psalmsmith wrote:
>>>No, whether or not Jesus ate the Pasover Lamb, is only an assumption if
>>>we disbelieve the Biblical account of His sinless perfection. For those
>>>of us who do believe in the Biblical account of His sinless perfection,
>>>then the fact that He fulfilled the requirement of eating the Passover
>>>lamb is not an assumption, it is a given certainty.
>>
>>Correct. As usual, the OP only sees what she wants in the Bible. If it's
>>about homosexuality, she says it's about bad manners and hospitality. If
>>it's about fishing, as Jesus and his disciples did, it was about
>>something else.
>
> Oh I know the sort...people who think a literal translation is a bad
> idea; because where it says "and God made man in His own image" they
> choose for it to say "and man made god in his own image."
>
> It's funny how much impact a little word-order can make. ;-)

Karen's incessant butchering of Scripture isn't funny, but I know what
you mean by that.

>>>Once you part company with the doctrine of His sinless perfection, then
>>>a whole host of certainties will naturally become mere assumptions.
>>>This is one of them.
>>
>>The person (Karen, aka "Rat") to whom you replied is an apostate
>>Episcopalian. If she even has a Bible, she reads it with rose-colored
>>glasses. Nothing ever means what it says, just what she and her radicals
>>want it to mean.
>
> I appreciate the heads-up. I tend to think of scripture as more like
> granite and less like mercury. There are far too many people in the
> world who will tape this "hello, I'm a Christian" sticky-label to the
> left front of their shirt when it serves their interests, but still live
> like the devil every chance they get.
>
> The sriptures I read say "Woe unto them that call evil good, and good
> evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put
> bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!"

Yes, I've quoted that to Karen many times now. She usually snips it.

> Each person is responsible for their own choices; and for the
> consequences they will face, they have nobody to blame but themselves.
> The real tragedy of it all is those who will be enticed by the
> broadcasting of their licentious fantasies, and so succumb to sin.

She approves of pedophilia and bestiality:
...I am willing to believe zoophile activity may be harmless,
in and of itself, if done responsibly.
-- degeneRat, Date: 1998/11/04
http://snipurl.com/4chn

To see zoo relationships as real, genuine relationships must
lead us into seeing the non-human partner as having a real
personhood of some kind, and I do think that is a good thing.
Reading the writing of some sensitive zoos does make it clear
that the human partner does sometimes see his non-human partner
as a complete and real individual with the same sort of
personhood as a human partner. The non-human is not just a
victim or a fetish-object.
-- degeneRat, Date: 2001-08-19 23:05:41 PST
http://snipurl.com/4cho

> I will commit to prayer for her, and for all those to whom her voice has
> reached.

I know prayer avails much, but I'm convinced that her depravity is
incorrigible. She even said she'd introduce her own son (whom she
abandoned while he was quite young) to pedophiles. She's seriously warped.

> Shalom!

Back at ya.