Buckle up, buttercups!

[BlessedMan]

3 minutes ago, stinsonmarri said:

Walk a mile in a black person shoe!

The long and short here is you have no support from scripture for pretending to know another person's heart.  This is all starting to remind me of the story in scripture where the woman was "CAUGHT" in adultery, and the reason she was "caught" is because someone was watching!! Peeking right in the windows and watching for it. Your "window" is the news, so called. It is never just "the news" and doesnt hold a candle to scripture. We tend to find exactly what we are looking for:

Quote

In this great day of atonement our work is that of heart-searching, of self-abasement, and confession of sin, each humbling his own soul before God, and seeking pardon for himself individually. Anciently every one that did not on the day of atonement afflict his soul, was cut off from the people. God would have us work out our own salvation with fear and trembling. If each will search and see what sins are lurking in his own heart to shut out Jesus, he will find such a work to do that he will be ready to esteem others better than himself. He will no longer seek to pluck the mote out of his brother's eye while a beam is in his own eye.  {HS 213.3}

Sounds just like you have found what you were looking for here, and that does not reflects on  Donald Trump at all.

[stinsonmarri]

4 minutes ago, JoeMo said:

He never claimed he was a righteous man.  None of us have been obedient to what we know is right.  Only if you are without sin are you qualified to throw stones at others.  Try to separate his alleged immorality from the awesome job he is doing in fulfilling all of his campaign promises.

If you think Trump is so bad, who else running for President would/do you support instead of Trump? Are any of them better than he is?

 

Listen to this excuse Joe, so he never claim he was a righteous man. Then how on earth do anyone believe an unrighteous man is chosen by THE MOST HIGH! Are you serious! Please do not talk about certain kings in the Bible one was chosen because of his heart the other was chosen, because of  his nation's laws that do not change. Saul was chosen but he changed and now he is lost. I will not get involved with his job that you feel is awesome. I will not comment and I told you I won't so stop going back on the agreement you and I made. You showed me that here was not the place for politics and I see and agree! I am not dealing with politics which include who is running. Unless they have sinned then we can speak about it, NO POLITICS!

Peace

[stinsonmarri]

11 minutes ago, BlessedMan said:

The long and short here is you have no support from scripture for pretending to know another person's heart.  This is all starting to remind me of the story in scripture where the woman was "CAUGHT" in adultery, and the reason she was "caught" is because someone was watching!! Peeking right in the windows and watching for it. Your "window" is the news, so called. It is never just "the news" and doesnt hold a candle to scripture. We tend to find exactly what we are looking for:

Sounds just like you have found what you were looking for here, and that does not reflects on  Donald Trump at all.

Read Joe's comment and if that's the way you feel okay! I have given Scriptures that you choose not to accept! I will stand and that is the way I feel my choice. I have said as a man thinks so is he. He thinks and does unrighteous things without remorse!

Facts! YAHWEH IS NO RESPECT OF PERSON! That is in the Scripture and he is racist!

Peace!

[stinsonmarri]

43 minutes ago, JoeMo said:

I read most of the articles you posted; and most of them are based on comments made by Sen. Mitch McConnell, not President Trump.  Furthermore, the articles also said this issue could only be addressed in a bipartisan manner; nothing in them about a Trump or Republican "edict".

No matter who does it, federal entitlements are going to have to be adjusted before 2035 by either reducing payments or increasing contributions.  When SS was put in place, the average lifespan of people was about 68 years old and there were about many times more contributors than recipients cuz recipients had many children and grandchildren in the work force.  I doubt that they ever envisioned a time when people would live on the average into their mid eighties and have many fewer kids and grandkids in the workforce.

I feel sorry for our kids and grandkids.  Not only will they probably receive less SS than us Boomers, but most of them will not have an employer provided pension, either (which many of us boomers had).

