Episcopal Drama Rocks SC

[WotMeWorry]

Selecia Jones- JAX FL wrote:

<quoted text>Just like his rant about something from the past..I googled it and found it where he is a LIAR!!!! LOVE IT!

Now you are lying about having proved someone else as a liar to cover up another one of your lies.

That is a new low for you.

[WotMeWorry]

Selecia Jones- JAX FL wrote:

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

Your question has more to do with your own sexual abuse and subsequent hatred of men and same sex attraction problems than it does about scripture.

[Dan]

Joe DeCaro wrote:

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

It is lunacy to even suggest that many other forms of underwear didn't exist before 1868. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Undergarment

Jews have worn tallit katan under their clothing for many centuries. These are related to the 'magic underwear' that leftwing defamationists goaded Mitt Romney for and also to a white undergarment worn by Catholic and Episcopal priests under their vestments.

[Dan]

This article details inner and outer garments worn in ancient Israel. The inner garment indeed sounds very substantial!

http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/33_clothing.htm...

The Bible itself makes it crystal clear that David was free of the very serious sin of engaging in a homosexual act:

1 Kings 15:5 For David had done what was right in the eyes of the LORD and had not failed to keep any of the LORD's commands all the days of his life--except in the case of Uriah the Hittite.

Clearly, all homosexual acts were strongly prohibited before that verse and a number of times after it!

[Selecia Jones- JAX FL]

WotMeWorry wrote:

<quoted text>
Your question has more to do with your own sexual abuse and subsequent hatred of men and same sex attraction problems than it does about scripture.

Hating men? The only men I can't stand or you and Joe...I love men!!!! Just not as sex partners.

[Fitz]

The Diocese of South Carolina, the Trustees of the Diocese and congregations representing the vast majority of its baptized members today filed suit in South Carolina Circuit Court against The Episcopal Church to protect the Diocese’s real and personal property and that of its parishes.

The suit also asks the court to prevent The Episcopal Church from infringing on the protected marks of the Diocese, including its seal and its historical names, and to prevent the church from assuming the Diocese’s identity, which was established long before The Episcopal Church’s creation.

“We seek to protect more than $500 million in real property, including churches, rectories and other buildings that South Carolinians built, paid for, maintained and expanded – and in some cases died to protect – without any support from The Episcopal Church,” said the Rev. Jim Lewis, Canon to the Ordinary.“Many of our parishes are among the oldest operating churches in the nation. They and this Diocese predate the establishment of The Episcopal Church. We want to protect these properties from a blatant land grab.”

Here’s Bishop Lawrence’s statement.

I write to you in this Christmas season to share some news. Today, parishes representing approximately 75 percent of baptized members in our Diocese joined in filing for a declarative judgment in a South Carolina Circuit Court against the Episcopal Church (TEC). We are asking the court to declare that The Episcopal Church (TEC) has no right to the Diocese’s identity and property or that of its parishes.

We are saddened that we feel it necessary to ask a court to protect our property rights, but recent actions compelled us to take this action. As you know, The Episcopal Church (TEC) has begun the effort to claim the Diocese of South Carolina’s identity by calling for a convention to identify new leadership for the diocese, creating a website using the Diocesan seal and producing material that invokes the name and identity of the Diocese of South Carolina.

Our suit asks the court to prevent TEC from infringing on the protected marks of the Diocese, including its seal and its historical names, and to prevent it from assuming the Diocese’s identity, which was established long before TEC was formed. It also asks the court to protect our parish and Diocesan property, including church buildings and rectories, which our forefathers built and even shed blood over, and you have maintained without any investment of any kind from the national church.



That challenge’s success, of course, depends on whether the Supreme Court decides to hear the case at all so caveat emptor and all that. But in South Carolina, it looks as if TEO will have FAR tougher legal sledding than they’ve had in the past.

[Rainbow Kid]

Fitz wrote:

The Diocese of South Carolina, the Trustees of the Diocese and congregations representing the vast majority of its baptized members today filed suit in South Carolina Circuit Court against The Episcopal Church to protect the Diocese’s real and personal property and that of its parishes.
The suit also asks the court to prevent The Episcopal Church from infringing on the protected marks of the Diocese, including its seal and its historical names, and to prevent the church from assuming the Diocese’s identity, which was established long before The Episcopal Church’s creation.
“We seek to protect more than $500 million in real property, including churches, rectories and other buildings that South Carolinians built, paid for, maintained and expanded – and in some cases died to protect – without any support from The Episcopal Church,” said the Rev. Jim Lewis, Canon to the Ordinary.“Many of our parishes are among the oldest operating churches in the nation. They and this Diocese predate the establishment of The Episcopal Church. We want to protect these properties from a blatant land grab.”
Here’s Bishop Lawrence’s statement.
I write to you in this Christmas season to share some news. Today, parishes representing approximately 75 percent of baptized members in our Diocese joined in filing for a declarative judgment in a South Carolina Circuit Court against the Episcopal Church (TEC). We are asking the court to declare that The Episcopal Church (TEC) has no right to the Diocese’s identity and property or that of its parishes.
We are saddened that we feel it necessary to ask a court to protect our property rights, but recent actions compelled us to take this action. As you know, The Episcopal Church (TEC) has begun the effort to claim the Diocese of South Carolina’s identity by calling for a convention to identify new leadership for the diocese, creating a website using the Diocesan seal and producing material that invokes the name and identity of the Diocese of South Carolina.
Our suit asks the court to prevent TEC from infringing on the protected marks of the Diocese, including its seal and its historical names, and to prevent it from assuming the Diocese’s identity, which was established long before TEC was formed. It also asks the court to protect our parish and Diocesan property, including church buildings and rectories, which our forefathers built and even shed blood over, and you have maintained without any investment of any kind from the national church.
That challenge’s success, of course, depends on whether the Supreme Court decides to hear the case at all so caveat emptor and all that. But in South Carolina, it looks as if TEO will have FAR tougher legal sledding than they’ve had in the past.

