This page is to help others and myself review peoples past statements and beliefs. The Lord is my witness that these are the statements in whole, unedited, and to the best of my knowledge not out of context either. If one says something on the web they should be willing to have it viewed by all, either that or they should stop saying what they say. In fact they should be perpared to have it reprinted here or in the daily newspaper for that matter... Some will say... "But you didn't enclude what stupid things Christians say as well." Oh! yes I did! Some I'm sure in time will have a problem with this page, so far those that know about it for the most part have shown support for it... and the others, the ones that don't like it or agree with it... tough titty said the momma cat to the kitty... don't come here. The only editing that will be done is if one does a "wame = same" typo correction. Some might say, well you'll just add false statements, lies about those that are against you or your God... it's my God that keeps me in check of false witnessing, and I don't take it lightly how Father views thoses that slander others. Some of these rooms have full time bots logging all the chats, if someone is in doubt about what they say, ask for the logs and you will see, you did say just that. Don't get so drunk you can't remember what you said next time, or what ever the cause might be that keeps you from remembering.
Nooooo I didn't enclude the stupid things I said, what ya think I'm stupid!!! LOL
#cd = #Christiandebate
#cw = #ChristianWarrior
#c = #Christian
#c^ = #Christian^
#a = #atheism
#r = #religion
#i = Islam
cst = central standard time. Texas time!

6/5/02 cst #cd
[03:12] Glurk> hey..this is very interesting !
[03:12] Glurk> "ALL" flesh will worship god ???????
[03:12] Glurk> so...do we ALL get to go to heaven ?
[03:13] Glurk> Tryan: so......who ends up in hell, if all flesh goes to heaven ?
[03:13] Glurk> does it mean..I don't really have anything to worry about ?
(Glurk is worried about going to hell?)

6/5/02 cst #cd
[03:14] `aeon> in Luke 6:1-5, in Codex Cantabrigiensis, Jesus and his disciples are challenged by the Pharisees for working on the Sabbath. They "plucked ears of corn, and did eat, rubbing them in their hands." Jesus responds and puts the Pharisees in their place.
[03:14] `aeon> However, an addition to this passage includes the words: "On the same day, having seen one working on the Sabbath, he said to him, O man, if thou knowest what thou doest, thou art blessed, but if thou knowest not, thou art accursed and a transgressor of the Law."
[03:14] `aeon> Lockhart believes this meant: "If you do not have a distinct and present-minded awareness during an act… then whatever it might be it is automatically accursed because it does not follow this basic law of authentic perception. Without this intrinsic level of awareness… this authentic seeing of reality … then behavior and attitude and statement and belief and everything imaginable is in a fallen state." [03:15] `aeon> interesting little addition there, that was deleted
[03:16] Ad_Hoc> lol, an addition by whom?
[03:17] `aeon> Jesus is saying if you know what you are doing, it doesn't matter sabbath or not
[03:17] omega_opk> but in new testament sabbath is Christ himself
[03:17] `aeon> omega, only if you 'know what you are doing'
[03:17] omega_opk> Come to me and I will give you rest
[03:18] Ad_Hoc> `aeon: where did you get this "addition" from?
[03:18] `aeon> Codex Cantabrigiensis, it follows the popular luke 6:1-5
[03:19] Ad_Hoc> `aeon, it doesn't enter your mind that the 'addition' might be spurious?
[03:20] `aeon> ad_hoc, you would have to date that codex, .. there are alot of early witnesses, that change in 'later' additions
[03:20] Ad_Hoc> `aeon: no, YOU would have to date it...if you were serious about finding out whether or not it is in the original
[03:20] `aeon> codex cantabrigiensis is a sixth-century manuscript.. oh well
[03:21] `aeon> there you have it
[03:21] Ad_Hoc> lol, sixth century?
[03:22] Ad_Hoc> so much for your "addition", `aeon

6/5/02 cst #cd
(Ad_Hoc 1. vs `aeron 0. )

6/5/02 cst #cd
[03:41] Ad_Hoc> I used to be christian, then i grew up.

(Snide remarks, debate deduction -10 points.)

[04:39] TimHorton> sound_off` - charismata is not someone I would consider much of an expert of anything.
TimHorton> well, I can't find intellegence... I am off to bed.. I hope the entire room wil pray and work toward the elimination of zionists throughout the entire world... let us pray for a zionist free world
[04:46] sound_off`> TimHorton you been banned for saying that before

(TimHorton = webulite some say, fact so much so ktow as he is also known, has been banned from that room, but keeps avoiding.)
[04:48] *** Parts: TimHorton (___@216-224-146-21.thegrid.net)

[04:57] aeon`> one is not sanctified, and made mature in christ over night
(Tell that to the thief on the cross "when?" you get to heaven.)

[04:39] Behomazun> And besides, I am not a part of later apostasied gnosticism, which flurished for the most part from the second century onwards, mine could be considerd proto-gnosticism, along the lines of Enoch, Essenes, Kaballah, etc.

Kabbalah 1 : a medieval and modern system of Jewish theosophy, mysticism, and thaumaturgy marked by belief in creation through emanation and a cipher method of interpreting Scripture. (Enoch is a Jewish book as well, To me the Kabbalah and the book of Enoch have origins that predate gnosis.)

proto-gnosticism The word you've entered isn't in the dictionary. Click on a spelling suggestion below or try again using the Dictionary search box to the right. (Nor is that anywhere to be found. )

Behomazun is Behomazun@clt88-152-153.carolina.rr.com * Latter-Day Saint (A proto-gnosticism Kaballah practicing mormon.. heh. )

[05:22] <`aeon> soundoff, sometimes I might debate against Jesus being equal with God the father, if that is what you mean

Philippians 2:4 Look not every man on his own things, but every man also on the things of others. 5. Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: 6. Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:7. But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: 8. And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.

[06:27]`aeon> soundoff, actually you don't know the first thing about the subject of human perfection
Ad_Hoc> but you do, `aeon, right?
`aeon> perfect means completion
Ad_Hoc> wrong again, `aeon. You REALLY should invest in a dictionary.
Gankaku> Ad_Hoc No need to be condescending, watch it
Ad_Hoc> rofl!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Ad_Hoc> condescension is now against channel rules? Interesting...
Gankaku> Ad_Hoc It is on my watch
Ad_Hoc> lol
[06:32] sound_off> ugh_ and the top archaeologists in the world have confirmned that the bible has never been proven wrong so far by archaeological findings

[06:37] sound_off> sorry but I go by science as well ugh_
Ad_Hoc> lol, sound_off goes by science...that's a good one.
*** Parts: sound_off (beepbeep@ww-bbs25.wwbbs.net)
Ad_Hoc> ugh_: science, of course...he only "goes by" science when it suits him
(Thats it, stab him in the back when he isnt there to defend himself. Expected.)