 

Can I kindly say to you I don't get in an argument with you or them about politics. That's what you all want! I will not do it. I will stick to his immoral ways on a spiritual town hall. You all want it to be a fight between their Republican views over the Democratic views not even the Independent. You cannot react to the truth until  You, Joe said he claim he was not a righteous man. Here we deal with YAHWEH'S Law only. We leave the things to Ceasar on another town hall. Spiritually YAHWEH is concern about our souls and loving each other and obeying HIM! That's is all I will stand for and nothing else!

Blessings and Peace!

[stinsonmarri]

32 minutes ago, BlessedMan said:

The long and short here is you have no support from scripture for pretending to know another person's heart.  This is all starting to remind me of the story in scripture where the woman was "CAUGHT" in adultery, and the reason she was "caught" is because someone was watching!! Peeking right in the windows and watching for it. Your "window" is the news, so called. It is never just "the news" and doesnt hold a candle to scripture. We tend to find exactly what we are looking for:

You are correct and they were committing the act with her! But, when she stood alone she had no more accusers. Then she listen to YAHSHUA and sin no more! Now the other lines are not making sense. I don't peek, he speaks and I have not been caught with him. So your point is unfounded. What I am looking for is for a person who is leading to have some morals. However, the Bible does say in the last days leaders will not stand for morals. He doesn't and he fits the time. But, you can state that I do not mention Scriptures or the Bible, I have. It is clear not to your satisfaction, but that is alright. Your choice, your belief! My choice and my belief-simple!

Blessings and Peace!

[JoeMo]

11 hours ago, stinsonmarri said:

Then she listen to YAHSHUA and sin no more!

Please show me the scripture where it says this woman sinned no more.  Scripture is totally silent on this woman's subsequent life.

[8thdaypriest]

15 hours ago, stinsonmarri said:

Rachel: You can excuse him of what he has done all you want. Business man, police, doctor. lawyer etc., what he did and still is doing is wrong. Is he racist and you don't believe so is truly sad. Walk a mile in a black person shoe! I will not even go further with this! There is no maybe if you lied! Are you serious!!!!! What pastor??? That man could even quote scriptures correctly! He sense god alright, yes he the chosen one. Boy this is so sad and just can't believe it. Well what you already said you act like you adore him know that he well may be lied? What is that?????

If you like his policies I have no right to question that here! I am only dealing with is his immoral actions that deals with being remorse and he doesn't. I keep telling you all that! I will not entertain politics, Joe help me to see that and I am sticking firm to it. This about being obedient to what you know is right and he hasn't! That's it!

Peace!

So don't VOTE for him. 

[stinsonmarri]

1 minute ago, JoeMo said:

Please show me the scripture where it says this woman sinned no more.  Scripture is totally silent on this woman's subsequent life.

John 7:53–8:11 talks about the woman and though it does not provide the woman's name, I agree that it is Mary Magdalene. YAHSHUA was known to dined with common people that were known as sinners. Mark 2:15 Mary Magdalene was constantly known to be around YAHSHUA and it was she that anointed his feet at the supper of Simon. John 11:2 My belief and understanding the historical thought of the day is how men treated a known prostitute. The proof of that is also in the Bible. The men present at the dinner talked about her like she isn't even there. She was in spite of their action for one reason, to show her love for YAHSHUA with tears. Why would she do this because she was that unknown woman of ill repute. She had become a harlot, but YAHSHUA saved her. All evidence points to her as this woman. Now, you made not believe that it was her, but I do. That's my choice and I believe that she,  Mary Magdalene left as her accusers were gone and she stopped prostituting and changed her life. I also believe that the Bible writers set it up to show the times but provided through the Scriptures and THE HOLY SPIRIT that it was her.

Blessings!

[stinsonmarri]

5 hours ago, 8thdaypriest said:

So don't VOTE for him. 

Rachel: You will not get me into a political debate with you. The problem is you want to make it political and you are so bent on trying, hoping that I will say something political. I will NOT! Rant and rave all you want but I turn my eyes upon YAHSHUA. I look into HIS WONDERFUL FACE and things of the earth that you bring, grows strangely dim. In the LIGHT of HIS GLORY and GRACE.