It is all dependent upon whose names are presently on the various property deeds

[Joe DeCaro]

Selecia Jones- JAX FL wrote:

<quoted text>
Hating men? The only men I can't stand or you and Joe...I love men!!!! Just not ...

... "straight" men.

[Rick in Kansas]

Joe DeCaro wrote:

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

I post as an anonymous talking dog? Cocktail hour roll in a little early today? Well dear, my definition of what it takes to be a man includes being honest about one's actions. If we have done wrong to others by omission or commission, we do our best to rectify it. You have lied here, frequently, repeatedly and deliberately, I know this, you know this, but only one of us is being honest about this and it clearly ain't you sugarplum.

By the by, I still haven't gotten a reply from your friend.

[Rick in Kansas]

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

Yes, the opinion of Joe De Caro, ventriloquist and of course his amazing puppet, Rabbi Israel Stein (retired). Even in Hebrew, one does not have to be called "naked" to be described as being naked. YOU, as the Rabbi, are merely trying to rationalize YOUR choice of interpretations of the text and that's coo;, but what isn't cool is your pathological insistence that the honest to goodness, actual Rabbi Israel Stein (retired) has "said" any of this, when we all know that the ONLY person to say it is YOU.

[George]

Selecia Jones- JAX FL wrote:

<quoted text>Hating men? The only men I can't stand or you and Joe...I love men!!!! Just not as sex partners.

I am DISAPPOINTED not to be included in you enemeis list.

[Selecia Jones- JAX FL]

George wrote:

<quoted text>
I am DISAPPOINTED not to be included in you enemeis list.

Sorry George...I don't think that you are of the ILK of Joe and Wot. You are just woefully misinformed.

[Joe DeCaro]

Rick in Kansas wrote:

<quoted text>
I post as an anonymous talking dog?...

Look at your avatar.

Rick in Kansas wrote:

Even in Hebrew, one does not have to be called "naked" to be described as being naked ...

According to Rabbi Israel Stein, the Hebrew “arum” or naked does not appear in the text (1 Sam 18:4); if Jonathan was naked, the Hebrew would definitively say so, but according to you, it doesn't have to?

Are you a rabbi too, Ricky?

[Rick in Kansas]

Joe DeCaro wrote:

Look at your avatar.

It's a picture of my dog, if you want to put any more meaning into that than that, knock yourself out sugar.

Joe DeCaro wrote:

According to Rabbi Israel Stein,

Sweetie, having your puppet repeat your opinions for you doesn't make them any more convincing than if it were just you on stage here. Now that you have been exposed as the pathological fraud you really are, to put it bluntly, your pathetic ventriloquist act sucks and not in a fun way, try something else.

[Joe DeCaro]

Rick in Kansas wrote:

<quoted text>
It's a picture of my dog ...

Whom you post through in your own "pathetic ventriloquist act," but even if you had a Jewish avatar, I doubt it would help your sorry attempt at Hebrew, so why haven't you asked a rabbi about the absence of "arum" in 1 Sam 18:4?

[Rick in Kansas]

Buttercup, you are the only idiot who imagines that I am posting to you as my dog.

Why should I ask a Rabbi? You didn't.

[Rick in Kansas]

Wait a second, I did ask a Rabbi, the same one you lied about having said all this nonsense in the first place, but we proved didn't. He hasn't written back and hasn't shown up here either.

[Fitz]

Joe DeCaro wrote:

<quoted text>
Whom you post through in your own "pathetic ventriloquist act," but even if you had a Jewish avatar, I doubt it would help your sorry attempt at Hebrew, so why haven't you asked a rabbi about the absence of "arum" in 1 Sam 18:4?

The cultural left has effectivley used gay men & woman to attack the sanctity of marriage and the integrity scripture and religion.

Once great religions the the Episcoplainas are being driven into schism by this...there numbers swindling and entire congregations, dioceses & regins are defecting, with the national church suing itself into bankrupcy to hold onto a bunch of buildings that no one wants to attend mass in.

http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/Home-Page-New...

Thats what happens when you start interpreting scripture the way gays want.

[Selecia Jones- JAX FL]

I adore the sanctity of marriage...I abhore the traitors and sinners of DIVORCE!

[Joe DeCaro]

Rick in Kansas wrote:

Wait a second, I did ask a Rabbi, the same one you lied about having said all this nonsense in the first place ...

Hebrew in sacred writings is only "nonsense" to a homosexual such as yourself; that's why your dog avatar is so fitting for a poster who can't distinguish the sacred from his own profane gay agenda.