera and under conditions

You're right, I am not known for hoarding information
and so why I dont mind giving you in camera and on my terms

On camera, let's just say, someone in dire need of immediate assistance for another.

The same person in a same sex relationship did

I've already told you, source is from the bible nau.
Since you added "anywhere"
Yeah, anywhere else from the bible, corroborates it as well,
even you too, unintentionally or without being aware, have also.

I've tried now, haven't I, considering you havent yet agreed, on my conditions yet

this is that Roman official who met Jesus to heal his servant. the one who told Jesus he needs not to be under his roof but only say the words... as he does to those under him. the one whose faith Jesus said hasn't been found in Israel and was healed for this faith...

9inches:


Actually, you are not allowed to forge your own subjective interpretation of Christianity (or the bible) in the Catholic church.

That's the reason the Pentecostals split off from the Catholics. First, they accused the Catholics of forging their own subjective interpretation but calling it God's, and then they went ahead and forged their own interpretation and called their's God's.

As to being allowed. One could argue that Christ gave permission to forge one's own subjective interpretation with his "I have not come to change the law", but going ahead to modify some laws somewhat. And, wasn't subjective interpretation a consequence of the Holy Spirit? One person's HS doesn't always say what someone else's HS says.

That however is not an excuse for muttley claiming things that don't exist or that he can't provide evidence for at all are written in the Bible!

Gggg102:



this is that Roman official who met Jesus to heal his servant. the one who told Jesus he needs not to be under his roof but only say the words... as he does to those under him. the one whose faith Jesus said hasn't been found in Israel and was healed for this faith...

Ok. So where did Jesus encourage and enable sodomy in that passage? Like I said I know that Jesus walked, sat and ate with many people of questionable characters and he said he does that because he was sent to deliver the sinner because the healthy does not need a doctor rather the sick. So judging by that statement Jesus made it clear that he isnt saying their lifestyle is right but he should not be judged for explaining the things of God to them. Because even sinners deserve to hear the word and be redeemed.

Matthew 9:10-17 New International Version (NIV)
10 While Jesus was having dinner at Matthew’s house, many tax collectors and sinners came and ate with him and his disciples. 11 When the Pharisees saw this, they asked his disciples, “Why does your teacher eat with tax collectors and sinners?”

12 On hearing this, Jesus said, “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. 13 But go and learn what this means: ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice.’[a] For I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.

Gggg102:



this is that Roman official who met Jesus to heal his servant. the one who told Jesus he needs not to be under his roof but only say the words... as he does to those under him. the one whose faith Jesus said hasn't been found in Israel and was healed for this faith...

What is it that makes you claim that Roman official was gay, Gggg?

MuttleyLaff:

Never mind, as was glad, you admitted your mistake when you acknowledged budaatum's advice when he typed:
"Next time do include links please. People get vilified on here for plagiarism."

Hypocrisy, by the way, is when one tells another to do what one refuses to do oneself.

budaatum:
What is it that makes you claim that Roman official was gay, Gggg?

I'm not claiming he was gay. I'm showing the story laff was talking about.
I don't know how laff got the conclusion that the official was gay.

MuttleyLaff:
I know.
Martin Luther paid the price
and it wasnt as if his interpretation of the bible was subjective, it wasnt politically motivated

It was the sin of disobedience and PRIDE that separated Martin Luther from the Body of Christ, the Church.

Doing the classic Acts 17:11 Berean
is not because the bible is confusing to the church 9inches
but is all about examining the bible daily, to see if things are really so, as led to believe.

We are talking thousands of years of consistency, MuttleyLaff, not some wild new age whitewashing of Christianity.

Yes, this is correct, that the catholic church compiled the bible as we know and most generally used
but if not for the likes of Martin Luther et al, the whole world wouldnt be personally reading the bible in their own tongue
and seeing the text with their own korokoro eyes

Exactly! And Martin Luther is the reason there are now over 33,000 different denominations interpreting the bible differently whilst claiming the Holy Spirit (which we all agree does not sow confusion). The Body of Christ (the Church) is undivided. The Body of Christ is one, not 2, not 5, not 20 and definitely not 33,000.

Good try,
but I am not going to fall for that bait.
No way Jose

No one is forcing you to fall for it. You won't be the first or only person to live in denial.