Love You!

[JoeMo]

On 11/19/2019 at 5:29 PM, stinsonmarri said:

I agree that it is Mary Magdalene.

You can believe what you want; I have no reason to believe she was Mary Magdalene. I have no reason to believe her name was even Mary. There are many "Marys" or "Miriams" in the NT. Your belief on who the prostitute was proves nothing.

[stinsonmarri]

1 hour ago, JoeMo said:

You can believe what you want; I have no reason to believe she was Mary Magdalene. I have no reason to believe her name was even Mary. There are many "Marys" or "Miriams" in the NT. Your belief on who the prostitute was proves nothing.

You know I never said to you what you want, I said it is your choice. I gave you the reason why I believe and it is not what I want. I believe base on my studies of the Scriptures, that is required of each of us. What I want is to be save, what I believe is to study and stay on the path to salvation.

Be blessed!

[Kevin H]

On 11/8/2019 at 8:42 PM, B/W Photodude said:

Buckle up, buttercups! The ride is about to get a whole lot rougher.

It gets frequently alleged that because gay people are "born that way", they should be given full memberships in church with leadership positions and so on. However, it has also been said that other forms of perversions would come down the road with the same rationals. Well, the pedophiles are coming down the road for your children.

 

I am hesitant to say this, but feel that this post needs an answer. There are problems with this reasoning, both for those who opposed this behaviors and those who support these behaviors. 

Looking at the Bible texts used against the LGT  (I'm purposely leaving out the initial "B") community: They fit into three categories:

First category is chapters talking about what is and is not appropriate worship at the sanctuary. The Canaanites believed that to get their crops to grow and animals and wives to give birth and for their families not to starve that they needed to try to help Baal and the gods of life get victory over Leviathan and the gods of death. Thus they would come to their temples to worship and part of the worship was to unite the life forces by having bread of mixed grains, clothing of mixed textiles and everyone,, man, women, children and animals to all have sex with each other. (Do any of you wear cloths of mixed textiles and eat multigrain bread, such as Ezekiel 4:9 bread? If so you are breaking this same law.)

Second category are stories that point out a crazy idea that the Canaanites came to believe. They believed that if they raped a man that they were stealing some of his life force, and if raped to death that they would have all of his life force. This meant that food that would have grown in their victim's garden back home will now grow in the raper's garden in say Sodom. Animals that would have been born to their victim's flock back home will now be born to the raper's flock in Sodom. Children that would have been born to their victim's wife back home will now be born to the raper's wife in Sodom. They believed raping someone would put more food on their table to feed their children. 

The third category is a word in the New Testament translated "Homosexual" but which is a specific term for adult men having sex with little boys at the gymnasium. 

Our theologians are aware of these three categories. What is being fought over is whether to have a narrow reading of the text and to only apply them into their context, or if we should have a broad reading of the text and expand them beyond their immediate context. 

Those who hold to the narrow reading says that the text does not apply to homosexuals. Those who hold to the broad reading say that while these texts are not about homosexuality that we still should widen the text beyond it's context and apply the text to homosexuals. Personally I will let our theologians argue out whether we should hold to the narrow or broad application.

If the narrow reading wins out, the post is afraid that it will be a slippery slope for all kinds of other issues such as pedifiles and beastiality.  But while the narrow interpretation of the text  would allow for committed relationship whether it be heterosexual or homosexual couples, adults who have made a choice. Children and animals are unable to make this choice. And of course for Christians we have that New Testament word that is translated homosexual but is talking about adult men having sex with little children.  And as for the "B" Bisexuality, the Bible is against promiscuity. The narrow reading of the texts does not do away with the New Testament talking against pedifiles, nor does it do away with the Bible talking against promiscuity. Any couple would still have to live up to not being promiscuous. And we will need to protect children and animals who cannot make the decision.

