Episcopal Drama Rocks SC

[Selecia Jones- JAX FL]

Any word from the good Rabbi?

[Rick in Kansas]

Selecia Jones- JAX FL wrote:

Any word from the good Rabbi?

As expected, none whatsoever.

[Joe DeCaro]

Rick in Kansas wrote:

<quoted text>
Um dear, you seem to be forgetting that we all know ...

It's obvious that you don't know anything.

First you claimed Rabbi Israel Stein didn't exist, and when that ploy didn't work, you claimed he never said the following:

1 Sam 18:4: the Hebrew “arum” or naked does not appear in the text; if Jonathan was naked, the Hebrew would definitively say so.

1 Sam 20: 41-42: David “exceeded uncontrollably” refers to weeping; they were crying, and their friendship was pledged to last even unto the lives of their respective children (seed).

Spilling seed w/o any procreation breaks the commandment to be fruitful and multiply; being gay also negates this commandment, hence the prohibition in Lev 18: 22.

David was unabashedly heterosexual in his pursuit of Bathsheba; David was accused by the prophet Nathan of both murder and adultery, but never homosexuality.

The Bible paints saints warts and all, so why would it hide a homosexual relationship between David and Jonathan? Then again, for some, why is every relationship between 2 men or 2 women always sexual?

“People with an agenda say what they want to say, but opinions should be based on fact, not an agenda,” said Stein.

The truth is you can't refute WHAT Stein said, so you simply deny he said it, which is easy for you to do since most gays live in denial anyway.

[Selecia Jones- JAX FL]

My bible says that Adam was right there with Eve...yet Eve gets the bum rap...why?

[Rick in Kansas]

Joe DeCaro wrote:

It's obvious that you don't know anything.

And the pathological lies continue. I never said that the good Rabbi doesn't exist dear. We both know that and the record here proves that. What I have said from the very first post, is that there exists no proof whatsoever that said good Rabbi, has ever written or spoke one word of what you have attributed to him. None, zero, zilch, nonexistent, NOTHING. I searched for it myself, I asked you for it, I have even asked the good Rabbi himself and still there is none.

What does that tell you that that doesn't tell me about you loud and clear?

[MiddleWay]

Joe DeCaro wrote:

<quoted text>
It's obvious that you don't know anything.
First you claimed Rabbi Israel Stein didn't exist, and when that ploy didn't work, you claimed he never said the following:
1 Sam 18:4: the Hebrew “arum” or naked does not appear in the text; if Jonathan was naked, the Hebrew would definitively say so.
1 Sam 20: 41-42: David “exceeded uncontrollably” refers to weeping; they were crying, and their friendship was pledged to last even unto the lives of their respective children (seed).
Spilling seed w/o any procreation breaks the commandment to be fruitful and multiply; being gay also negates this commandment, hence the prohibition in Lev 18: 22.
David was unabashedly heterosexual in his pursuit of Bathsheba; David was accused by the prophet Nathan of both murder and adultery, but never homosexuality.
The Bible paints saints warts and all, so why would it hide a homosexual relationship between David and Jonathan? Then again, for some, why is every relationship between 2 men or 2 women always sexual?
“People with an agenda say what they want to say, but opinions should be based on fact, not an agenda,” said Stein.
The truth is you can't refute WHAT Stein said, so you simply deny he said it, which is easy for you to do since most gays live in denial anyway.

“People with an agenda say what they want to say, but opinions should be based on fact, not an agenda,” said Stein.

“People with an agenda say what they want to say, but opinions should be based on fact, not an agenda,” said Stein.

“People with an agenda say what they want to say, but opinions should be based on fact, not an agenda,” said Stein.

So, he's giving his opinion and I know scores of other Rabbis whom would disagree with his OPINION......

[Rick in Kansas]

MiddleWay wrote:

“People with an agenda say what they want to say, but opinions should be based on fact, not an agenda,” said Stein.
“People with an agenda say what they want to say, but opinions should be based on fact, not an agenda,” said Stein.
“People with an agenda say what they want to say, but opinions should be based on fact, not an agenda,” said Stein.
So, he's giving his opinion and I know scores of other Rabbis whom would disagree with his OPINION......

Joe is actually using the good Rabbi as his ventriloquist dummy. It's not Stein's opinion, but Joe's, he's just using the Rabbi to mouth his words for him. Look up the "quote", it exists NOWHERE but Joe's posts to this site. He's been getting away with it for years, but he's been caught red handed.

