Cyber Stalking

[Apologette]

I have had problems with Mormons listing on blogs and also here my personal name. I have never given a Mormon permission to do so, and I consider that type of behavior to be threatening and menacing. What is the purpose of doing so, other than INTIMIDATION?

I suggest that Mormons here familiarize themselves with the New Federal Law regarding cyber stalking:

"What Is Cyberstalking?

From the U.S. Department of Justice

Although there is no universally accepted definition of cyberstalking, the term is used in this report to refer to the use of the Internet, e-mail, or other electronic communications devices to stalk another person. Stalking generally involves har***ing or threatening behavior that an individual engages in repeatedly, such as following a person, appearing at a person's home or place of business, making har***ing phone calls, leaving written messages or objects, or vandalizing a person's property. Most stalking laws require that the perpetrator make a credible threat of violence against the victim; others include threats against the victim's immediate family; and still others require only that the alleged stalker's course of conduct cons***ute an implied threat. While some conduct involving annoying or menacing behavior might fall short of illegal stalking, such behavior may be a prelude to stalking and violence and should be treated seriously.

Nature and Extent of Cyberstalking

Although online har***ment and threats can take many forms, cyberstalking shares important characteristics with offline stalking. Many stalkers - online or off - are motivated by a desire to exert control over their victims and engage in similar types of behavior to accomplish this end. As with offline stalking, the available evidence (which is largely anecdotal) suggests that the majority of cyberstalkers are men and the majority of their victims are women, although there have been reported cases of women cyberstalking men and of same-sex cyberstalking. In many cases, the cyberstalker and the victim had a prior relationship, and the cyberstalking begins when the victim attempts to break off the relationship. However, there also have been many instances of cyberstalking by strangers. Given the enormous amount of personal information available through the Internet, a cyberstalker can easily locate private information about a potential victim with a few mouse clicks or key strokes.

The fact that cyberstalking does not involve physical contact may create the misperception that it is more benign than physical stalking. This is not necessarily true. As the Internet becomes an ever more integral part of our personal and professional lives, stalkers can take advantage of the ease of communications as well as increased access to personal information. In addition, the ease of use and non-confrontational, impersonal, and sometimes anonymous nature of Internet communications may remove disincentives to cyberstalking. Put another way, whereas a potential stalker may be unwilling or unable to confront a victim in person or on the telephone, he or she may have little hesitation sending har***ing or threatening electronic communications to a victim. Finally, as with physical stalking, online har***ment and threats may be a prelude to more serious behavior, including physical violence.

While there are many similarities between offline and online stalking, the Internet and other communications technologies provide new avenues for stalkers to pursue their victims.

A cyberstalker may send repeated, threatening, or har***ing messages by the simple push of a ****on; more sophisticated cyberstalkers use programs to send messages at regular or random intervals without being physically present at the computer terminal. California law enforcement authorities say they have encountered situations where a victim repeatedly receives the message "187" on their pagers - the section of the California Penal Code for murder. In addition, a cyberstalker can dupe other Internet users into har***ing or threatening a victim by utilizing Internet bulletin boards or chat rooms. For example, a stalker may post a controversial or enticing message on the board under the name, phone number, or e-mail address of the victim, resulting in subsequent responses being sent to the victim. Each message -- whether from the actual cyberstalker or others -- will have the intended effect on the victim, but the cyberstalker's effort is minimal and the lack of direct contact between the cyberstalker and the victim can make it difficult for law enforcement to identify, locate, and arrest the offender"

[Pa Pa]

I have had problems with Mormons listing on blogs and also here my personal name. I have never given a Mormon permission to do so, and I consider that type of behavior to be threatening and menacing. What is the purpose of doing so, other than INTIMIDATION?

I suggest that Mormons here familiarize themselves with the New Federal Law regarding cyber stalking:

"What Is Cyberstalking?

From the U.S. Department of Justice

Although there is no universally accepted definition of cyberstalking, the term is used in this report to refer to the use of the Internet, e-mail, or other electronic communications devices to stalk another person. Stalking generally involves har***ing or threatening behavior that an individual engages in repeatedly, such as following a person, appearing at a person's home or place of business, making har***ing phone calls, leaving written messages or objects, or vandalizing a person's property. Most stalking laws require that the perpetrator make a credible threat of violence against the victim; others include threats against the victim's immediate family; and still others require only that the alleged stalker's course of conduct cons***ute an implied threat. While some conduct involving annoying or menacing behavior might fall short of illegal stalking, such behavior may be a prelude to stalking and violence and should be treated seriously.