[06:43] Ad_Hoc> aeon`, just for one night, could we have a rest from your consciousness rubbish? 6/5/02 cst #cd

(This exchange was a real winner. lol )
6/5/02 cst #cd
[07:52] Sin_of_Man^> kjv hosea 13:16
* Dabar !Kjv! Hosea 13:16 Samaria shall become desolate; for she hath rebelled against her God: they shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up.
Sin_of_Man^> god approves of abortion
`aeon> bit of a reach
Sin_of_Man^> yes he must...he is a bit rough about it though
KingJehu> Sin_of_Man^ that room your in has a foul taste to in, and your topic, very vile and slanderous against Jesus... such things only come from evil, or children which don't know better... which is it in your case...
Ad_Hoc> good reply, Sin_of_Man^
Sin_of_Man^> huh KingJehu?
Sin_of_Man^> i'm not evil
Ad_Hoc> Sin_of_Man^, i've found that when someone hits you with a trolling insult, your best course is just to ignore them completely.
Sara_Ks> Ad_Hoc Why do you call it trolling?
Sara_Ks> and how do you see it as an insult?
Sin_of_Man^> it was insulting Sara_Ks
Ad_Hoc> i see it as an insult because it is one, and I'm not an op so i don't have to 'pretend' other ops don't break the rules.
Sara_Ks> I see, then you would agree that your topic would be offensive to a christian?
Sara_Ks> Ad_Hoc I see your comment the wame way then, insulting
Sara_Ks> same
KingJehu> Ad_Hoc you saying I made a trolling statement... his topic is about how Satan "took" Christ in the rear... to be nice about it... thats childish or evil, so be if it you dont agree Ad_Hoc thats something I would figure from you...
Ad_Hoc> yes, you made a trolling statement. And it was an insult.
KingJehu> I guess you agree with it as well Ad_Hoc ?
Sin_of_Man^> are you taking my topic seriously KingJehu?
KingJehu> Sin_of_Man^ you posted it...
Sin_of_Man^> can you see the topic in here KingJehu?
Sin_of_Man^> what does it say?
KingJehu> Sin_of_Man^ did I say it was in here... or did I kick you?
Sin_of_Man^> you are a hypocrite
Ad_Hoc> ka-ching@!
Sin_of_Man^> Topic is 'Open Topic... Play nice.... and NO bashing :-)
KingJehu> yes... because you make such vile staements Im a hypocrite
KingJehu> ic
Sin_of_Man^> i never said anything
KingJehu> You posted the topic...
Ad_Hoc> perhaps he means because you break the rules of the channel where you're supposed to enforce them, you're a hypocrite.
Sin_of_Man^> in MY channel, not here
Sin_of_Man^> or you didn't approve of my posting of hosea 13:16?
KingJehu> Sin_of_Man^ its still a staement made by you isnt it? I said at the very first it was in that room
KingJehu> Sin_of_Man^ that room your in has a foul taste to in, and your topic, very vile and slanderous against Jesus... such things only come from evil, or children which don't know better... which is it in your case... <------ that room your in has a foul taste to in
Sin_of_Man^> what has my topic got to do with anything in here KingJehu?
Ad_Hoc> indeed, what has your other channel got to do with anythign in here?
KingJehu> Sin_of_Man^ it is you making a very vile statement... what are you ashamed of it... it has to do with anywhere you go...
KingJehu> It will follow you to hell as well.
Ad_Hoc> rofl
KingJehu> Ad_Hoc its just like you to think that statement is okay
Sin_of_Man^> i'm not ashamed of it, you are a nosey busybody KingJehu
Sara_Ks> Ad_Hoc There is no rule against commenting about something someone says in another room. Your comment is insulting. Now, if he was kicked because of it it would be another matter
Ad_Hoc> another ad hominem, and an attempt at an insult.
Ad_Hoc> Sara_Ks: i made no insult. KingJehu did.
Sara_Ks> Ad_Hoc Your comment about ops was an isult
Sara_Ks> insult
Sin_of_Man^> you think i believe in a hell KingJehu?
KingJehu> Ad_Hoc how is that a ad hominem, your taking his defence that that statement isnt either childish or evil... AND you havent even read it have you...
Sara_Ks> Ad_Hoc Kj's comment was no different in nature than yours.
Sin_of_Man^> the topic is irrelevant.... your outburst was uncalled for KingJehu
Ad_Hoc> KingJehu, if you knew what ad hominem meant, you'd know how what you said was one. And i have not taken his part in any way about the statement. I neither know nor care what it is. All I said was that you insulted him. Which you did.
Sara_Ks> Ad_Hoc There are several meanings
KingJehu> Sin_of_Man^ I call a spade a spade and a club a club...
Sara_Ks> as you know
Ad_Hoc> no, there are not.
Sara_Ks> Ad_Hoc Then you do not know what it means
Ad_Hoc> wrong
Sin_of_Man^> lucky your jesus wasn't like you KingJehu
Sara_Ks> right
Sara_Ks> ~
Sara_Ks> lol
Ad_Hoc> then please, show me these "several meanings"
Ad_Hoc> educate me
Ad_Hoc> enlighten us all.
Sara_Ks> Ad_Hoc one is an insult to the person instead of arguing his point....
Sara_Ks> 2 is a general insult to someone, which is becoming a more common meaning in this room
Sara_Ks> thats it.
Joins: Ad-Hoc (Ad_Hoc@dialup34.athena.dragon.net.au)
Ad_Hoc> did I miss it?
Sara_Ks> Yes
Main Entry: 1ad ho·mi·nem
KingJehu> Pronunciation: (')ad-'hä-m&-"nem, -n&m
KingJehu> Function: adjective
KingJehu> Etymology: New Latin, literally, to the person
KingJehu> Date: 1598
KingJehu> 1 : appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect
KingJehu> 2 : marked by an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made
Ad-Hoc> oh, then please, repeat it!
KingJehu> thats two different ones right there,,,
KingJehu> you lose
Sara_Ks> Ad_Hoc one is an insult to the person instead of arguing his point....
Sara_Ks> 2 is a general insult to someone, which is becoming a more common meaning in this room
KingJehu> AND no one insulted you... you went to his defence... just like I knew you would... whats so insulting about that>?
Ad-Hoc> lol @ king jehu getting the definition of a latin term from an english dictionary
Ad-Hoc> You insulted him. I merely pointed it out.
KingJehu> Ad-Hoc its Websters...
Sin_of_Man^> so you were trolling then KingJehu
Ad-Hoc> it's an ENGLISH dictionary. It's a LATIN term. Surely you can see the point of NOT using Websters?
