Pastor Dave wrote:
> On Sat, 17 May 2008 11:08:24 +1000, **Rowland Croucher**
> <rccroucher@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> spake thusly:
>
>
>> Chuck Stamford wrote:
>>
>>
>>> That's not the case with our little
>>> "rainbow" Christian, Chris. She's
>>> only happy when she's sinning.
>>>
>> Utterly wrong, and vilificatory: spoken like
>> a true Pharisee.
>>
>
> Spoken like someone who values God's word
> over Ninure's and your opinions.
>
> But you sound like someone who is trying to
> divert attention away from the issue at hand!
>
>> Ninure has chosen to be celibate.
>>
>
> Irrelevant. She not only says she is a lesbian,
> but promotes homo***ual *** acts as being
> approved of by God, even as far as advertising
> it in her signatures, through her web site and
> in other forms as well, such as her coming
> right out and saying it in many messages!
>
> Now if she said that she is a homo***ual, but also
> agreed that homo***ual acts are an abomination
> to God and said that she chose to be celibate to
> avoid this sin, THEN AND ONLY THEN, would she
> be free of sinning and would be accepted here.
>
> I mean, why do you think that she calls herself a
> "RAINBOW Christian", which is an oxymoron anyway?
> The word "rainbow" means that she is a homo***ual
> and that she's advertising it! Hello?!? One does not
> advertise that they are something, unless they are
> proud of being that something! They do not advertise
> it, because they are ashamed of it Rowland! And
> therefore, she is indeed not only saying that she is
> a lesbian, but that she is proud of it!
>
> So she can make all of the "celibate" claims
> she wants to, but her heart is still very dark!
>
> And no, talking nicely to people does not mean
> she is a good person! Many serial killers were
> very nice neighbors! So using your judgment
> scale, they're not sinners either!
>
> Here is a typical Ninure Saunders signature...
>
> *********************************************************************
> Ninure Saunders aka Rainbow Christian
>
> The Lord is my Shepherd and He knows I'm Gay
> http://www.geocities.com/WestHollywood/Heights/1734
>
> Universal Fellow****p of Metropolitan Community Churches
> http://www.ufmcc.com
>
> *********************************************************************
>
> Both of the above are links to homo***ual promoting
> web sites and the first one is Ninure's web site.
>
> And she admits on her web site that she created it
> for the sole purpose of saying that "God does not
> hate gays". So contrary to any claim she makes
> that her web site is there to promote the Lord,
> it is a lie!
>
> And speaking of homo***uals that "get together",
> she has this to say about them...
>
> "God does not just 'tolerate' us. God does not
> expect us or even want us to live in fear of
> expressing our love."
>
> She claims that God wants homo***uals to have ***!
>
> Furthermore, she tries to falsely label anyone who
> disagrees with her as a "basher", "hater", "homophobe"!
>
> She's doing the same thing you tried to do further down!
> To try to falsely label a person or situation, to turn the
> focus to whomever might actually dare to call her sin
> what it is! Sin!
>
> And tell us Rowland... You talk about how people
> attack her. How about how she attacks everyone
> else who doesn't agree with her? Or is that okay
> with you, because you want to feel sorry for her?!
>
> The second link above, is the church she is a member of.
>
> Why does one join a homo***ual church that promotes
> the idea of homo***ual *** being approved of by God,
> if they believe that homo***ual *** is a sin?! Hello?!?
> They don't! So yes, she is saying that homo***ual
> *** is okay with God!
>
> So please, do not bother coming in here, trying to
> defend her as if she's innocent just because you
> say so! Her supposed celibacy means nothing
> when discussing her sin, which is great!
>
> And also don't bother trying to fall back to the position
> that "we all have sin", just to try to change the subject,
> because you know you cannot successfully argue that
> she isn't sinning in this! Of course we all have sin!
> That does not make her sin okay and it is her denial
> of it and your denial of her sin, that is the issue here!
>
>
>>> How do you know that? Can you see
>>> inside her mind?
>>>
>> She has spent hours taking me on a journey
>> inside her mind. We are in communication
>> most weeks.
>>
>
> Irrelevant! I am in regular communication
> with a guy who runs a **** site. According
> to your illogic, as long as he only has ***
> with his wife, he's not sinning!
>
> And hey, Rowland! Guess what I told him
> his actions are, even though he's faithful
> to his wife?! That's right! You guessed it!
>
> S-I-N !!! Even if he himself doesn't do it,
> he promotes fornication and that is sin too!
>
>> I can affirm that she is a woman of integrity,
>>
>
> You cannot affirm that a woman who promotes
> the sin of homo***ual *** as being approved of
> by God, is a woman of integrity, because she's
> celibate!
>
> 1) She has no integrity in this!