Nature and Extent of Cyberstalking

Although online har***ment and threats can take many forms, cyberstalking shares important characteristics with offline stalking. Many stalkers - online or off - are motivated by a desire to exert control over their victims and engage in similar types of behavior to accomplish this end. As with offline stalking, the available evidence (which is largely anecdotal) suggests that the majority of cyberstalkers are men and the majority of their victims are women, although there have been reported cases of women cyberstalking men and of same-sex cyberstalking. In many cases, the cyberstalker and the victim had a prior relationship, and the cyberstalking begins when the victim attempts to break off the relationship. However, there also have been many instances of cyberstalking by strangers. Given the enormous amount of personal information available through the Internet, a cyberstalker can easily locate private information about a potential victim with a few mouse clicks or key strokes.

The fact that cyberstalking does not involve physical contact may create the misperception that it is more benign than physical stalking. This is not necessarily true. As the Internet becomes an ever more integral part of our personal and professional lives, stalkers can take advantage of the ease of communications as well as increased access to personal information. In addition, the ease of use and non-confrontational, impersonal, and sometimes anonymous nature of Internet communications may remove disincentives to cyberstalking. Put another way, whereas a potential stalker may be unwilling or unable to confront a victim in person or on the telephone, he or she may have little hesitation sending har***ing or threatening electronic communications to a victim. Finally, as with physical stalking, online har***ment and threats may be a prelude to more serious behavior, including physical violence.

While there are many similarities between offline and online stalking, the Internet and other communications technologies provide new avenues for stalkers to pursue their victims.

A cyberstalker may send repeated, threatening, or har***ing messages by the simple push of a ****on; more sophisticated cyberstalkers use programs to send messages at regular or random intervals without being physically present at the computer terminal. California law enforcement authorities say they have encountered situations where a victim repeatedly receives the message "187" on their pagers - the section of the California Penal Code for murder. In addition, a cyberstalker can dupe other Internet users into har***ing or threatening a victim by utilizing Internet bulletin boards or chat rooms. For example, a stalker may post a controversial or enticing message on the board under the name, phone number, or e-mail address of the victim, resulting in subsequent responses being sent to the victim. Each message -- whether from the actual cyberstalker or others -- will have the intended effect on the victim, but the cyberstalker's effort is minimal and the lack of direct contact between the cyberstalker and the victim can make it difficult for law enforcement to identify, locate, and arrest the offender"Ever had a stalker put you on ignore...done! No go home.

[Pa Pa]

I have had problems with Mormons listing on blogs and also here my personal name. I have never given a Mormon permission to do so, and I consider that type of behavior to be threatening and menacing. What is the purpose of doing so, other than INTIMIDATION?

I suggest that Mormons here familiarize themselves with the New Federal Law regarding cyber stalking:

"What Is Cyberstalking?

From the U.S. Department of Justice

Although there is no universally accepted definition of cyberstalking, the term is used in this report to refer to the use of the Internet, e-mail, or other electronic communications devices to stalk another person. Stalking generally involves har***ing or threatening behavior that an individual engages in repeatedly, such as following a person, appearing at a person's home or place of business, making har***ing phone calls, leaving written messages or objects, or vandalizing a person's property. Most stalking laws require that the perpetrator make a credible threat of violence against the victim; others include threats against the victim's immediate family; and still others require only that the alleged stalker's course of conduct cons***ute an implied threat. While some conduct involving annoying or menacing behavior might fall short of illegal stalking, such behavior may be a prelude to stalking and violence and should be treated seriously.

Nature and Extent of Cyberstalking

Although online har***ment and threats can take many forms, cyberstalking shares important characteristics with offline stalking. Many stalkers - online or off - are motivated by a desire to exert control over their victims and engage in similar types of behavior to accomplish this end. As with offline stalking, the available evidence (which is largely anecdotal) suggests that the majority of cyberstalkers are men and the majority of their victims are women, although there have been reported cases of women cyberstalking men and of same-sex cyberstalking. In many cases, the cyberstalker and the victim had a prior relationship, and the cyberstalking begins when the victim attempts to break off the relationship. However, there also have been many instances of cyberstalking by strangers. Given the enormous amount of personal information available through the Internet, a cyberstalker can easily locate private information about a potential victim with a few mouse clicks or key strokes.