Sara_Ks> Sin_of_Man^ He commented of your topic in an honest way, with honest feelings and with out a misstatement on his part. That is not trolling
KingJehu> Ad-Hoc so one must read latin to know what it means huh...
KingJehu> cripes
KingJehu> Ad_Hoc do you read latin
Sin_of_Man^> KingJehu i've changed the topic now....
Ad-Hoc> if you want to know what it means, consult a LATIN dictionary. Not an ENGLISH one.
`aeon> trolling is coming in and posting a lame verse of the ot about killing women and children
Sara_Ks> Ad-Hoc would a latin dictionary know evglish well enough to help us? lol works both ways
KingJehu> Sin_of_Man^ Im sure for the better... no matter what you posted... even if it was something about me...
Ad-Hoc> oh boy
Sin_of_Man^> so the bible contains "lame" verses?
mic^> ya thats trollong `aeon i agree
mic^> saying stuff you know isnt true just to get a rise out of people
Ad-Hoc> trolling is usually construed as posting something that is opinion, without support, for the deliberate intent of goading someone. What KingJehu said was both a troll and an insult.
KingJehu> No it was the TRUTH
mic^> yay KingJehu...boo Ad-Hoc
`aeon> ad_hoc, you tried that latin argument with gnosis, which is a greek term, and thought it only mean knowledge, instead of coming from the root 'to know', signifying much more than what you cared to admit.
KingJehu> it was either childish or evil
Ad-Hoc> no, YOU think it was the truth, which makes it OPINION
Sara_Ks> Ad-Hoc Well, I dont agree, which is a good thing, because if it were, you would be trolling much of the time
Ad-Hoc> `aeon: he didn't post anything. KingJehu did.
KingJehu> anyone that says such vile things about Christ or ANYONE is either childish or evil, BUT like I said Ad-Hoc NO surprise you agree its not, NONE at all...
Ad-Hoc> he caused trouble? By entering the room and saying nothing?
`aeon> you were not here
Ad-Hoc> and how can quoting a bible passage be deemed trolling in a christian channel?
KingJehu> Ad-Hoc how is that a ad hominem, im not insulting you... you agree its not a childish or evil statement... THATS not a ad hominem!!! YOU agree its not a childish or evil statement... DONT use words you dont know the meaning to...
KingJehu> Ad-Hoc hey im not opped why dont you just use that ignore button on me...
Ad-Hoc> KingJehu: it is ad hominem because it refers to a person, rather than the issue...in saying "no surprise that you agree.." you refer to me, not the issue, which makes it ad hominem.
KingJehu> I would feel proud...
`aeon> he came in an posted hosea 13:16 said god approves of abortion. almost a topic, i suppose, if he offered as a debate, but i think he was just posting it 'for the deliberate intent of goading someone'.
mic^> exactly `aeon
mic^> stir the pot
KingJehu> Ad-Hoc no Im not surprised you dont think its a childish statement or evilis not a insult to you, you agreed its not...
`aeon> and by ad-hocs very defination he was trolling
Ad-Hoc> if he came in, posted hosea 13:16 and said that god approves of abortion, yes, i would call that a troll.
KingJehu> He did!!!
KingJehu> Sin_of_Man^> kjv hosea 13:16
KingJehu> [07:52] * Dabar !Kjv! Hosea 13:16 Samaria shall become desolate; for she hath rebelled against her God: they shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up.
KingJehu> [07:53] Sin_of_Man^> god approves of abortion [08:33] KingJehu> take a seat Ad-Hoc :)
Ad-Hoc> sorry, KingJehu, nice try...i at no stage gave ANY opinion on the statement in question.
mic^> yes you cause trouble in several channels Sin_of_Man^
Ad-Hoc> sorry, KingJehu, you haven't shown anywhere i was wrong; instead you've made up things i didn't say.
KingJehu> Ad-Hoc he said it!!! >>>> [07:53] Sin_of_Man^> god approves of abortion.... YOUR wrong, he is a troll!!! Ad-Hoc> if he came in, posted hosea 13:16 and said that god approves of abortion, yes, i would call that a troll. <------ look you even said so!!!
KingJehu> BUT ohh now that I prove you where wrong and he is a troll... you wish to change things up.... lol
Ad-Hoc> `aeon: no, we are not. KingJehu's original comment was that he is either evil or childish, based on something completley outside the channel. I found THAT to be both insulting and a troll.
Ad-Hoc> let me put it this way...if i told one of the ops that they were either evil or childish, which is it? Do you think i would be kicked for insulting?
`aeon> probably
Ad-Hoc> indeed. For it is an insult; yet that is what KingJehu said to Sin_of_Man^.
Ad-Hoc> no, they would kick me because i broke a channel rule; some of the ops break them freely, as kingjehu did.
Ignum> Its about as insulting as calling someone a carrot.;
KingJehu> Ad-Hoc so your saying a statement like that isnt childish or evil then right, lets go on record here... He said Satan "Took" Jesus up the you know what and your saying its not childish or evil...
Ad-Hoc> KingJehu: i am saying that you insulted him. You did. And got away with it, because you're an op.
Sara_Ks> lol Ad-Hoc You can call me childish, I wont kick you,I have reason
KingJehu> Ad-Hoc so your saying a statement like that isnt childish or evil then right, lets go on record here... He said Satan "Took" Jesus up the you know what and your saying its not childish or evil... okay... noted and logged...
Ad-Hoc> you're repeating yourself, and it doesn't make any more sense the second time.
Ad-Hoc> and *I'LL repeat* i have no idea what the statement was, nor do i care.
I stopped the debate right there... if he can't understand that simple question, whats the use? I don't think that is the case though, but rather that he was defending it, That the statement was not childish or evil, as the record shows. It was a veru very vile statement, and though I cleaned the language up, and used "took" him in the rear Ad_Hoc knew well what it meant, and if He didn't know what the statement "sin of man" made, then why the heck is he defending whether it is childish or evil. Just goes to show what Ad_Hoc thinks about our Lord. Statements like that are okay with him.