 

[BlessedMan]

55 minutes ago, Kevin H said:

Looking at the Bible texts used against the LGT  (I'm purposely leaving out the initial "B") community: They fit into three categories:

First category is chapters talking about what is and is not appropriate worship at the sanctuary. The Canaanites believed that to get their crops to grow and animals and wives to give birth and for their families not to starve that they needed to try to help Baal and the gods of life get victory over Leviathan and the gods of death. Thus they would come to their temples to worship and part of the worship was to unite the life forces by having bread of mixed grains, clothing of mixed textiles and everyone,, man, women, children and animals to all have sex with each other. (Do any of you wear cloths of mixed textiles and eat multigrain bread, such as Ezekiel 4:9 bread? If so you are breaking this same law.)

Kevin; I have no doubt of your good intentions here; but this comes across as really convoluted, among other things. Very strange "Bible  exegesis" to be sure.

It would have made some difference had you included some actual reference in scripture so that we actually have an idea what you are talking about. But the thing about "mixed grain bread,"  sorry, but thats just way out in left field.

I would need to see some specific scripture examples to explain where you are coming from,  before I would be able to say more.

[B/W Photodude]

6 hours ago, Kevin H said:

The third category is a word in the New Testament translated "Homosexual" but which is a specific term for adult men having sex with little boys at the gymnasium. 

Our theologians are aware of these three categories. What is being fought over is whether to have a narrow reading of the text and to only apply them into their context, or if we should have a broad reading of the text and expand them beyond their immediate context. 

Those who hold to the narrow reading says that the text does not apply to homosexuals. Those who hold to the broad reading say that while these texts are not about homosexuality that we still should widen the text beyond it's context and apply the text to homosexuals. Personally I will let our theologians argue out whether we should hold to the narrow or broad application.

 

Finally, an attempt to an answer in this thread that was not an attack on the president!

However, I do disagree on a few things. While they may be correct about the word for homosexual being derived from a word that comes from adults molesting kids at the gym, Leviticus can't be more explicit when it says two men should not lie together. However,  in pioneer days strangers would often rent part of a bed and be sleeping together. This situation has brought out accusations of homosexuality regarding those so sleeping. One such website even claimed EGW was engaged in lesbian activities for such a sleeping arrangement. But I would believe that sleeping arrangement was not what Leviticus was referring to.

As far as our theologians, they are rapidly losing any influence  with me due to the positions and behaviors they engage in. To be clear, I do find new information in dedicated pastors who seem to be serious students of the Bible, but some seem to be pushing agendas. So, just because an SDA theologian concludes something does not mean I will fall in behind their wagon. I must read and make my own conclusions as to their "new light." While I believe new light MAY come out, it often comes out from some other source than the theologians. The theologians of Jesus's time weren't very accurate either.

The purpose of the linked article was to show the slippage of morals in this country and culture. What used to be unthinkable is beginning to be promoted. What used to be unthinkable several decades ago is now normalized in law. So, this push to normalize sex with kids is a continued effort to destroy children before they can even grow up enough to make rational decisions to be a follower of God.

[Gregory Matthews]

In a previous post the following comment was made about Rachael, as I have quoted it below:

To suggest that someone lied is to say that the person knowingly attempted to deceive .  That is well beyond what is acceptable in this forum.  It is acceptable to say that one is wrong.  It is acceptable to say that a statement is false.  But, it is not acceptable to say that a well respected member of this forum knowingly made a statement that the member knew to be false.

I often disagree with Rachael.   But I consider her to be honest, sincere and a valued member of this forum.

 

There is no maybe if you lied!

[Kevin H]

7 hours ago, BlessedMan said:

Kevin; I have no doubt of your good intentions here; but this comes across as really convoluted, among other things. Very strange "Bible  exegesis" to be sure.