The fact that cyberstalking does not involve physical contact may create the misperception that it is more benign than physical stalking. This is not necessarily true. As the Internet becomes an ever more integral part of our personal and professional lives, stalkers can take advantage of the ease of communications as well as increased access to personal information. In addition, the ease of use and non-confrontational, impersonal, and sometimes anonymous nature of Internet communications may remove disincentives to cyberstalking. Put another way, whereas a potential stalker may be unwilling or unable to confront a victim in person or on the telephone, he or she may have little hesitation sending har***ing or threatening electronic communications to a victim. Finally, as with physical stalking, online har***ment and threats may be a prelude to more serious behavior, including physical violence.

While there are many similarities between offline and online stalking, the Internet and other communications technologies provide new avenues for stalkers to pursue their victims.

A cyberstalker may send repeated, threatening, or har***ing messages by the simple push of a ****on; more sophisticated cyberstalkers use programs to send messages at regular or random intervals without being physically present at the computer terminal. California law enforcement authorities say they have encountered situations where a victim repeatedly receives the message "187" on their pagers - the section of the California Penal Code for murder. In addition, a cyberstalker can dupe other Internet users into har***ing or threatening a victim by utilizing Internet bulletin boards or chat rooms. For example, a stalker may post a controversial or enticing message on the board under the name, phone number, or e-mail address of the victim, resulting in subsequent responses being sent to the victim. Each message -- whether from the actual cyberstalker or others -- will have the intended effect on the victim, but the cyberstalker's effort is minimal and the lack of direct contact between the cyberstalker and the victim can make it difficult for law enforcement to identify, locate, and arrest the offender"Ever had a stalker put you on ignore...done! No go home.
Interesting...while putting you there I noted how in April you were banned for insulting other members. By sweetie.

[Apologette]

Ever had a stalker put you on ignore...done! No go home.
Interesting...while putting you there I noted how in April you were banned for insulting other members. By sweetie.

Try writing something comprehensible. And as far as you go, it's pretty pathetic that he now has to look for my suspensions...how strange is that folks? How obsessive is that?

Now you know the law, so please cease and desist from stalking me either here or on CARM or on Facebook. Got it? I have archived these incidents.

Just because nobody is monitoring this site apparently, remember that God is!

[Sir]

I have had problems with Mormons listing on blogs and also here my personal name. I have never given a Mormon permission to do so, and I consider that type of behavior to be threatening and menacing. What is the purpose of doing so, other than INTIMIDATION?

So why is it that you always call the poster "Heston" or "Knox" by the name of Jeff?

Looks like another case of creating a whining thread and pounding your chest with righteous indignation....about something that you are just as guilty of doing.

Of course we know why. It does speak to the rotten fruit of your "christianity", though. Jesus called those kind of people hypocrites. :)

[Apologette]

So why is it that you always call the poster "Heston" or "Knox" by the name of Jeff?


Looks like another case of creating a whining thread and pounding your chest with righteous indignation....about something that you are just as guilty of doing.

Of course we know why. It does speak to the rotten fruit of your "christianity", though. Jesus called those kind of people hypocrites. :)

Have I ever told Jeff, "hey we won't kill you?" And has Jeff ever asked me to stop calling him by his given name? If he did, I wouldn't.

On the other hand, I've told your Mormon "bud" many times to stop using my name - and he's ignored the request, and futhermore, has gotten off on posting other names I have used on the net. For what purpose? I know for a fact that you use "Sir" over here on Jill's site, and another name over on CARM (where I have you on ignore). I really don't call what you call yourself here or on CARM or on MDD. Your choice. But somehow your "bud" doesn't get it. Somehow he feels justified in his..........

Har***ment.

[RealFakeHair]

If any young female between the age of 18-30, wish to stalk me please send picture first.:cool:

[Sir]

Have I ever told Jeff, "hey we won't kill you?"

Dunno. But that isn't even remotely part of this conversation. This conversation was about the use of someone's name in a forum, remember?



And has Jeff every asked me to stop calling him by his given name? If he did, I wouldn't.

But your OP and contention was, "I have never given a Mormon permission to do so, and I consider that type of behavior to be threatening and menacing."