[11:14] Akonyte> Greater is he who is in me, than he who is in the world. Jesus is greater than I will ever think about being, and sincece, I honor him more than anyone else, I refuse to call myself a Christian and dishonor him any further.6/5/02 cst #cd

#CD [06:27] thx-||38> TopHat`, well, you may think that represents some "majority" ofg ppl. i "don't.",`,
TopHat`> thx-||38 now this is the second time you have twisted my statements addressed to you. This time I will correct it. I said "others" and nothing about the saying anything remotely close to being the "majority". Please read my carefully worded statements and please do not assume or imply what I have said. Since you say you may think. I never thought of majority on this one.
thx-||38> TopHat`, then what is the point of your comment? some will abort for sex, some will shoot others in the head, etc, etc, i don't,,,,?`, think it has anything do with the issue. its not representative of the topic
TopHat`> thx-||38 but it is representative of the topic and even izme me agreed to what I said and understood it to be part of the topic. The fact is I was saying that we need to regulate abortions because it has been abused and if it is allowed this would a concern. Not hard to understand that.
TopHat`> would a = would be a
thx-||38> TopHat`, by that reasoning, we regulate what foods ppl buy, because some eat themeselves into a heart attack. or we regulate buying a car, cause some,.,,`, ppl run over others
TopHat`> izme it just shows you that ppl do not want to take full responsibility in life or marriages unless it is convenient for them.
thx-||38> TopHat`, it seems you keep saying "some" ppl are wrong or bad. well, yeah, and most are not
TopHat`> thx-||38 on your statement any time some one compares an infant to groceries shows me that one may not have their corn bread cooked all the way upstairs if you get my drift
WhiteDoves> Laughs Out Loud
lIl^mIsS^AtTiTuDdE> Łaµghing řµt Łřµd
thx-||38> TopHat`, actually, i was comparing the life of an adult to the life of a baby. as i consider them equal in most cases
endbit> ive bee somewhat dialusioned by how high that number is in my area especially as our area is now aging and most of the little ones are now teenagers
TopHat`> endbit we have on the average one abortion every six seconds. I would say when we are looking at over one million abortions a year something or someone does not give a hoot about babies. A lot of ppl involved with abortions. Some repent of their decisions after they have done it but then it is too late for the aborted fetus.
endbit> TopHat` can't say what it is but something about abortion strikes me as wrong, but im not in a position to moralise those who disagree
TopHat`> endbit what makes abortion sickening is when you have seen them in real life. How the fetus struggles to avoid the needle and pain. How is struggles to survive. It is truely a picture of an innocent and helpless infant becoming a victim of a brutish person. The horror of seeing thousands of infants in garbage cans and thrown away is sick too.
TopHat`> endbit but the worst of it all is seeing how we are taking the life away from an infant that is so small and totally trusting to their mothers to have life. Some how seeing these at times made me feel one who had been abandonded and was totally helpless.
TopHat`> endbit think of it in this way. If you seen a full grown man taking a baby that was just born and then sticking needles in it and killing the baby. Now think how disgusting this is when an infant is not even a pound. So small that the infant can fit in the palm of your hand.
endbit> TopHat` you won't get an agument from me saying that abortion is anything but disgusting
TopHat`> endbit but if your talking about abused children then this is a different scenerio because one is being abused while the other is first abused then killed
(There comes a time when man has to stop sticking his head in the sand and speak out for what it moral and right and wrong, and bring to light the horror of abortions. Nice to see some feel as I do.)

#Christian [07:42] *** zoran was kicked by Edmund (shitlisted: ·200·)
[07:49] *** skyscape was kicked by Edmund (shitlisted: ·221·)
Is it okay to use that word in that channel? If not, it's not good that a op uses it in his script is it?

#Christian [08:03] goshua> god seems like a real 'hitler'
Chuck`Wagon> goshua> Interesting... since Hitler killed Jews and God seems to have favored them. Your logic seems flawed.
goshua> chuck: where have you been? jews a Christ killers!!!
Chuck`Wagon> goshua> Where have you been? Christ was a Jew.
goshua> YOUR Sin Pal is the REASON Jesus laid down His life for
Chuck`Wagon> goshua> Yes, Fire_Brand is right. If anyone is a Christ-killer, it's me.
vladisar> don't really care to discuss it in the channel tho
Chuck`Wagon rejoices to see the end of all the nonsensical "God is Hitler" talk...
Fire_Brand> <`Chuck`Wagon> we all have sinned and come short of the Glory of God
Chuck`Wagon> Amen to that, Fire_Brand.
Chuck`Wagon> Fire_Brand> Many people don't go to the doctor because they don't want to hear they're sick.