>
> 2) The affirmation by someone who defends
> a woman who promotes homo***ual
> fornication, has no value!
>
> And in fact, what she's doing is the exact opposite
> of integrity right now! She tries to claim that even
> though she promote homo***ual ***, that she's
> sin free, because she doesn't have homo***ual ***!
>
> Furthermore Rowland, if she knew that what she
> is doing was not sin, then she would not have
> tried to use that argument in the first place!
> The truth is, it is as good as an admission on
> her part!
>
>
>> who has suffered much
>>
>
> So what?! That's what it always boils down to for
> you promoters of Ninure's sin as righteousness!
> No one is saying that they want her to physically
> suffer, but what the Hell does that have to do with
> the subject at hand?! This is nothing but a red herring!
> And it's also a straw man!
>
> You whine that she has suffered and you don't do it
> because it has anything to do with the subject here,
> but rather, you do it to play the pity card and make
> it look like people are picking on the poor suffering
> homo***ual and so, they're evil! That is a load of
> crap and you know it, Rowland! And yet, in every
> damn message where people like you try to
> defend her, her "suffering" ALWAYS gets brought up
> by the one trying to defend her! And you know as
> well as I do that you're just trying to make the other
> person look evil by default, so that no matter what
> they say, people will focus on your claim that they're
> picking on the "poor, suffering woman" and that sir,
> is YOUR evil!
>
> The truth is, if Ninure was not doing anything wrong,
> then people like you would not try to play the pity card,
> to get them to shut up because they don't want to
> look like they're picking on a suffering person!
> It's the game you play and you know it!
>
> But you know what Rowland? I don't care what
> you try to claim! You see, I'm not stupid and so,
> I won't fall for your ridiculous little game! Unlike
> you, I'm going to speak the truth about this matter!
>
>
>> - the vast majority of her suffering was inflicted
>> by others, including modern Pharisees...
>>
>
> Oh, boo hoo hoo! Poor Ninure! Everybody's just
> so evil for saying anything to Ninure that doesn't
> praise her!
>
> Did you really think we were going to fall for this crap?!
> It is nothing more than a straw man and a red herring
> in one shot!
>
> Ninure does not see homo***ual *** as sin and it is!
> If Ninure was in here saying that it is and not trying
> to promote it, then no one would be bothering her
> over this and you know it! So her "suffering at the
> hands of others" IS HER OWN DOING!!!
>
> So no, I do not feel sorry for her, any more than
> Jesus did, when He said to certain people...
>
> "You are of your father the Devil and the lusts
> of your father you will do!" - John 8:44a
>
> We are to call sin just that. Sin. That is what
> I call my sin, when I sin. What do you call yours?
> Bob? Joe? :) Or do you call it righteousness?
>
> We know for a fact that Ninure does! But God
> has something to say about that! ...
>
> "Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil;
> Who put darkness for light, and light for darkness;
> Who put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!"
> - Isaiah 5:20
>
> Ninure's "suffering" comes from her own evil
> and calling her sin what it is and not accepting
> her as a true Christian, is not attacking her!
> It is speaking the truth that she needs to hear,
> which is what we are told to do!
>
> And yes, we are to judge people like that!
> Paul wrote to toss one guy out of the church,
> if he would not repent of his fornication.
> Guess what? Promoting fornication is sin!
> One does not have to actually do it!
>
> "But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on
> a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery
> with her already in his heart." - Matthew 5:28
>
> The lesson from this passage is that it is a matter
> of the heart and since she promotes homo***ual
> *** as being approved of by God and is a member
> of a church that does the same thing, her celibacy
> is irrelevant and her heart is dark in this matter,
> period, end of story and no "journey through
> her mind" is going to change that Rowland!
>
> When a person promotes homo***ual *** as
> being approved of by God and their mission is,
> according to their own web site, to promote the
> idea that being homo***ual is "a deliberate and
> creative reflection of God".
>
> Really?! Is that why God made man in His image
> and then made woman for man? Because His
> image is actually homo***ual? And how does this
> homo***ual couple thing wash with what the Bible
> says about the church, that marriage is actually
> a shadow of union of Christ, the brideGROOM,
> to the church, which is called the BRIDE? Where
> does the Bible ever compare this to a homo***ual
> union?! Or is God a hermaphrodite and can go
> either way with it?!
>
> People simply do not follow the picture that homos
> draw all the way through! And when you do, you
> see that it ends up perverting the very symbolic
> image of Christ and His church and there is no way
> around that, period Rowland!
>
> And can anyone show me EVEN ONE example
> of God approving of a homo***ual relation****p?
>
> And no, I don't mean people pointing to what
> they claim were homo***ual relation****ps in
> the Bible, like David and Jonathan for example,
> which they are wrong about, but even if they
> were right, does not fulfill the request.