Knowing Jeff, he does not acknowledge one way or the other when you call him Jeff, even when he is posting as Knox. He is not petty or whines about what treatment his name gets. He has never explicitly given you permission to use his name, and he is not so paranoid or bothered by it that he doesn't explicitly ask people to stop. He is a mature person who simply ignores such trivial things.

So by your own standard you are menacing and intimidating him.

It really is funny to see how you spin this, though. Bravo!!

[Apologette]

Dunno. But that isn't even remotely part of this conversation. This conversation was about the use of someone's name in a forum, remember?




But your OP and contention was, "I have never given a Mormon permission to do so, and I consider that type of behavior to be threatening and menacing."

Knowing Jeff, he does not acknowledge one way or the other when you call him Jeff, even when he is posting as Knox. He is not petty or whines about what treatment his name gets. He has never explicitly given you permission to use his name, and he is not so paranoid or bothered by it that he doesn't explicitly ask people to stop. He is a mature person who simply ignores such trivial things.

So by your own standard you are menacing and intimidating him.

It really is funny to see how you spin this, though. Bravo!!

So, you think cyber stalking is just hunky dory as long as a Mormon does it? Well, you're just like the Masons, aren't you.......but of course, you took the same vows, of course you are!

[Apologette]

If any young female between the age of 18-30, wish to stalk me please send picture first.:cool:

If you're a RM, the Mormon gals will comply. Best thing for them to do is get married and start producing more Mormons.

[Sir]

So, you think cyber stalking is just hunky dory as long as a Mormon does it? Well, you're just like the Masons, aren't you.......but of course, you took the same vows, of course you are!

Hmmm, that's your response to what I wrote? I guess reading comprehension isn't your forte.

Lemme dumb it down for you:

- You whine that using a poster's name w/o permission is menacing and intimidation.

- You complain that PaPa has done this to you.

- You do this very thing to the poster "Knox" by calling him Jeff

You are therefore a whiney hypocrite who cries foul when someone else does what you are doing yourself.

LOL

[Apologette]

Hmmm, that's your response to what I wrote? I guess reading comprehension isn't your forte.

Lemme dumb it down for you:

- You whine that using a poster's name w/o permission is menacing and intimidation.

- You complain that PaPa has done this to you.

- You do this very thing to the poster "Knox" by calling him Jeff

You are therefore a whiney hypocrite who cries foul when someone else does what you are doing yourself.

LOL

Why don't you ask Jeff why? He should be the one complaining not one of his sidekicks in the cult. Now, try to deal with what goes on here, on this site, or get lost. Why do you use multiple names? Shouldn't you tell Papa that it's wrong to complain about that? Or are you such a hypocrit that you can't see the issue!

Now I have to go talk to some normal people....have a nice time talking to yourself.

[Sir]

Why don't you ask Jeff why? He should be the one complaining not one of his sidekicks in the cult.

You're confused. It is only YOU that seems to be complaining about this. In fact, you created this thread devoted to it. ;)



Why do you use multiple names?


I don't. When you ***ume.....



Shouldn't you tell Papa that it's wrong to complain about that? Or are you such a hypocrit that you can't see the issue!

If I don't do something, not telling someone else to not it does not make me a hypocrite.


Now I have to go talk to some normal people....have a nice time talking to yourself.

Zing!!! LOL....I was talking to you and you were responding. I guess that makes you....well.....but thanks for showing us your jesus....rotten fruits.

[James Banta]

You're confused. It is only YOU that seems to be complaining about this. In fact, you created this thread devoted to it. ;)





I don't. When you ***ume.....




If I don't do something, not telling someone else to not it does not make me a hypocrite.



Zing!!! LOL....I was talking to you and you were responding. I guess that makes you....well.....but thanks for showing us your jesus....rotten fruits.


I can't say I didn't try to use a different name here and a different name on CARM.. It dis work for me.. I don't see the use of it.. But you seem to be able to do so.. I know that you name isn't Sir.. So you are using different names.. I guess being able to mask yourself in false names is what your jesus teaches you to do.. The word hypocrite over this S T U P I D complaint is resounding in my mind.. IHS jim

[Sir]

I can't say I didn't try to use a different name here and a different name on CARM.. It dis work for me.. I don't see the use of it.. But you seem to be able to do so.. I know that you name isn't Sir.. So you are using different names.. I guess being able to mask yourself in false names is what your jesus teaches you to do.. The word hypocrite over this S T U P I D complaint is resounding in my mind.. IHS jim

So because I use a moniker instead of my real name it means I have a false Jesus?