[08:20] *** goshua was kicked by vladisar (go to #christiandebate if u wanna argue)

Over in #cd LOL
*** Joins: goshua (yahweh@sdcax5-060.dialup.optusnet.com.au)
*** ChanServ sets mode: +b *!*@sdcax*-*.dialup.optusnet.com.au
*** goshua was kicked by ChanServ (User has been banned from the channel)

Soo back to #c LOL
*** Joins: goshua (yahweh@sdcax5-060.dialup.optusnet.com.au)
vladisar> goshua : like I said, this is not a debate channel. Take it elsewhere
Matrikx> vladisar - isn't guyslave debating ???
Matrikx> vladisar - isn't guyslave debating ???
*** goshua was kicked by vladisar (vladisar)
vladisar> matrikx : sorry i've been following goshua
vladisar> hang on
ANaki watches how low^rider, Fire_Brand and Matrikx get rid of people. They're a real mafia here.
Matrikx> vladisar - how about followng this guyslave dude as well
[08:28] *** Joins: guyslave (guyslave@130.Red-80-36-243.pooles.rima-tde.net)
Matrikx> ok thanks
[08:28] *** guyslave was kicked by vladisar (vladisar)
[08:29] * ANaki looks at vladisar.
ANaki> Kickbanning christians now too?
vladisar> anaki : I'm doing my job as an OP
ANaki> vladisar is THE ANTICHRIST!
[08:30] *** vladisar sets mode: +b *!*@BSN-95-200-175.dsl.siol.net
[08:30] *** ANaki was kicked by vladisar (vladisar)
low^rider> LoL Fire_Brand
vladisar> ALways wanted to do that
low^rider> I did in the other room vladisar
a/whois
low^rider is ~me@i197-133.nv.iinet.net.au * - On @#GraceMinistry +#christian
Profanatica> felt good? abuse a child did we?
Profanatica> good job brother
Profanatica> keep that christian tradition happening
low^rider> LoL these are all tarred with the same brush
low^rider> I noticed that a lot of cults work that way vladisar they come in together
low^rider> And they start to cry over good decisions
Profanatica> if god is real why are you guys such loosers? ever thought of that?
Fire_Brand> yeah they too gutless to pop in on their own
[08:32] *** `Isaac sets mode: -v Profanatica
low^rider> And some even act like christians, just to get their foot in
low^rider> But they normally say they are prophets or that the spirit guides them
Matrikx> we not loosers LOL neither are we losers
low^rider> LoL Matrikx
low^rider> Do they normally all come out of the woodwork this time of day/night vladisar
mic^> why are you talking to guyslave..he isnt here
Haaaa some sanity!
mic^> hes always wrong anyway
Well... errr... ummmm... ahhh... spoke to soon, mic buddy, ya know I love ya but didn't you just do the same thing?

#c 6/6/o2
[09:07] Fire_Brand> for OP`s is a LEADERSHIP Role and if the head is corrupt the whole will also be corrupt
Graeystone> Oh, yeah on the subject of Ops. Why is Policellelio(sp?) an op in a christian chat room?
mic^> Graeystone he had the 20 bucks
funny... lol got to admit it.

#cd 6/6/02 cst [9:53] Akonyte> Bush is no more a Christian than a lamp post
Akonyte> A_Guru The WTC Attack was the best thing that ever could have happened for Bush's political career
A_Guru> when he retires he'll be doing Busch Beer commercials watch..
Akonyte> A_Guru But, from what I have been seeing in the news, Bush's involvement will make Nixon and Watergate pale by comparison. We are just curious who is going to actually take the fall for this.
Akonyte> A_Guru We already are aware that our gov knew about the attack before hand, how long will it take the blind followers in the USA to open their eyes and realize they were dupped
Akonyte> This wil make Oliver North look like a school girl
A_Guru> Akonyte I agree.. actually.. I think he really set it up and that all this was set up so that he could bring the United states together after all the headlines "A Nation Divided" And also he had already planned on Bin Laden because the U.S. is the one who taught him everything he knows.. So he knew he could just start is World Campaign against "Terrorism".. a facade for the Facist regime his Father had planned for years before and is now only taking e
Akonyte> A_Guru Notice - please - Laden has not been captured, nor killed, he's probably in a safe house in Russia
Akonyte> Hey! anyone want a real kick? I have applied for a job with the FBI! No kidding!
Akonyte> They are hiring, and the Fed Gov cannot discriminate against ex-felons, my lawyer and I are ready for the rejection

#cd 6/6/02 cst [09:51] Pitjanjanjarta> For the love of God is the root of all evil

editors note. obfuscate equals a ten dollar word for obscure.

Ad_Hoc> yet you presume to tell him what its state is?
TrueProfit> as is your normal pattern, once faced with a dilemma about the church.
TrueProfit> brb
WhiteDoves> TrueProfit = Turba ? I forget>?
WhiteDoves = yours truly, I just came on.
bnyfoofoo> yes one and the same, WhiteDoves
Ad_Hoc> how sad...to be so blinded that any adverse comments about an institution automatically draw the response "Lie!" or "You only say that because you hate the institution" or "You are filled with hate"
bnyfoofoo> Ad_Hoc, are you and TrueProfit a tag team?
bnyfoofoo> arent you also an atheist?
WhiteDoves> Ad_Hoc you dont hate the RCC as a institution then?
Ad_Hoc> you REALLY need to be a little honest about the RCC, and learn to admit its faults and problems.
WhiteDoves> nothing is faultless but Christ.
WhiteDoves> Ad_Hoc you dont hate the RCC as a institution then?
Ad_Hoc> otherwise you tend to become what most people think of you as...a blatant apologist for the RCC.
garyttu> yeah no one is saying the RCC doesn't have its faults and problems
bnyfoofoo> Ad_Hoc a defender of the faith? yes i am. it was a promise i made when i made my confirmation
WhiteDoves> I dont think she is denying the church doesnt have some faults...
Ad_Hoc> a whitewasher of the truth? yes you are.
bnyfoofoo> agreed, WhiteDoves, as long as there are people there will be faults
kermit4jc> ad hoc...no name calling
WhiteDoves> now the insults
bnyfoofoo> but most people are very careful not to throw out the baby with the bath water
WhiteDoves> bnyfoofoo :)
Ad_Hoc> lol
Ad_Hoc> too funny
WhiteDoves> Ad_Hoc she isnt whitewashing anything... anyway she isnt saying the RCC is without fault
mr-chips> The logic of all ( pick your favorate) membrs are hellbound because they follow the ( *** ) party line is nonsence.. Anybody with an ounce of brains knows some members of it dont part company for a lot of reasons unrelated to the doctrine. :)
Ad_Hoc> thank good ness i have people here to tell me what I want to do and what I'm trying to do.
WhiteDoves> well in my opinion anyway...
WhiteDoves> thats okay right Ad_Hoc... me to have one?
Ad_Hoc> yeah, you're an op...you're allowed opinions. It's us that aren't.
WhiteDoves> Ad_Hoc so your saying others arent allowed opinion in here... YET you just insulted someone...
Sexton^> Ad_Hoc: we're not allowed to say that bnyfoofoo isn't blindly defending Catholicism?
Ad_Hoc> Sexton^: no, we're not - we're not allowed opinions, only the ops.
WhiteDoves> Sexton^ seems thats just what he was doing and nobody kicked him...
Ad_Hoc> Sexton^: if we have that opinion, we're "insulting"
Sexton^> I have an opinion, and from what I've seen (may have missed some posts) I disagree with you :)
mr-chips> LOL... amyone has oppions... No need to get bent because others dont buy them. :)
bnyfoofoo> :)
WhiteDoves> :)
Sexton^> well, I didn't see Ad_Hoc insulting anyone either... at least not deserving of a kick
WhiteDoves> thats why he wasnt kicked...
bnyfoofoo> Sexton^ were you here earlier, i must have missed you
Sexton^> I must be missing lots! lol
WhiteDoves> bnyfoofoo> Ad_Hoc a defender of the faith? yes i am. it was a promise i made when i made my confirmation
Ad_Hoc> a whitewasher of the truth? yes you are. <------ called her a lair...
Ad_Hoc> nice fantasy world you live in, king
mr-chips> WhiteDoves Hate to dissipoint you... Thats oppion...
Ad_Hoc> but i'm not allowed to have opinions.
WhiteDoves> to say she whitewashs means to cover up or lie about the truth... to me...
mr-chips> I agree there.. but still an oppion...
bnyfoofoo> being polite is always preferable Ad_Hoc
kermit4jc> it is close to insulting there..I almost kicked
kermit4jc> I agree bnyfoofoo :)
bnyfoofoo> :)
Ad_Hoc> i don't doubt you almost kicked; it is not an insult, and certainly, nothing like the insults that christians - particularly ops - use with impunity in here. But I don't doubt you almost kicked, because Im very used to seeing injustice and hypocrisy from the ops in here.
Ad_Hoc> goodnight.
WhiteDoves> nite Ad_Hoc
Ad_Hoc> had my fill of hypocrisy for one evening
[12:36] *** Quits: Ad_Hoc (Quit: )
Sexton^> WhiteDoves: I think that could also be interpreted to mean he thinks she is in denial.... but I also know bnyfoofoo is a big enough person to not let something like that bother her :)
bnyfoofoo> for someone to say that i am whitewashing is insulting to me
TrueProfit> bnyfoofoo: I would have to agree with ad-hoc......
bnyfoofoo> i knew you would darlin
TrueProfit> I also think you are in denial.
WhiteDoves> Sexton^ well "perhaps" thats what he meant, but knowing him for 4 years now I doubt it... but he isnt here anymore so its best not to talk about someone when their not here
kermit4jc> good point WhiteDoves...

