Does the bible offend you? You mock God and think your smart? Amazing.
If you would study the scriptures instead of taking them out of context you would perhaps understand the real meanings of why the Lord does certain things. But you instead probably use the skeptic bible for your arguments since its obvious you don't put much time into study of it yourself. Now, instead of you asking WHY did the Lord do this with one person and not another you set yourself up to be greater than God with your accusations. Therefore, I suggest you go look in a mirror and admire yourself Oh Wise one.
And before I leave, don't misquote people, I never told her to murder him. There is a difference between murder by an individual and capital punishment as specified in scriptures.
'Oh Lord, bless this thy hand grenade, that with it thou mayst blow thine enemies to tiny bits, in thy mercy.'
...First thou pullest the Holy Pin. Then thou must count to three. Three shall be the number of the counting and the number of the counting shall be three. Four shalt thou not count, neither shalt thou count two, excepting that thou then proceedeth to three. Five is right out. Once the number three, being the third number of the counting, be reached, then lobbest thou the Holy Hand Grenade in the direction of thine foe, who, being naughty in my sight, shall snuff it...
Matt, who posted above can't defend anything he says with ANY document at all, only his own idea of what he thinks the way things should be.
What a pathetic case of appointing SELF (that's Matt) as the all powerful authority of truth! If you have a problem with what I wrote the problem isn't with me, its with the author of the writings, and if that is God then you have a real ego thumbing your nose at Him!
Get a bible and open it to Romans chapter nine and then come back for a discussion. You are no different than Esau with your attitude of being a self appointed wise man over that which is written. Saying what you did without ANY absolutes to base your statements upon except self is setting yourself up as a god and higher than Him who is in control of everything.
Another verse you have problems with is Jesus leaving the temple and 'prepared' a whip, he went back into the temple and whipped the money changers, this doesn't sound like your tolerant person which you wish to envision. However, there were times when Jesus was tolerant. So, what and when are both to be active? That comes from wisdom of the Holy Spirit. You need not worry yourself about it, your post has indicated that it is something far from your grasp.
Once again, you don't have a problem with me. Take it up with the author of the bible. I suppose that you already have taken it upon yourself to established yourself as judge and jury, you say that the God of the Bible is unfair and unjust. Its your position and that's fine with me, your a big boy and if you feel comfortable in telling God he's full of it crap that's fine with me. Go ahead and poke a finger in His eye.
BTW, if you live in the USA then you should know that this country was based upon the Christian and Jewish laws. I'm not saying this is a Christian nation, I believe it is a nation that is 'flavored' with Christian teachings that everyone accepts the idea that they are Christian until they hear something from the bible that they feel is 'not fair', such as your attitude towards what I said.
And to answer all your questions and statements you made I once again say to Romans 9, it has lots of condemnation for you to argue with. This will allow you to make a defense to the one who had it written before you meet him.
Romans is in the New testament in case you have a problem finding it. There is an index in front of your bible to help you look it up.
In alt.home.repair on Thu, 27 Jan 2005 10:40:17 -0600 Duane Bozarth posted:
Very observant. I noticed that when I posted, but it was late and I was writing too much already.
First, I should say that if her out-of-town nephew never shows up to live in the room, someone in Kathy's shoes could just say, His parents decided not to send him, or It didn't work out. Then tenant may never know that she was lying.
AND
There is a big difference between lying about oneself and lying about someone else.
1) The tenant, call him T, will know immediately if she lies about him.
2) And when he denies to the police what she said, she'll have to say the same thing again.** This will make it look like he is lying to the police. If the police believe that, they will be angry at T. The police have some discretion in how they treat people, and T will be treated as badly as is permissable. (In practice, the police sometimes go beyond what is allowed, and if they think T lied to them, T will be first in line to be treated badly.)
**If she doesn't repeat her lie after T denies it, Kathy will look like she's been lying, and she'll be in a worse situation than she was when she started.
3) Even if he knows that she is lying about her nephew staying in the room, a lie like that will not enrage T like lying about what T himself has said or done.
I forget what the suggestions were for false things for Kathy to say about T, but they all made T look worse than he was. That makes them slander or akin to slander. And libel (which includes slander).
Kathy's lying about why she needs the room is not slander or libel. It may seem to some to dishonor Kathy, but whether it does that or not, it doesn't dishonor T.
It's best to avoid lying when there is no good*** reason for it, but Kathy was, when she wrote, afraid that he would damage her house. He could cause tens of thousands of dollars in only a few minutes. He could burn the whole house down in less than a minute if he lit the fire in the right place. Lying to a dangerous person about why one needs to kick him out of the room in order to save one's property is an exception to the no-lying rule.
***I mean ethicially good. A swindler has a "good" reason to lie to those he swindles, but that's from his pov. On an absolute scale "so that I can be a successful swindler" is not a "good" reason. Using "good reason" in this case is a figure of speech, a non-standard meaning of the word "good", and refers to practicality, not to ethics.
Meirman
-- If emailing, please let me know whether or not you are posting the same letter. Change domain to erols.com, if necessary.
You may be renting an in-law suite as an apartment illegally, depending on your jurisdiction. If you are doing this, he may be able to use it against you. You need to get legal advice.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.