Buwahahahaha........

Thank you Ancient Mariner (aka. James Banta). Be sure to let "Apologette" know that, k?

Oh, and since you seemed to fail the comprehension thing too, go back and realize that it is Apologette who started complaining about names. It was Apologette that brought up the idea that I use multiple names.

Basically, your complaint is with her, not me. Not sure how I can be a hypocrite for simply responding to one of your fellow anti-mormon's charges.

But knowing you needed to release some angst, no matter how misdirected, I forgive you. :)

[RealFakeHair]

So because I use a moniker instead of my real name it means I have a false Jesus?

Buwahahahaha........

Thank you Ancient Mariner (aka. James Banta). Be sure to let "Apologette" know that, k?

Oh, and since you seemed to fail the comprehension thing too, go back and realize that it is Apologette who started complaining about names. It was Apologette that brought up the idea that I use multiple names.

Basically, your complaint is with her, not me. Not sure how I can be a hypocrite for simply responding to one of your fellow anti-mormon's charges.

But knowing you needed to release some angst, no matter how misdirected, I forgive you. :)
Yes, because you use moniker you have a mormon fake jesus.
I too fail the comprehension thingie.
I do not have multiple names, only mulitple personalities.
I too am a hypocriter; yes that is a word, really.
As of this date, I know of no responds Sir, has ever made to the false prophet Joseph Smith jr. And his imaginary mind.
Basically,lly, Sir, is less than a Her, but I can't know that for sure. It depends on whether or not you consider female lesser than male, or one red female greater that one white female?
As for me I love all females, red, yellow, black or white and delightsome.

[Sir]

Yes, because you use moniker you have a mormon fake jesus.


Awesome.



I too fail the comprehension thingie.
I do not have multiple names, only mulitple personalities.
I too am a hypocriter; yes that is a word, really.
As of this date, I know of no responds Sir, has ever made to the false prophet Joseph Smith jr. And his imaginary mind.
Basically,lly, Sir, is less than a Her, but I can't know that for sure. It depends on whether or not you consider female lesser than male, or one red female greater that one white female?
As for me I love all females, red, yellow, black or white and delightsome.

Um....wow.....

[RealFakeHair]

Awesome.




Um....wow.....

Now go and have a wonderful weekend, U hear.:cool:

[James Banta]

So because I use a moniker instead of my real name it means I have a false Jesus?

Buwahahahaha........

Thank you Ancient Mariner (aka. James Banta). Be sure to let "Apologette" know that, k?

Oh, and since you seemed to fail the comprehension thing too, go back and realize that it is Apologette who started complaining about names. It was Apologette that brought up the idea that I use multiple names.

Basically, your complaint is with her, not me. Not sure how I can be a hypocrite for simply responding to one of your fellow anti-mormon's charges.

But knowing you needed to release some angst, no matter how misdirected, I forgive you. :)

I quoted that false jesus stuff directly from you as you told Apologette that is what her Jesus told her to do.. I turned it back on you, That is all I did there.. If that is what you meant to say when you said it then that is what I am saying now..

I admitted to using that name on CARM for a while.. It didn't work for me.. I didn't like it.. I am not ashamed of using my real name when I defend my faith in God, His word, or His provision for my salvation.. You on the other hand very will might be ashamed of mormonism.. I know I sure would be if I had to defend it..

As you use a FALSE NAME to hide your real name from the world and attack other for doing the same thing the word hypocrite comes into my mind.. I don't care if you want to hide you iden***y or not but to do so and then attack others for doing the same thing is the actions of a hypocrite.

Thank you for your forgiveness.. You can have mine anytime you ask for it.. IHS jim

[Pa Pa]

I can't say I didn't try to use a different name here and a different name on CARM.. It dis work for me.. I don't see the use of it.. But you seem to be able to do so.. I know that you name isn't Sir.. So you are using different names.. I guess being able to mask yourself in false names is what your jesus teaches you to do.. The word hypocrite over this S T U P I D complaint is resounding in my mind.. IHS jim

Acient Mariner?