#cd 6/8/02 am
[04:27] HummusGrl> ad-hoc dont try to off track people with pointless complaints
ShdzOfGrey> HummusGrl - he did that to me, he will do it to you.
ShdzOfGrey> It's called "Since I don't have an argument, I will distract them."
Ad-Hoc> rofl
HummusGrl> yeah I have yet to see ad-hoc state his postion in this argument, all he has done so far is complain about the way people word things
Ad-Hoc> HummusGrl, nobody's asked me for my position.
HummusGrl> ad-hoc we dont need to ask you, this is what this channel is for, people to state their opinions
Ad-Hoc> no, HummusGrl, it's for people to DEBATE.
RomanCatholic> I recently heard a bishop remark, wouldn't it be chilling if abortion advocates stood before God at the end of their lives and said "Why did you allow all of this suffering to go on?" and God replied, "Well, I sent you a thousand people to help you but you killed them all before they were born."
Ad-Hoc> "chilling"? That wouldn't be my word for it.
TopHat> Machindo I know your not talking about the law but you do an abortion on a Bald Eagle and you will be charged for murdering. Not on the same level as a human being but prison time and a 5,000 min. fine will be your penalty. My point is this:
Ad-Hoc> i would doubt VERY much if killing a Bald Eagle in the US results in a murder charge.
TopHat> Why does the united states feel that an abortion to the Bald Eagle is wrong and you will be fined for it at any stage of her pregnancy while for the fetus in a human being is not at some stages?
TopHat> Ad-Hoc yes you can be charged for murdering an animal
Ad-Hoc> No, I don't believe you can be charged with murdering an animal. You can certainly be charged; the charge would not be murder, which, as far as i know, is defined in every US court as killing of a human being.
TopHat> Ad-Hoc you can think like you want but i did say that it is not on the same level and if you want to add to that go ahead
Ad-Hoc> my sole point was that it is not, and would not be murder - just to clarify the point, because you said several times you would be charged with murder, which you would not.
TopHat> Ad-Hoc and once again you are very much of a person who does not read fully on what a person says. I said it is not on the same level of a human being ... Is that hard to understand?
Ad-Hoc> you can't have murder that's "not on the same level as of a human being". Murder IS of a human being...if it's not a human being, it's not murder. Is that hard to understand?
RomanCatholic> If you were to abort the unborn young of an endangered species of animal, at any stage of development, you would be guilty of a crime. This is not so with humans. Whenever the value of any animal , endangered or not, is placed higher than any human, there has been a warped view of things.
Ad-Hoc> RomanCatholic: in your opinion.
RomanCatholic> Ad-Hoc, the dignity of humanity is higher than that of any animal.
ShdzOfGrey> Ad-Hoc is just being a semantic [CENSORED], because it is fun for him to do. To a) aggravate others and b) displace the argument.
Ad-Hoc> ad hominem, further proving my earlier observation
ShdzOfGrey> No, that is not an ad hominiem.
TopHat> Machindo the point is it is taking a life away no matter what level in the animal kingdom. You do it to a Bald Eagle or go out and slaughter animals and you will get charged for taking their life away but it is not on the same level of murder but it still is murdering or taking a life away. The true definition I understand but I did make it a point
Ad-Hoc> RomanCatholic: i don't think dignity has much to do with it; I'm also not quite sure just what humanity's dignity has to do with it.
RomanCatholic> Ad-Hoc, You and I, all people, are created in the image of God. The life of every creature is sacred, but humanity enjoys a special dignity by virtue of our specific relationship to God.
Ad-Hoc> RomanCatholic: that's your opinion, and i can respect it; it is, however, not one that all people share.
RomanCatholic> Ad-Hoc, It is not my opinion. I gave up my opinions when I submitted to divine revelation.
Ad-Hoc> RomanCatholic: i don't believe that overall a human life is intrinsically of more value than that of any other creature.
Ad-Hoc> RomanCatholic: sorry, it is PRECISELY your opinion.
TopHat> Machindo if this channel was a proper debate circle then I could understand the proper semantics but this is a coffeeshop debate circle because in a real debate forum this would not qualify. Ad-Hoc is doing this to everyone while everyone understands the hidden rules. Ad-Hoc would make a good debate panel judge but not in a channel like this. imho
RomanCatholic> Ad-Hoc, I am sorry you feel that way.
RomanCatholic> Ad-Hoc, All I can do is encourage you to seek a better understanding of God's immense love for you, and your special dignity as a human being.
Ad-Hoc> the "hidden rules"? What "hidden rules" does everybody understand? I though accurate definition and usage of terms was a pretty integral part of ANY sort of debate.
Ad-Hoc> RomanCatholic: i do not believe there is a god.
RomanCatholic> Ad-Hoc, That was a given.
TopHat> Machindo if you noticed my argument was placed on value and not on the law or how it was defined. Nor did I defiine what a fetus was and what is life. I merely stated that if you did this to a Bald Eagle you would be fined and charged with taking a life away from an endangered species and compared this to the fetus of a human being.
TopHat> Ad-Hoc injected all kinds of meanings into what I said
Ad-Hoc> RomanCatholic: then why would you encourage me to seek an understanding of something you believe exists, but I don't?
RomanCatholic> Ad-Hoc, Your question elequently states the answer.
TopHat> Ad-Hoc when you do this in a channel like this then you are going to have to go by rules that agree with everyone and not just how you feel everyone should know and how your interpretations should be understood for all. To many ppl from all around the world do not have the same interpretations as you do.
Ad-Hoc> no, TopHat, that's NOT what you said. You specifically said "murder", and repeated it, despite Machindo saying "well it wouldn't be murder you were charged with, but i see your point". I injected no meanings into anything you said; i clarified it by correcting you.
TopHat> Ad-Hoc nope I did mention that the kind of murder I was talking about is not on the same definition of a human being or how court would define it. Say what you want but I did say those things. You are very good about being annoying and inecting what ppl did not say. You should ask ppl what they mean before you say what they meant.
TopHat> ShdzOfGrey I see what you mean about Ad-Hoc now
Ad-Hoc> sorry, TopHat, i "injected" nothing. I took you at what you said, and clarified it by pointing out your error.
TopHat> Ad-Hoc I said this more than one time: Machindo I know your not talking about the law but you do an abortion on a Bald Eagle and you will be charged for murdering. Not on the same level as a human being but prison time and a 5,000 min. fine will be your penalty.
ShdzOfGrey> TopHat - yeah.
TopHat> can you read Ad-Hoc
TopHat> Ad-Hoc before your eyes i gave you my log
Ad-Hoc> TopHat: can you read? "You will be charged with murdering." You will not. That statement was in error. My initial objection was to point that out; you could have said "Yes, of course, you're right." Instead, you have chosen to make a huge deal out of a simple correction of your misuse of terms.
TopHat> and you have annoyed ppl in here and you have annoyed me and I will report this to Todd. Only because you inject to what ppl say. We are all tired of it.
ShdzOfGrey> Ad-Hoc - he said, right there, in black and white (or whatever your colour scheme is ...) that he was NOT talking in a LEGAL context.
Ad-Hoc> sorry, TopHat, i "injected" nothing. Report it to Todd - go right ahead. Tell him "Ad_Hoc corrected my incorrect use of a term!" I'm sure he'll want me to be banned immediately.
Ad-Hoc> ShdzOfGrey: surely you see that talking about "you will be charged with" canNOT "not be talking in a legal sense"? Obviously, he WAS talking in a legal sense, about what the law would do in a given situation. That was his point.
ShdzOfGrey> It did not have to strictly refer to the legal term of murder. And while he did say "charged with", that only indicates a legal context to someone who must demand a semantic debate. Or are you telling the WHOLE channel, here and now, that you HONESTLY did NOT get the gist of what he was saying?
TopHat> ShdzOfGrey exactly and I did make it clear that I meant it to be taking a life away in any kingdom level for animals. I thought I made it clear and even Machindo understood what I was saying.
Machindo> ShdzOfGrey, you can define "murder" any way you want... but if you use it differently from the dictionary, until you define what you mean... people are going to be confused.
ShdzOfGrey> Machindo - murder is not strictly a legal term, in or out of the dictionary.
TopHat> ShdzOfGrey I even said that the term meant to be taking a life away and yet they do not want to debate but be annoying and from what I hear the ops are sick of Ad-Hoc doing this to ppl.
ShdzOfGrey> And by arguing about the argument, rather than the POINT of what Tophat was illustrating, Ad-Hoc only points out the truth of my contention that he is more interested with throwing words around than ideas.
Ad-Hoc> yes, several of the ops are "sick" of someone trying to have a reasoned debate.
I suppose this is a reasoned debate?
TopHat> Ad-Hoc you need to stop being enemies with ppl and just learn to talk with them instead of at them.
Ad-Hoc> TopHat you need to stop being enemies with ppl and just learn to talk with them instead of at them.
ShdzOfGrey> Ad-Hoc! How dare you turn this around on Tophat!
ShdzOfGrey> I don't ever recall seeing him before tonight, but it is VERY clear to me that it is you, not he, who want to "talk at, not with" people.
Ad-Hoc> that's nice, ShdzOfGrey
TopHat> ShdzOfGrey Ad-Hoc does do this a lot and it kills the chat in the room because people go elsewhere in other windows where they do not have Ad-Hoc's to deal with. I came in here to chat with and not at ppl.
Ad-Hoc> more ad hominem. Yawn.
ShdzOfGrey> Is it ad hominiem to call a thief a thief? Then why is it one to call a semantic-sideliner a semantic-sideliner? Hmmm! Think!
TopHat> Ad-Hoc THAT WAS NOT AN INSULT because it is a fact and truth might hurt but truth is not an insult. Look up the definition if you want
Ad-Hoc> can you read? it was ad hominem. I did not mention the word "insult".
TopHat> kermit4jc Ad-Hoc is up to his no good ways again and it has this channel upset.
kermit4jc> tophat..Im not surprised
ShdzOfGrey> Then it was certainly not an ad hom, because he was not engaged in a debate with you at that time. So if it was not an insult, then neither common meaning of the phrase is in play. Oh wait - was that too semantic for you? :-p
Ad-Hoc> ad hominem from an op, too, surprise, surprise.
TopHat> Ad-Hoc yes an insult can be considered an ad hominem because it deals with disrespect for another persons character and emotions.
Ad-Hoc> wrong, TopHat
Pronunciation: (')ad-'hä-m&-"nem, -n&m
Function: adjective
Etymology: New Latin, literally, to the person
Date: 1598
1 : appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect
2 : marked by an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made
TopHat> kermit4jc it is amazing how this channel will debate on semantics, word usage, and definitions for hours and not really get to a debate. Ad-Hoc would make a good fill "A" Buster in congress lol
kermit4jc> lol tophat
Ad-Hoc> and STILL the ad hominems come...Yawn
TopHat> Ad-Hoc actually that is not a ad hominem but a compliment
Ad-Hoc> and the term is "philibuster". Not "fill 'A' Buster".
RomanCatholic> TopHat, That is because in so many theological conversations, the precise meaning of a word is very important, and we must establish the foundation before building the house.
TopHat> RomanCatholic sure but not for hours and hours
TopHat> sheesh
Ad-Hoc> RomanCatholic: nope, not TopHat. He makes them up as he goes along, and if you try to correct or clarify, he throws a hissy fit.
RomanCatholic> TopHat, There have been such debates that continued on for many years, even centuries. To this day.
TopHat> kermit4jc knew what I meant by the way I spelled it
TopHat> lol
TopHat> RomanCatholic sure but in a channel like this you cannot do it for hours and hours
TopHat> RomanCatholic those kind of debates you are talking about are usually in pen not on irc
RomanCatholic> TopHat, I believe it can be done as long as ones connection to the Internet and IRC remains...
* Ad-Hoc is still amused by TopHat's statement "...this channel will debate...four hours and not...debate." We debate without debating, apparently, lol
TopHat> RomanCatholic so lets debate on the word theology for the next four hours and see how many ppl will stay in here
RomanCatholic> TopHat, That would be nice.