It would have made some difference had you included some actual reference in scripture so that we actually have an idea what you are talking about. But the thing about "mixed grain bread,"  sorry, but thats just way out in left field.

I would need to see some specific scripture examples to explain where you are coming from,  before I would be able to say more.

I did not go into detail and did not point out the specific texts, but I did not make this up. This has been pointed out by professors from Atlantic Union College, Andrews University and Loma Linda University and pointed out in a lecture of the Adventist Theological Society. Professors from both sides of the debate agree with what I summarized above, and as I said they disagree on whether to take the narrow or wide application. 

[BlessedMan]

3 hours ago, Kevin H said:

I did not go into detail and did not point out the specific texts, but I did not make this up.

I don't think I said I thought you made it up. I did ask for some specific references, which, it appears, wont be forth-coming.

[BlessedMan]

4 hours ago, Gregory Matthews said:

In a previous post the following comment was made about Rachael, as I have quoted it below:

To suggest that someone lied is to say that the person knowingly attempted to deceive .  That is well beyond what is acceptable in this forum.  It is acceptable to say that one is wrong.  It is acceptable to say that a statement is false.  But, it is not acceptable to say that a well respected member of this forum knowingly made a statement that the member knew to be false.

I often disagree with Rachael.   But I consider her to be honest, sincere and a valued member of this forum.

I agree, sorry @8thdaypriest  that this happened to you. But don't stay away because of it, we need you!

[BlessedMan]

4 hours ago, B/W Photodude said:

So, this push to normalize sex with kids is a continued effort to destroy children before they can even grow up enough to make rational decisions to be a follower of God.

I agree, this is really wrong

[Kevin H]

11 hours ago, BlessedMan said:

I don't think I said I thought you made it up. I did ask for some specific references, which, it appears, wont be forth-coming.

They will be but they will have to wait until a less busy time. 

[stinsonmarri]

On 11/24/2019 at 1:06 AM, Kevin H said:

First category is chapters talking about what is and is not appropriate worship at the sanctuary. The Canaanites believed that to get their crops to grow and animals and wives to give birth and for their families not to starve that they needed to try to help Baal and the gods of life get victory over Leviathan and the gods of death. Thus they would come to their temples to worship and part of the worship was to unite the life forces by having bread of mixed grains, clothing of mixed textiles and everyone,, man, women, children and animals to all have sex with each other. (Do any of you wear cloths of mixed textiles and eat multigrain bread, such as Ezekiel 4:9 bread? If so you are breaking this same law.)

Kevin: Where on earth did you get this from? You see this is totally racist to the highest degree. I am offended! Melchizedek was a Canaanite he comes from the Jebusite. One of the sons of Canaan.

And Melchizedek King of Salem brought forth bread and wine: and he was the priest of THE MOST HIGH EL. Gen 14:18

Shâlêm (H8004): The same as H8003; peaceful; Shalem, an early name of Jerusalem: - Salem. Strong Hebrew Dictionary

This Text above stands to debunk the trinity. It shows that Melchizedek not only served and worshipped THE FATHER but it identifies only THE FATHER. Using the singular noun of THE ALMIGHTIES SUBTITLE which stands for ONE INDIVIDUAL SPIRITUAL BEING, THE FATHER who IS THE MOST HIGH! This also let you know the intellect and relationship that THE FATHER had with this King and High Priest!

Melchizedek was King and Priest of the tribe which held Jerusalem. F. B. Meyer, B.A.

The Hebrew Bible describes the Jebusites as dwelling in the mountains besides Jerusalem. In Exodus, the 'good and large land, flowing with milk and honey' which was promised to Moses as the future home of the oppressed Hebrew people included the land of the Jebusites. According to the Book of Joshua, Adonizedek led a confederation of Jebusites, and the tribes from the neighboring cities of Jarmuth, Lachish, Eglon and Hebron against Joshua, but was soundly defeated and killed.