[Sir]

As you use a FALSE NAME to hide your real name from the world and attack other for doing the same thing the word hypocrite comes into my mind.. I don't care if you want to hide you iden***y or not but to do so and then attack others for doing the same thing is the actions of a hypocrite.

Thank you for your forgiveness.. You can have mine anytime you ask for it.. IHS jim

Would you kindly show us where I have attacked anyone for using a moniker?

Obviously that would be pretty silly of me if I did that, so i would like for you to substantiate your wild accusation.

I know you can't...or won't.

What do you call someone who makes a false accusation against another?

[Libby]

Billy has used my real name on this board a few times. He got it off of Russ' website. I had to complain to Jill before he would stop doing it.

[Billyray]

Billy has used my real name on this board a few times. He got it off of Russ' website. I had to complain to Jill before he would stop doing it.

Libby your name was signed at the bottom of your testimony that you gave coming out of Mormonism so I hardly thought you were keeping it a secret. Some people give out their real names and others do not. And no you didn't have to complain to Jill all you had to do was simply ask me.

[Apologette]

Billy has used my real name on this board a few times. He got it off of Russ' website. I had to complain to Jill before he would stop doing it.

It is beyond comprehension that the owners of this forum allow a Hindu to post on the Mormonism section. Your interference bespeaks your lost state. You have denied not only Jesus Christ, but the false prophet Joseph Smith, in favor of some bizarre "guru" who tells you everything is a gigantic dream. You have no right or reason to post here, unless it is your goal to attack Christianity and Christians (as do other apostates), and side with the enemies of Christ. You are reprobate, or as the Scriptures state:

They profess that they know God; but in works they deny him, being abominable, and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate. ***us 1:16

New Advent.org:

"Perfidiæ is the complete and voluntary abandonment of the Christian religion, whether the apostate embraces another religion such as Paganism, Judaism, Mohammedanism, etc., or merely makes profession of Naturalism, Rationalism, etc. The heretic differs from the apostate in that he only denies one or more of the doctrines of revealed religion, whereas the apostate denies the religion itself, a sin which has always been looked upon as one of the most grievous. The "Shepherd" of Hermas, a work written in Rome in the middle of the second century, states positively that there is no forgiveness for those who have wilfully denied the Lord. [Similit. ix. 26, 5; Funk, Opera Patrum apostolicorum (Tübingen, 1887), I, 547]. Apostasy belonged, therefore, to the cl*** of sins for which the Church imposed perpetual penance and excommunication without hope of pardon, leaving the forgiveness of the sin to God alone."

[Apologette]

Acient Mariner?

So what? Are you that petty, such an arrogant "priest" of Mormonism, that you now can judge everybody's usage of a pen name (or pseudonym)? Where do you get your "authority" to judge another man's servant - for Jim is Christ's servant, and you serve the Enemy of Christ.

"Perfidiæ is the complete and voluntary abandonment of the Christian religion, whether the apostate embraces another religion such as Paganism, Judaism, Mohammedanism, etc., or merely makes profession of Naturalism, Rationalism, etc. The heretic differs from the apostate in that he only denies one or more of the doctrines of revealed religion, whereas the apostate denies the religion itself, a sin which has always been looked upon as one of the most grievous. The "Shepherd" of Hermas, a work written in Rome in the middle of the second century, states positively that there is no forgiveness for those who have wilfully denied the Lord. [Similit. ix. 26, 5; Funk, Opera Patrum apostolicorum (Tübingen, 1887), I, 547]. Apostasy belonged, therefore, to the cl*** of sins for which the Church imposed perpetual penance and excommunication without hope of pardon, leaving the forgiveness of the sin to God alone." New Advent.org speaking of the early church's at***ude toward apostates.

[Apologette]

Would you kindly show us where I have attacked anyone for using a moniker?

Obviously that would be pretty silly of me if I did that, so i would like for you to substantiate your wild accusation.

I know you can't...or won't.

What do you call someone who makes a false accusation against another?

You certainly did do so, and furthermore as I pointed out, you use a different name on CARM (which, thankfully, I have on ignore).

[James Banta]

Would you kindly show us where I have attacked anyone for using a moniker?

Obviously that would be pretty silly of me if I did that, so i would like for you to substantiate your wild accusation.

I know you can't...or won't.

What do you call someone who makes a false accusation against another?