[MiddleWay]

Rick in Kansas wrote:

<quoted text>Joe is actually using the good Rabbi as his ventriloquist dummy. It's not Stein's opinion, but Joe's, he's just using the Rabbi to mouth his words for him. Look up the "quote", it exists NOWHERE but Joe's posts to this site. He's been getting away with it for years, but he's been caught red handed.

He's been 'caught' several times before but nothing stops him, he's pathological....

[Joe DeCaro]

Rick in Kansas wrote:

<quoted text>
And the pathological lies continue. I never said that the good Rabbi doesn't exist ...

Talk about pathological lies continuing.

MiddleWay wrote:

... So, he's giving his opinion and I know scores of other Rabbis whom would disagree with his OPINION......

Is the following comment from Rabbi Stein just an opinion?

1 Sam 18:4: the Hebrew “arum” or naked does not appear in the text; if Jonathan was naked, the Hebrew would definitively say so.

Either "arum" is there, or it isn't, and if it isn't, Jonathan isn't naked.

[Rainbow Kid]

Joe DeCaro wrote:

Is the following comment from Rabbi Stein just an opinion?
1 Sam 18:4: the Hebrew “arum” or naked does not appear in the text; if Jonathan was naked, the Hebrew would definitively say so.

++++++++++
1 Samuel 18:4> And Ionathan stript himselfe of the robe that was vpon him, and gaue it to Dauid, and his garments, euen to his sword, and to his bow, and to his girdle.
++++++++++
.
What's left?

[Selecia Jones- JAX FL]

Rainbow Kid wrote:

<quoted text>
++++++++++
1 Samuel 18:4> And Ionathan stript himselfe of the robe that was vpon him, and gaue it to Dauid, and his garments, euen to his sword, and to his bow, and to his girdle.
++++++++++
.
What's left?

Yep....nekkid as a jay bird...but they really not nekkid..they got feathers.

[Selecia Jones- JAX FL]

Rabbi Gertrude Stein???? Now that I know!

[Rick in Kansas]

Joe DeCaro wrote:

Talk about pathological lies continuing.

I'm cool with that. Why is it you are not man enough to admit that every last word you have attributed to Rabbi Stein has been nothing but you using him as a ventriloquist's dummy?

[Joe DeCaro]

Rainbow Kid wrote:

<quoted text>
++++++++++
1 Samuel 18:4> And Ionathan stript himselfe of the robe that was vpon him, and gaue it to Dauid, and his garments, euen to his sword, and to his bow, and to his girdle.
++++++++++
.
What's left?

In olde English, "girdle" meant belt, or do you gays wear belts with nothing underneath them?

[Selecia Jones- JAX FL]

Joe DeCaro wrote:

<quoted text>
In olde English, "girdle" meant belt, or do you gays wear belts with nothing underneath them?

YEAH...they are called KILTS!!!!

[Joe DeCaro]

Rick in Kansas wrote:

<quoted text>
I'm cool with that. Why is it you are not man enough ...

One wonder's what your "gay" definition of a man really is since you choose to post as an anonymous talking dog.

[Rainbow Kid]

Joe DeCaro wrote:

<quoted text>
In olde English, "girdle" meant belt, or do you gays wear belts with nothing underneath them?

Underwear was invented in 1868; just 145 years ago; much too recently to save David from embarrassment
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons...
.
po'thang

[Austin]

Rainbow Kid wrote:

<quoted text>
Underwear was invented in 1868; just 145 years ago; much too recently to save David from embarrassment
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons...
.
po'thang

Jews have worn religious undergarments for millennia. The Bible also says that David never engaged in such serious sin.

You choose to live your life in open rebellion against God's many commands against all homosexual behavior, so why do you obsess about trolling threads dealing with Christianity?

[Joe DeCaro]

Rainbow Kid wrote:

<quoted text>
Underwear was invented in 1868; just 145 years ago; much too recently to save David from embarrassment ...

The embarrassment is having to remind you that both loincloth and the tunic predate 1868.

[Phil McGroen]

Austin wrote:

<quoted text>Jews have worn religious undergarments for millennia. The Bible also says that David never engaged in such serious sin.
You choose to live your life in open rebellion against God's many commands against all homosexual behavior, so why do you obsess about trolling threads dealing with Christianity?

You're right about the Skid being a Troll. "To the vile, all things are vile."