However, Joshua 15:63 states that Judah could not dislodge the Jebusites, who were living in Jerusalem ("to this day the Jebusites live there with the people of Judah"). Judges 1:21 portrays the Jebusites as continuing to dwell at Jerusalem, within the territory otherwise occupied by the Tribe of Benjamin. From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The problem is the truth is not told and overlooked that "YAHWEH is no respect of persons." As much as it has been to cover up and to allow chattel slavery of the Black people, justice and truth will come forth. YAHWEH WORD will NOT BE MADE VOID! Abraham was looking among the many deities that the Chaldeans of Southern Turkey was serving which one is THE MOST HIGH and also the true and correct one to serve. This was the Ur specifically stated in the Bible the of Ur of the Chaldees and not the Ur of the Sumerians who were one of the Black people who left Babel or Babylon but returned and formed cities states. Abraham did not leave one of the city states called Ur near Babylon that is ridiculous. He travelled down from most likely Urfa. Haran is so close to Urfa and was an easy travel toward Canaan. Here Abraham would come in contact with the Canaanites who were still serving THE MOST HIGH. Which is the false belief that YAHWEH  called only Shem's descendants instead of the whole world.

Abraham was from the city of Ur according to Genesis 11:31 above. The problem is that there are several places called Ur. It is mostly translated as "Ur of the Chaldeans." The problem with "Chaldeans" is that it is a late word used in the Neo-Babylonian times. It is either anachronistic, or a poor translation.

There is no debate over where Haran is located, 10 miles north of the Syrian border in Turkey along the Balikh River, a tributary of the Euphrates River. Haran is an important Hurrian center, mentioned in the Nuzi tablets. The moon god, Sin was worshiped here.

There are two cities not far from Haran; Ura and Urfa. Local tradition says that Abraham was born in Urfa. Northern Ur is mentioned in tablets at Ugarit, Nuzi, and Ebla, which refers to Ur, URA, and Urau (See BAR January 2000, p. 16).     

The names of several of Abraham's relatives like Peleg, Serug, Nahor and Terah, appear as names of cities in the region of Haran (Harper's Bible Dictionary, page 373). Abraham sent his servant back to the region of Haran to find a wife for Isaac (Genesis 24:10).   http://www.accuracyingenesis.com/ur.html#journey

When arriving on the scene he encountered the Amorites who came from his fourth son. This powerful tribe, were the ones that  eventually took over Babylon and their well known king Hammurabi (r. 1792-1750 BCE) laws, are known to be similar to Moses. Here Abraham lived among them and learned about worshiping YAHWEH. Sodom and Gomorrah were going astray and Lot, Abraham's nephew chose to move closer to the twin cities. Soon he moved into the city and married a woman of Sodom, who bore his children. YAHWEH gave Sodom a warning of their disobedience to HIM and lusting after the flesh. Jude 1:7 Several kings of more than one nations and ethnicity combine together to take Sodom; including Lot. The Amorites joined with Abraham to bring the booty and the people ,which included Lot back. Abraham knew Melchizedek and who he serve. He knew that he was the Priest of THE MOST HIGH and came to present to him tithe. Now notice Abraham did not labor for this tithe! So, why did he give it? He had taken the  booty back that belong to Sodom. He first returned a tithe to THE MOST HIGH for Sodom and Gomorrah who had stopped remembering their duty and obedience to HIM on HIGH! The king of Sodom was there with the King and Priest of Jerusalem. After returning tithes from the booty, Abraham gave all of the rest of the boot back to the king of Sodom. The king of Sodom knew and did not complain about what Abraham did. Gen Chapter 14 

Then, after what took place above, later Abraham had a vision to assure him that he would have a son and his descendants would multiply like the stars in the sky. But something had to take place first. Here is where the truth concerning the Black people the first chosen was hidden. Not even, White SDA preachers or the Black ones also, tried to recognize that these people were Blacks coming from Ham. Instead the so call Christians believe this:

The view that Amorites were fierce, tall nomads led to an anachronistic theory among some racialist writers in the 19th century that they were a tribe of "Aryan" warriors who at one point dominated the Israelites. From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 

No, instead more lies to make only one ethnic group superior over everyone else.They had to be the Egyptians, the Ethiopians, the Philistines, the Phonecians, the Southern Indians from India (the Dravidians), the Chinese, the Asians people, the American Indians. Which is not so, all of these people come from Ham! The Bible also told Abraham that HE was giving the last group of Canaanites who had remain faithful to HIM four hundred years and thirty years within the four hundred years, Abraham children would take over the land. 