You attack Apologette for doing the same thing you are doing.. Having differenet alias on different fourms.. That is what is bringing the word Hipotric to my mind right along side thoughts of you.. Why don't you either do what you do so often when you lose point of argument and just stop posting on the subject.. I would never expect you to be descent and apologize for a slanderous attack of anyone... IHS jim

[James Banta]

Acient Mariner?

Yes I tried to use that name, so what.. It was done within the rules.. We were all allowed to use a different name when CARM change it's format. So what is your point.. Was it that I did tell everyone right away? I know of no rule that said I had to to that.. Still when asked if I was James Banta I said, yes. Just what is your point? Straining at a Gnat.. IHS jim

[Sir]

You attack Apologette for doing the same thing you are doing.. Having differenet alias on different fourms.. That is what is bringing the word Hipotric to my mind right along side thoughts of you.. Why don't you either do what you do so often when you lose point of argument and just stop posting on the subject.. I would never expect you to be descent and apologize for a slanderous attack of anyone... IHS jim

Nope, you still show where I "attacked" her for using multiple. I acknowledged that she did, but that hardly cons***utes an attack.

So that does not make me a hipotric, whatever that is anyway! :p

Why do you want me to be "descent" and apologize for simply pointing out the various names of Apologette? Must I come down to be on your level [descent]?

Again, the only person who ever made an attack on monikers was you, that stated that not using your real name is a reflection of the jesus you worship.

Hmmmm......

[Sir]

Yes I tried to use that name, so what.. It was done within the rules.. We were all allowed to use a different name when CARM change it's format. So what is your point.. Was it that I did tell everyone right away? I know of no rule that said I had to to that.. Still when asked if I was James Banta I said, yes. Just what is your point? Straining at a Gnat.. IHS jim

The point was you said using a name other than your real one is a reflection of the jesus you worship.

Papa and I simply pointed out that you just condemned yourself and all others in your camp.

But now you and apologette simply are trying to sweep your pretty funny accusation away since it basically destroyed everyone who posts on these boards.

Buwahahahaha........

"Move along, there is nothing to see here......"

James, you remind me of Joe Biden, always slipping up and making comments that hurt your own agenda. :p

[John T]

You attack Apologette for doing the same thing you are doing.. Having differenet alias on different fourms.... would never expect you to be descent and apologize for a slanderous attack of anyone... IHS jim

Is there any difference in what you describe, and the fact that this poster actually CONDONES by his failure to condemn another poster's attempt to destroy the marriage of another, unnamed poster?

In both instances, the attempt to destroy the other using words is tantamount to attempted murder by the voice.

In speaking of murder, Jesus clarifies the commandment:

Matthew 5: 21 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment:
22 But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire
To ***ail a person for no reason or having no proof of what that person is called is "verbal murder".

Matthew 15:19 For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies:
20 These are the things which defile a man:


John 8:44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.
45 And because I tell you the truth, ye believe me not

That is very important to call a person a pedophile, it is important to have evidence that he had sex, or advances to young girls, pre ****scent teens. ot to call someone a theif and embezzler, to have evidence that he caused a bank to fail, or to call a person a con man, it is important to have evidences that he conned people.

But iit is NOT wrong to call those who seek to destroy people for no reason, other than to "win points for Joe" murderers, or moral reprobates, or any other adjective that fits because you tell the truth, and have proof posted in the miscreant's own words on a public forum.

Finally, from the words of Jesus, it is NOT WRONG to call those sorts of people who continually publish murderous thoughts and insults SLAVES OF SATAN.

According to the words of Jesus in John 8, from the beginning (pre Genesis 1) Satan was a murderer. There is no truth in Satan, and likewise the Mormons, who, BY DEFINITION are SLAVES OF SATAN.

Surely there will be those objecting to what I posted, and will seek to have this removed, so I ask in advance to state which scriptures I cited are incorrect. Then if the Scriptures I cited are incorrect, then which of the inferences I made, based upon those Scriptures are wrong?

If both the Scriptures and the inferences are correct, then there is no logical reason why this post should be erased, unless someone is......... never mind.

[Pa Pa]

Yes I tried to use that name, so what.. It was done within the rules.. We were all allowed to use a different name when CARM change it's format. So what is your point.. Was it that I did tell everyone right away? I know of no rule that said I had to to that.. Still when asked if I was James Banta I said, yes. Just what is your point? Straining at a Gnat.. IHS jim

Went over well when you finally told people who were, didn't it?