But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, (i.e. will send as My representative)
will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have told you.
- John 14:26

Yet when the Spirit of Truth comes, he'll guide you into all truth.
He won't speak on his own accord,
but he'll speak whatever he hears and will declare to you the things that are to come
- John 16:13

He was speaking to a group of followers- the Church.

9inches, you do remember Mark 8:27-30, dont you?
Well you might have "...milk bottled for hundreds of centuries; and it comes with original seal of authenticity" sic
but it doesnt stop God asking you the famous "But what about you?" question

God will say, what about you 9inches, you have/had the milk, you've got the milk,
so where is your cheese, what of the cheese, what about your cheese you've made from the milk?

As long as I'm consuming the milk with the original seal of authenticity, my safety is guaranteed.

The manner Jorge Mario Bergoglio sometimes acts and/or speaks,
can only be due to being privy to certain books kept in the Vatican vault that the average Joe Public hasnt access to
I am quite sure the alleged lost "book of the Righteous/Upright" or the "book of the Just Man" is in there
(i.e. the unknown book of Jaspher mentioned in the OT)

Why not for once, objectively say what the bible says, 9inches
as it happens, I can proffer you a list relating to the thread's subject matter
instead of selfishly reproducing corrupted words or erroneous expressions, that we know are changed from their original meaning and/or state.

Exactly! That's why Catholics don't leave the "average Joe Public" to interpret what "average Joe Public" thinks or feels the interpretation should mean. And by the way, there's no single document, text or information that people with authority in the Vatican have not seen even before the Pope was born.
The Church is authoritative custodian of the Word of God (including the bible), so you can be rest assured it remains uncorrupted until the end of time. You can't get such guarantee outside the Church.

budaatum:

That's the reason the Pentecostals split off from the Catholics. First, they accused the Catholics of forging their own subjective interpretation but calling it God's, and then they went ahead and forged their own interpretation and called their's God's.

As to being allowed. One could argue that Christ gave permission to forge one's own subjective interpretation with his "I have not come to change the law", but going ahead to modify some laws somewhat. And, wasn't subjective interpretation a consequence of the Holy Spirit? One person's HS doesn't always say what someone else's HS says.

That however is not an excuse for muttley claiming things that don't exist or that he can't provide evidence for at all are written in the Bible!

I understand where you are coming from, but the Holy Spirit does not sow confusion. And no, Christ did not give permission to forge one's own subjective interpretation. That's the reason he made his apostles (the early Church) the custodian of his Word and additionally promised them his Holy Spirit to guide them in the light of truth. The Church is the pillar and foundation of Truth. Truth is not guaranteed outside the Church (1 Tim 3:15). That's all I'm saying.

9inches:

I understand where you are coming from, but the Holy Spirit does not sow confusion. And no, Christ did not give permission to forge one's own subjective interpretation. That's the reason he made his apostles (the early Church) the custodian of his Word and additionally promised them his Holy Spirit to guide them in the light of truth. The Church is the pillar and foundation of Truth. Truth is not guaranteed outside the Church (1 Tim 3:15). That's all I'm saying.

I think only a Catholic would make such a claim, as they were one of the earliest! (Are you Catholic?)

All the other churches would like to claim the same authority, but would have to explain their defiance of the Popes authority.

9inches:
So, yes!
We already have our milk bottled for hundreds of centuries; and it comes with original seal of authenticity.

MuttleyLaff:
"Dont offer bottled milk, passed on, as if yours"
was making reference to the plastering of that Catholic magazine entire article here without giving credit to author or source

Never mind, as was glad, you admitted your mistake when you acknowledged budaatum's advice when he typed:
"Next time do include links please. People get vilified on here for plagiarism."

budaatum:
Hypocrisy, by the way, is when one tells another to do what one refuses to do oneself.

Ignorance, in almost all cases, is an all way, voluntary misfortune

SMH. Believe you me, the ignorance doesn't hurt,
but singling you out, deemed worthy only enough, to share the info you've shown interest in, with
and then, having you, not live up to expectation and making groundless, caustic comments, mayne, that's what hurt.