But in the fourth generation they shall come hither again: for the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet full. Gen 15:16

The IsraEL were suppose to destroy all of the Canaanites, but they didn't and they married them. Judah's himself had a baby by his son's wife. Read the story and found out why. Gen Chapter 38 You will also learned that is was through Tamar twin son Pharez came the line of YAHSHUA also Rahab of Jericho and Ruth a Moabite. All of these women were people of color, they were Black!

The continent of Africa was originally divided up by Ham's 4 sons: Cush (Ethiopia), Mizraim (Kemet/Egypt), Phut (Phoenicia/Libya), and Canaan (Israel). Everybody agrees that Ham was what we call African. So, Canaanites would have to be Africans. Salem was a Canaanite city, and Melchizedek was King AND High Priest of that African city.

Melchizedek was a real historical man, who was not a Hebrew. He was a Canaanite....clearly.

Now consider what the New Testament Book of Hebrews writer said about Abraham,

"For he looked for a city which hath foundations, whose builder and maker is God." Heb 11:10

Look it up and check the context for yourself... Abraham looked for a city whose builder and maker was God, and it was a city of Canaanites...or Africans. There were Africans who believed in the same Almighty God that Abraham believed in. Before this time, God called Abraham away from his people. (Gen 12:1). God chose Abraham to establish HIS Covenant with, but he was surrounded by and covered by faithful Canaanites...who were Africans. The World’s Best Kept Secret

I urge all to realize that it is YAHWEH that chooses who will serve HIM! The Bible said the first shall be last and the last shall be first. The Canaanites were chosen, the Chaldeans of the Hebrew people who are named after their grandfather Eber. Abraham was chosen, then in Isa 66:19, the Gentiles, who are Japheth children were chosen. People out of all three sons of Noah were chosen and had fail! The final group chosen will come from all nations, tongues and people of the entire world. They will reap the harvest of souls and finish the work. ALLELUYAH!

Blessings!

[stinsonmarri]

On 11/24/2019 at 8:37 AM, Gregory Matthews said:

In a previous post the following comment was made about Rachael, as I have quoted it below:

To suggest that someone lied is to say that the person knowingly attempted to deceive .  That is well beyond what is acceptable in this forum.  It is acceptable to say that one is wrong.  It is acceptable to say that a statement is false.  But, it is not acceptable to say that a well respected member of this forum knowingly made a statement that the member knew to be false.

I often disagree with Rachael.   But I consider her to be honest, sincere and a valued member of this forum.

 

 

 

Pastor Matthew: I work at home and sometime I can go online. I miss this. What I stated was this:

"Business man, police, doctor. lawyer etc., what he did and still is doing is wrong. Is he racist and you don't believe so is truly sad. Walk a mile in a black person shoe! I will not even go further with this! There is no maybe if you lied! " 

I was not speaking about Rachel, I was referring to the person in the WH and comment on what she said. There is no maybe if you lied was what I have been saying in all my comments about him and not Rachel. I have never called anyone on this forum a liar and I really felt that you could have asked me first before saying that I did! You could have talked to me privately and I would have assure you that it not her at all! Now, what is so sad I am put down by others for something I did not do. I truly feel you owe me an apology. I stand on principles and I am not changing what I said that he lies, etc., but I would not say about Rachel or anyone here.

Please!