[06:18] Ad-Hoc> ah, sound_off left, did he? Good, i can resume discussion without his childishness.

Obviously he knows the guy isn't in the room, so stab him in the back.

#cd 6/8/02 am
[08:04] ArborBarber> no, i just don't believe in all the christian dogma. My beleif system is based all many religious thoughts and practises...
ArborBarber> christianity sometimes wears too large a set of blinders....
TrueProfit> ArborBarber: christianity ALWAYS wears too large a set of blinders.......
TrueProfit = Turba
[TrueProfit:#christiandebate PING]
Why he is pinging me I'm sure I don't know, had been idling for hours.

TrueProfit> Massinissa: I could show you a picture of a priest holding my penis, and you'd go into denial...typical blind catholic.

#cd 6/8/02 am
[12:21] jenny7> Aminadabb: SloopJoy may see herself as a silly woman, but I am not one and find it insulting, don't call me that again
Aminadabb> I say jenny7 is a silly women who dose not know her place yes
*** Aminadabb was kicked by jenny7 (but we all know yours.)
Joins: Aminadabb (hamilton@130.94.164.219)
Aminadabb> hehe
SolaSum> Aminadabb - where is that place?
Aminadabb> Silent and under control of a man SolaSum
NOT this again... cripes. For those that read this later, some of us have known Aminadabb for a long time, and this is his claim to fame.
jenny7> SloopJoy: he means it as an insult to you, he finds you beneath him and feels you should shut your mouth
jenny7> SloopJoy: see
SloopJoy> jenny7.....yes, I know...we've debated his stand on women many times :)
SolaSum> "Silent and under control of a man".... I see.... and where do you dredge that misogynistic nonsense up from?
Aminadabb> I do not mean it as an insult but rather as God's Truth jenny7 and HIS command to you which you choose to ignore
jenny7> Aminadabb: read the book of judges Aminadabb
SyntheticReal> Aminadabb calling people "Silly"--not sure if that's direct from the HS or from Aminadabb?
jenny7> SyntheticReal: it doesn't come from the verse about not letting horrid things come from your vile mouth
SloopJoy> some men need this for ego-building, Jenny :)
jenny7> read this verse
* Dabar *niv* James 3:1 Not many of you should presume to be teachers, my brothers, because you know that we who teach will be judged more strictly.
* Dabar %Niv% James 3:6 The tongue also is a fire, a world of evil among the parts of the body. It corrupts the whole person, sets the whole course of his life on fire, and is itself set on fire by hell.
Aminadabb> I read God's Word very well the book of judges is not written to you as a grace believer jenny7 furthermore 1tim is God's command to you and you are disobedient to God period
Aminadabb |kjv|: 1 Timothy 2:12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
jenny7> Aminadabb: just keep reading those same little verses.. over and over and never learn the whole bible
Aminadabb> God's Word dose show you to be out of control jenny7 that is true no matter what you say
nEwCrEaTiOn> Aminadabb do you read the verses you post? paul says first 'BUT IIIIIII...'
jenny7> Aminadabb: my husbands sitting right here, and he finds you ignorant
jenny7> would you like to speak with him
Aminadabb> Then it is your husband I blame for your ignorance jenny7
nEwCrEaTiOn> Aminadabb believes his bible but he doesnt read what it says
*** Aminadabb was kicked by jenny7 (you are the one that disobeys be fruitful and multiply)
*** Joins: Aminadabb (hamilton@130.94.164.219)
Aminadabb> Silly woman and ignorant husband jeanieandie`
Aminadabb> ah jenny7
Bonz> Yeah, jenny7's hubby needs to keep her IN LINE! Barefoot and PREGNANT! You GO, Aminadabb :)
Sucre`> rofl
SolaSum> Bonz - you forgot "mute"
SloopJoy> lol
Sucre`> lol
Aminadabb> jenny7 I am telling you and your husband that you are out of order with God's commands
*** Aminadabb was kicked by jenny7 (and you are alone and out of order)
[12:29] *** Disconnected :(

6/18/02 #cd
[01:55] Spike-san> anybody else smoke crack
Bizzaro--so, you are assuming that, initially, there is a cell.
Spike-san> i have a real bad crack problem
TerrorInTheSkies> haha
TerrorInTheSkies> crackhead
antin0de> pray to jesus
tecate45> spike: well, then hike up your pants
antin0de> maybe... uh... nm
HolyIsTheLord> use plaster Spike-san that fixes most cracks in walls

6/18/02 #cd < br> [02:02] TerrorInTheSkies> FAGGOT
*** TerrorInTheSkies was kicked by GankakuAFK (Please DO NOT USE CAPS!!)
*** Joins: TerrorInTheSkies (~Muslim@te-64-146-43-200.transedge.com)
TerrorInTheSkies> faggot
Ad_Hoc> lol

6/18/02 #cd
[19:47] ArborBarber> 9/11 did more good for america than it did harm, as a whole americans united in a common goal, the destruction of any terrorist group or groups...america will not stand for such murders committed on its' citizens. Maybe some of these backwater islamic nations will stand up for themselves now also and not allow their own governments to murder their own, but i doubt it.

6/18/02 #cd
[19:56] Spinners> Like I said, if you put up a note that says that you dont' want religion affiliates at your door, and they still come there, then I believe they should be arrested for tresspassing.
jwt> Spinners: That is unconstitutional
Osprey51> Spinners: ...or for harrassmant
Spinners> No, tresspassing is a law.
jwt> Spinners: But to reassure you, if JW's see that sign on a door then they take it as the householder's answer and they respect it
ArborBarber> put up a beware of dog sign...just mean it and have the dog ready...there is no law against stupidy, if someone wants to get bit it's their right...
Greylensman> Put up a sign a child can understand, because some JW children will be coming to your door eventually...
jwt> Spinners: You know, it's not in yopur best interests to do that. We come with a message of salvation. The gospel tells us that we are to (Matthew 28:19) Go therefore and make disciples of people of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy spirit, that is for your benefit.
Spinners> Jwt: You don't have a right to tresspass on my property.
jwt> Spinners: It's not trespassing but I will inform you. If you want the JW's NEVER to come again, simply request it of them. They will place you as a "do not call" That is how simple it is pal.:)
Spinners> Tresspassing is if I specifically tell you to not come on my property and you do.
Spinners> Jwt: that is tresspassing.
ArborBarber> []jwt[]: if you're not welcome why prostrate yourself?
Wyatt^sTorch> jwt: I shouldn't HAVE to. The note should be enough.
jwt> ArborBarber: I need to be obedient to God....(Acts 5:29) In answer Peter and the [other] apostles said: "We must obey God as ruler rather than men. I have to demonstrate fear not of man but a healthy fear of the Creator
Spinners> I understand that. I'm just telling you what the law is.
Spinners> I am part of a door to door religion too. But they dont' have the right to tresspass.
noeuro> Spinners, do you have a no trespassing sign outside?
jwt> Spinners: I tell you that you cannot call it trespassing at all. Look at it this way,if you have a vicious dog in your front yard and it attacks me, if I choose to sue..........you are gone! That is the law.
Spinners> No I'm not agains the door to door. I have stated that.
ArborBarber> |jwt| why is none of your kingdom halls have steeples, is it because they symbolize a penis?
jwt> ArborBarber: Not for that reason....we are on;ly using facilities for their practicalness
Spinners> Yes I have to post a sign saying I have a vicious dog.
jwt> Spinners: That will not work either
taoandthen> jwt: thats bull, i've been knocked ONE WEEK after requesting they not come back
jwt> taoandthen: You should have given time for the paperwork to get thro0ugh
HolyIsTheLord> let the jws come here... I am not afraid of them.. perhaps I can send them away wondering about their organization
This went on for awhile... so I skipped over the rest of the log...