#1/ An offer to meet your person, in camera, based on certains proviso, was never refused or accepted,
yet you have the cheek and boldness to be here now, tongue-lashing about "hypocrisy"

---

#2/ "This is for anyone considering selling his soull to the devil
through meeting in Camera and signing a contract (aka NDA)" sic
- delishpot ©

delishpot certainly+effectively put the frighteners on you and others, with her above inverted commas scaremongering or scare tactic
and probably explains why you never responded, as to accepting/rejecting the manner and how I declared to share the info with you

---

#3/ Waving a "hypocrisy" card and trying to malign, is a vituperative outburst coming after a faulty judgement or reasoning.
9inches "copy & paste" posted an entire article here, as in, word for word, verbatim, without giving credit to author or source.
I initially assumed, that he wrote it all up, after visiting dairy farms, and so would be able to defend it, since its his own composition or write up
only to later on, find out, its bottled milk, passed on as if it was his

---

#4/ It isnt a first time, as we had in the past and several times, have extensively discussed matters and/or shared "links" in private, but it is a first time, I introduced a condition,
and condition only, as regards sharing this particular info
So where or what should I start with?
Is it the condition(s), you never bothered to ask what it is,
or your being mute on accepting or not, the offer on how I planned to share the info, books, chapters, verses and whatnot with you?

Lord help us.

orisa37:
Lord help us.

Even I, an atheist, have no choice but to say, Amen!

budaatum:
Even I, an atheist, have no choice but to say, Amen!

.

You are not an atheist if you can say Amen.

MuttleyLaff:




Ignorance, in almost all cases, is an all way, voluntary misfortune

SMH. Believe you me, the ignorance doesn't hurt,
but singling you out, deemed worthy only enough, to share the info you've shown interest in, with
and then, having you, not live up to expectation and making groundless, caustic comments, mayne, that's what hurt.

#1/ An offer to meet your person, in camera, based on certains proviso, was never refused or accepted,
yet you have the cheek and boldness to be here now, tongue-lashing about "hypocrisy"

---

#2/ "This is for anyone considering selling his soull to the devil
through meeting in Camera and signing a contract (aka NDA)" sic
- [s]delishpot ©

delishpot certainly+effectively put the frighteners on you and others, with her above inverted commas scaremongering or scare tactic
and probably explains why you never responded, as to accepting/rejecting the manner and how I declared to share the info with you[/s]

---

#3/ Waving a "hypocrisy" card and trying to malign, is a vituperative outburst coming after a faulty judgement or reasoning.
9inches "copy & paste" posted an entire article here, as in, word for word, verbatim, without giving credit to author or source.
I initially assumed, that he wrote it all up, after visiting dairy farms, and so would be able to defend it, since its his own composition or write up
only to later on, find out, its bottled milk, passed on as if it was his

---

#4/ It isnt a first time, as we had in the past and several times, have extensively discussed matters and/or shared "links" in private, but it is a first time, I introduced a condition,
and condition only, as regards sharing this particular info
So where or what should I start with?
Is it the condition(s), you never bothered to ask what it is,
or your being mute on accepting or not, the offer on how I planned to share the info, books, chapters, verses and whatnot with you?

You sneaky liar! At first you started by making people believe you just think the church should be open to saints and sinners alike. I knew that your reasoning was far beyond that. I knew you were arguing that Sodomy was right and the church needs to embrace it as part of life. Only the blind ones agreed with you because they did not know where you were coming from. Now you have made it clear, you are fighting for sodomy to be accepted and not judged a sin. Far be it from me that I agree with you.
LOL, there is nothing hidden or meant to be explained in the bible on only one condition. The Bible is meant to be pondered upon and its knowledge shared freely anytime a man has the opportunity to do so. I showed everyone my stance against your theory using the exact texts, chapters and verses as found in the holly bible.Open to debate about them and receiving knowledge from those who can discuss more on them. No seeing in camera, no NDA to sign. You on the other hand, you are a merchant of souls. What is so secret that the hearer needs to sign an NDA ( Contract or Initiation) before to learn the knowledge you want to provide? Only occults work that way. Many so called churches burying heads and hands at the alters also know how to quote and twist the bible. You ain't fooling no one no more. Stop quoting me without answers. I overcome you by the blood of the lamb Jesus Christ.