>
> The request is one example of GOD HIMSELF
> putting His stamp of approval on it and saying
> that it is Godly and telling people to do it,
> like He did with hetero***ual marriage.
>
> You see, the homos and the homo sup****ters
> love to play the "single word argument" game,
> which is easily defeated, but I don't bother
> letting them go there. The fact is, that God
> created marriage between a man and a woman
> and created them as man and woman and
> definitely approved of marriage itself!
>
> So now, where is EVEN ONE example of God
> Himself creating homo***ual marriage and
> approving of it, just as He did with hetero***ual
> marriage? After all, this is WAY too big of an
> item for Him to just forget to tell us about!
>
> And here's one more question...
>
> Why is it that homos will call adultery just that
> and also label it the sin of fornication and will
> also call two unmarried hetero***ual people
> who have *** fornicators, but when it comes
> to two homo***uals having ***, then, all of
> the sudden, they refuse to call it fornication?
> Why is that, Rowland???
>
> And why is it that when it comes to hetero***uals
> who are living together in a monogamous relation****p,
> that's sin and we don't see the homos out there going
> to bat for them, because it's fornication, but when it
> comes to two homo***uals living together in a
> monogamous relation****p, or even if they're not
> living together, then, all of the sudden, it's not
> fornication and they don't need to be married
> and God's okay with it??? Why is that, Rowland???
>
> But hey, no hypocrisy there, right Rowland?!
>
> And don't worry! Hypocrisy is not a sin when you're
> a homo***ual and surely Rowland will defend you!
>
> And why do homo***uals who claim to be Christian,
> have absolutely nothing to say about the "Gay Pride
> Parades" down Main St, even though there are
> homos out there, half dressed (sometimes not dressed)
> and kissing and fondling each other (and yes, that
> does happen at these events)?! Nope! Silence!
> Instead Rowland, THEY ATTEND THEM AND CHEER
> THEM ON!!!
>
> Do you know why we don't have a, "Hetero***ual
> Fornicators' Pride Parade", nor an "Adulterers Pride
> Parade", Rowland? Do you???
>
> It's because both groups wouldn't dare have one,
> because they know damn well that for God to
> approve, they have to BE M-A-R-R-I-E-D !!!
>
> But not if you're a homo***ual, right Rowland?!?
>
> You see, they don't want "equal rights"! That's a load
> of crap! They want "special rights" that only benefit
> them and are better than the rights that hetero***uals
> have, period and that benefit them because of their
> *** LIFE!
>
> God set up marriage between a man and a woman.
> God approves of a man and a woman being married.
>
> This is not rocket science, folks! He's an outtie,
> she's an innie! But listening to the homo***uals,
> one gets the impression that it goes something
> like this...
>
> "Duuuhhhh! Men folk are outties and women folk
> are innies. Hmmmm... Duuuhhh! I wonder how
> 'dis is supposed ta work??? Duuuhhh!"
>
> Please! <chuckle>
>
> The ONLY mention of homo***ual acts in the Bible,
> are always stated in a NEGATIVE light. Now did you
> ever wonder why that is?! Hello?!? Earth to homos?!?
> Earth to Rowland?!?
>
> And don't bother trying to come down on me
> because I say "homos". They call us "Heteros".
> But of course, a number of homos have their
> double standard and will make a fuss about it.
>
> And no, I don't use the word "gay". I don't
> allow them to hijack it! Gay means "happy"
> and to call them "gay" would imply that in
> order to be happy, one must be gay! I only
> say that word when quoting them.
>
> And if the homo***uals are "no different than
> anyone else", then why all the legal crapola?!
>
> The truth is, they contradictorily do claim to have
> a "lifestyle". The "gay lifestyle", yet if you say
> that they don't live the same way hetero***uals
> do, then they get upset and demand that we
> believe that they're no different than us!
>
> Yea, right!!! Bawahahaha!!!
>
> The reality is, the difference is who they sleep with
> and I'm sorry, but I'm never going to approve of
> special legal status for homo***ual ***!
>
> Anyway, back to Ninure...
>
> The truth is, that no matter what you try to claim,
> Ninure is just as bad as if she did have ***!
>
> There will be no difference to God at her judgment,
> whether she had ***, or just promoted others
> doing it, which she does so, since she promotes
> homo***ual people getting together as something
> that God approves of, period, end of story!
>
> So do us all a favor and take your straw men
> and your red herrings and go play your games
> with someone else, who might fall for them!
>
>
Wow! I'm impressed. You can really cut thru the crap!
--
rgds,
Pete
=====
http://pw352.blogspot.com/
'I'm not young enough to know everything' -Oscar Wilde
|