[BlessedMan]

On 11/24/2019 at 9:45 PM, Kevin H said:

They will be but they will have to wait until a less busy time. 

I am actually interested to hear those details. If I was a little hyper in my response, pls forgive. Some days are better than other days right now. No rush. Just whenever you have time.

[Gregory Matthews]

Stinsonmarri:  Thank you for you clarification.

First of all, you addressed Rachel.  

Second, you mention a Him, a business  man,  and other unidentified people.  

Then you mention a "you' when you say that: "There is no maybe if you lied!"  Any reasonable person would think that your reference was to Rachel.   Your use of the word "you" the second time in "". . .you act like you adore him,. . . " would be understood to be the same "you" that you had first used and no reasonable person would think that you actually referenced some person in the White House.

 I went public because your statement was public and I wanted all to know that such would not be allowed.

I did not identify you,  Probably few took the time to attempt to figure out who had made the statement.

 

Quote

Rachel: You can excuse him of what he has done all you want. Business man, police, doctor. lawyer etc., what he did and still is doing is wrong. Is he racist and you don't believe so is truly sad. Walk a mile in a black person shoe! I will not even go further with this! There is no maybe if you lied! Are you serious!!!!! What pastor??? That man could even quote scriptures correctly! He sense god alright, yes he the chosen one. Boy this is so sad and just can't believe it. Well what you already said you act like you adore him know that he well may be lied? What is that?????

[stinsonmarri]

5 hours ago, Gregory Matthews said:

Stinsonmarri:  Thank you for you clarification.

First of all, you addressed Rachel.  

Second, you mention a Him, a business  man,  and other unidentified people.  

Then you mention a "you' when you say that: "There is no maybe if you lied!"  Any reasonable person would think that your reference was to Rachel.   Your use of the word "you" the second time in "". . .you act like you adore him,. . . " would be understood to be the same "you" that you had first used and no reasonable person would think that you actually referenced some person in the White House.

 I went public because your statement was public and I wanted all to know that such would not be allowed.

I did not identify you,  Probably few took the time to attempt to figure out who had made the statement.

 

Pastor Matthews: The reason that I said that is what she stated Nov 18: "Has he lied about his personal relationships?  Maybe.  Can't say clearly.  Is that enough to make me vote Democrat?  No." I would think we all use the quotes that the person we are responding back to, so that everyone could read and see why we are saying what we are stating. Evidently this was not done. They all would know why I said; "There is no maybe if you lied!"  Again, I was accused falsely because it was overlooked. I did not mention him as a businessman, Rachel did! "A billionaire businessman slept with more than one woman,  was married three times,  is blunt and direct,  brags a lot,  doesn't always "turn the other cheek", etc. etc.   Agreed.  I see that.   Are those things enough to made me vote Democrat?  No!"

I stated; "You can excuse him of what he has done all you want. Businessman, police, doctor. lawyer etc., what he did and still is doing is wrong." If you notice I was not condoning any profession he may acquire, that was not my concern it was his actions against THE MOST HIGH!  Yes, I did say to her and to other that they act like they adore him. I said that base on them admitting the things he continue to do. Even to the point of declaring that he said he was not a righteous man. Yet, it has been said that YAHWEH sent him! My point is I stand on what I said and not what I didn't say or meant. If I would have said anything wrong call a person here a liar, you know I would be the first to apologize. No, my name was not mention, however surprisingly a lot of what I said was known and taking out of context! I will say again, I am a person of deep principles. I tried to the utmost to practice what I present here on this forum. Have I made mistakes, yes I have and confess to them, along with an apology. I am never better then anyone here but neither am I less! We all make mistakes! When we do, we should simply admit to it and apologize.

I am surprise, that when I came to identify that it was me and to state what was said was not correct. I felt, you are trying to make me feel wrong for something I have not done. I will say, you have come to me on many occasions in the past and asked me for clarification. This time you didn't and it makes me very sad!?

Please, Make It Right!