6/18/02
[20:05]HorseusAsseusMaximus> is god testing me when priests molest my children?
HorseusAsseusMaximus> how do you get a nun pregnant? A: dress her up as an altar boy
antin0de> ehehe
Greylensman> hahhhahahahahhaaaaaa
HorseusAsseusMaximus> i'm an angry catholic
antin0de> you cant get pregnant by taking it up the pooper
HorseusAsseusMaximus> bernard law should be in jail
HorseusAsseusMaximus> all pedophile priests should be in jail
jenny7> HorseusAsseusMaximus: all pedophiles should be in jail
HorseusAsseusMaximus> all of them
HorseusAsseusMaximus> all those bishops should be in jail too
HorseusAsseusMaximus> if jesus suddenly returned, 2/3 of those bishops would be hiding
HorseusAsseusMaximus> those hypocrites
jwt> HorseusAsseusMaximus: Only 66%?
HorseusAsseusMaximus> i wish i was going to hell just to see them FRY
HorseusAsseusMaximus> actually i might try hell out after realising that my church is a complete fraud
jwt> HorseusAsseusMaximus: Oh? Hell ois not hot. I thought we put them fires out years ago?
HorseusAsseusMaximus> as long as they have cable of course jwt
jwt> HorseusAsseusMaximus: hahaha WWF or the other one will do? HEY YO!
antin0de> hell is cooler than heaven
antin0de> its proven somewhere
HorseusAsseusMaximus> only jesus is real
HorseusAsseusMaximus> those church "leaders" are frauds
HorseusAsseusMaximus> if god exists, he must be just kidding
jwt> HorseusAsseusMaximus: If you are kidding you must be existing
lokispawn> the church leaders have a financial incentive to keep promising stuff...
HorseusAsseusMaximus> actually, if god exists, who invented existence?
Greylensman> The concept of "hell" makes the priests abusing children in as bad a manner as a human can do to another makes God look like the Ultimate Child Abuser. If I was God I would be really ticked off to be slandered as a being that tortured men, women and children.
HorseusAsseusMaximus> i tend to believe lately that religions are invented to quell fear of death, to keep people in line and to provide a living for jimmy swaggart
HorseusAsseusMaximus> romantic love is nothing more than the fear of not getting regularly laid (taken to a scientific extreme od course)
Greylensman> Hey ddes..ever hear thet expression "..the meek shall inherit the Earth..". Ok..when?
HorseusAsseusMaximus> yeah right...the janitors will suddenly know all about investment banking
Spinners> the meek getting the earth.
HorseusAsseusMaximus> when all the retards get everything
Luv_P> jerry falwell on TV now
UBetImMuslim> lol jerry falwell
HorseusAsseusMaximus> jerry falwell and jimmy swaggart
european-christian> i'm just a christian in europe
european-christian> no hidden agenda
HorseusAsseusMaximus> what a bunch of frauds
HorseusAsseusMaximus> no i watch "the pet psychic"
HorseusAsseusMaximus> i don't vote intil i find out what hollywood thinks first
jwt> A true Christian will tell you the truth about God's Kingdom, the bible says..Dan. 2:44: "In the days of those kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that will never be brought to ruin. And the kingdom itself will not be passed on to any other people. It will crush and put an end to all these kingdoms, and it itself will stand to times indefinite." Now, what are other churches telling you? They are saying that the UN is the last hope o
grandmel> jwt, WHAT other churches are saying that the UN is the last hope??
jwt> grandmel: Well, in 1965, Pope Paul VI on a visit to the UN described it as "the last hope of concord and peace." In 1986, Pope John Paul II cooperated in promoting the UN International Year of Peace.
Greylensman> Most of Christendom, at least "officially" look to the UN as the "political expression of God's Kingdom on Earth"...which pretty much makes Jesus chopped liver.
grandmel> that was 20 years ago ... and that was ONE Church
jwt> Greylensman: Not so....the WCC said it too
Greylensman> hey, in 1993 most of the U.S. Marines and Rangers and Delta Force were "Christian", and were over in Somalia fighting under the auspices of the U.N. same with Desert Storm, and Afganistan.
jwt> grandmel: In 1983 the World Council of Churches affirmed: "As we witness to our genuine desire for peace with specific actions, the Spirit of God can use our feeble efforts for bringing the kingdoms of this world closer to the kingdom of God." that was REPRESENTATIVE of a BODY of churches--- not just a single one.
grandmel> ok - how about a reference that is more than 20 years ago, jwt?
grandmel> I mean later - sorry
Greylensman> The U.N. doesn't have the "pull" today it once had, anyway...
* european-christian requests a group hug
* Greylensman stares
* Greylensman gulps
* Greylensman hugs
* Greylensman breaks away
* Greylensman sweats
european-christian> hehehhe
jwt> In 1983 the World Council of Churches affirmed: "As we witness to our genuine desire for peace with specific actions, the Spirit of God can use our feeble efforts for bringing the kingdoms of this world closer to the kingdom of God."
Greylensman> You know jwt, perhaps some of those churches got suckered into joining the U.N. effort, without really realizing what they were doing? Think that might be possible?
jwt> grandmel: Yes, I wanted to post....Again, during his visit in October 1995, the pope declared: "Today we are celebrating the Good News of God's Kingdom." But is he actually God's messenger of Kingdom good news? Speaking of world problems, he went on to say: "As we face these enormous challenges, how can we fail to acknowledge the role of the United Nations Organization?" The UN, rather than God's Kingdom, is the pope's choice.
Graeystone> I think no one form the World Council of Churches ever read Revelation.
grandmel> I agree, Graeystone
european-christian> jwt what you just put in here doesnt say that he favors the UN over God at all
jwt> european-christian: Was he upholding God's Kingdom or........was he acknowledging the role of the United Nations Organization?
european-christian> by upholding one thing, it doesnt logically follow that you are denouncing something else
jwt> european-christian: As a man of God, he should be extoling the role of God's Kingdom. Little wonder he did not highlight the role of the Kingdom since God said..(Daniel 2:44) "And in the days of those kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that will never be brought to ruin. And the kingdom itself will not be passed on to any other people. It will crush and put an end to all these kingdoms, and it itself will stand to times indefinite;
Greylensman> Anyway...we all know that the Churches have been acting as the de-facto CIA and MI5 for the nations and its quests for empire since day one...these quotes just confirm that power has been consolidated.

6/19/02 #cd [00:12] angelle> zenpadawan .... I don't believe God wants anyone in hell... people decide
Graeystone> angelle: Amen.
*** Joins: o____o (o____o@ppp104.a1-1.56k.execulink.com)
*** Dabar sets mode: +v o____o Ad_Hoc> lol
zenpadawan> angelle, given what is written in the Bible, and my ability to think of numerous alternatives to the idea of eternal torment or anihilation... I must disagree.
Ad_Hoc> nobody decides to go to hell
angelle> zenpadawan .... there are ONLY two choices... heaven...or hell
Slawofil> zenpadawan - exile from God would be worse than hell
sound_off> Ad_Hoc I would not agree, I know some satanists in some lines that actually believe in the devil and that it is not just some evil force vs some Good force. They plan to go to hell and die for satan.
Ad_Hoc> Slawofil: no, it wouldn't be, sorry
Slawofil> Ad_Hoc - how do you know? have you been to hell?
Ad_Hoc> have you? no. Then we're both talking from the same basis, and my statement stands.
Ad_Hoc> and speaking of "christlike"...how "christlike" is sending people for eternal punishment? Yet this loving god supposedly does it...
I checked that log and checked it again, there was no reference made about "Christlike" that I could find, don't want to take anyone out of context... and second thing, someone just told him that people chose heaven or hell and now he is using one of his little switch tactics. You guys can't let him get away with this, I haven't read the rest of this, lets see if angelle picked up on it...
Slawofil> zenpadawan - you cannot make new loving relationships in exile from God. there is no love outside of GOd.
Ad_Hoc> Slawofil, where does it say that in the bible?
1 John 4:7-8 Beloved, let us love one another: for love is of God; and every one that loveth is born of God, and knoweth God. He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love.
1 John 4:15-16 Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwelleth in him, and he in God. And we have known and believed the love that God hath to us. God is love; and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him. [ If one loves they are of God, now if Ad_Hoc wants to say he loves, then he is of God and just doesn't know it yet, or doesn't really know what true love is.
Slawofil> Ad_Hoc - it is written, God is love. if one is exiled from God, he is exiled from love.
Ad_Hoc> Slawofil: that's nice. Where does it say "you cannot make new loving relationshpis in exile from god" in the bible?
Slawofil> Ad_Hoc - nowhere. i made that conclusion.
Ad_Hoc> ah. "Nowhere". Thta's what I thought.
Slawofil> Ad_Hoc - i am glad to confirm your expectations

6/19/02 #cristian
[01:32] Graeystone> Who says God doesn't have a sense of humor. 5 Marys, 2 or 3 James, 2 Sauls, 2 Pauls. . .anyone got a scorecard?
DragnFlye> I thought there was only 1 Paul
* Pastor_Mark offers Graeystone a Bible
Graeystone> Paul the Baptist and Paul(Saul)
Pastor_Mark> Paul the Baptist ?????
SkyTouchier> Paul the Baptist... ohhh yea forgot about him
SkyTouchier> Laughs Out Loud
Graeystone> doh!
Lady^Tux> lol
SkyTouchier> Laughs Out Loud
Lady^Tux> go to bed Graeystone :P
Lady^Tux> go to bed Graeystone :P
SkyTouchier = yours truly :P

xerox-> hey there christians! boy its good to not be sodomized like those damn catholic priest do!
[01:44] *** Dabar sets mode: +b *!*@AC8647B8.ipt.aol.com
[01:44] *** xerox- was kicked by Dabar (Please dont Swear (6666666666666sec timeout))
Sometimes Trolls get so excited they don't make sense... lol

Over in #Christian.
xerox-> Hi fellow christians!
xerox-> Im glad we arent catholic, our children might be sodomized!
*** Boaz` sets mode: -v xerox-
huacelei> he he he he
Parts: xerox- (xerox@AC8647B8.ipt.aol.com)