[Pa Pa]

The point was you said using a name other than your real one is a reflection of the jesus you worship.

Papa and I simply pointed out that you just condemned yourself and all others in your camp.

But now you and apologette simply are trying to sweep your pretty funny accusation away since it basically destroyed everyone who posts on these boards.

Buwahahahaha........

"Move along, there is nothing to see here......"

James, you remind me of Joe Biden, always slipping up and making comments that hurt your own agenda. :p

Joe and Jim...the gifts that keep on giving. :)

[Pa Pa]

You attack Apologette IHS jim

Because it is all she can do...I wonder if she wonders why her stalker is not stalking? You see I can leave her alone...she cannot do the same for me. BTW...note how she has unleashed hell here because someone dared oppose her...so much for her going back to the vomit pool.

[Apologette]

edited for style

[John T]

BTW...note how she has unleashed hell here because someone dared oppose her...so much for her going back to the vomit pool.

YOU are the one who first began the act of murdering through your words a poster's marriage.

then you have the GALL to complain anout another poster?

Thou art a hypocrite! May the Lord rebuke you! Get thee hence, Satan!

[Apologette]

edited for style

[Apologette]

edited for style

[Sir]

Get real! Your cult "brother" is the one who started this whole thing - and his name is PAPA. You just blatantly lied. You know the truth, but discard it in favor of your priesthood rat pack. A little lying for the Lord, right?

Really?

Show me where I "attacked" anyone for using multiple names. Keep in mind, simply pointing out someone's multiple names is not an attack.

Can you?

Will you?

My money says you will not because you cannot.

Which makes pounding your chest proclaiming ME to be a liar quite.....hypocritical.

[James Banta]

The point was you said using a name other than your real one is a reflection of the jesus you worship.

Papa and I simply pointed out that you just condemned yourself and all others in your camp.

But now you and apologette simply are trying to sweep your pretty funny accusation away since it basically destroyed everyone who posts on these boards.

Buwahahahaha........

"Move along, there is nothing to see here......"

James, you remind me of Joe Biden, always slipping up and making comments that hurt your own agenda. :p

That's ok you remind me of Bill Clinton. Inventing ways to lie while still believing you are telling the truth.. Did I lie when I was asked who I really was? NOPE.. I admitted it without balking.. You seem to think this somehow proves that the Bible is in error when it reaches that all who believe in Jesus will not die but have everlasting life. That that life (salvation) is given by God by His grace to all who have faith in Jesus and NOT BY WORKS. So Clinton, I mean Sir, tell me what the name we use here have to do with the truth of mormonism verses the Christian teaching that the truth is in Jesus.. IHS jim

[James Banta]

Joe and Jim...the gifts that keep on giving. :)

Clinton and Sir the lies that keep on coming.. IHS jim

[James Banta]

Went over well when you finally told people who were, didn't it?

Well? many were glade I came back.. The mormons were disappointed.. Things that make you go HUMMMM... IHS jim

[James Banta]

Really?

Show me where I "attacked" anyone for using multiple names. Keep in mind, simply pointing out someone's multiple names is not an attack.

Can you?

Will you?

My money says you will not because you cannot.

Which makes pounding your chest proclaiming ME to be a liar quite.....hypocritical.

Belittling Apologette for these names.


Krusader
Apologette
CARMella
Athanasius
Catherine Aurelia

A rose by any other name still smells like a rose that got sprayed on by my ****er spanial.

You don't remember doing this? Maybe in your Bill Clinton king of though processes you don't think of it as actually being an attack.. IHS jim

[Pa Pa]

YOU are the one who first began the act of murdering through your words a poster's marriage.

then you have the GALL to complain anout another poster?

Thou art a hypocrite! May the Lord rebuke you! Get thee hence, Satan!

Read in context...I am writting a Bible you can quote out of context, as you and the wicked witch are aware my comment was in relation to you guys "Christians" killing Mormons, Jews, Muslims...what a list. In that context "we" Mormons will not be coming to kill you. What an ***...

[Pa Pa]

YOU are the one who first began the act of murdering through your words a poster's marriage.

then you have the GALL to complain anout another poster?

Thou art a hypocrite! May the Lord rebuke you! Get thee hence, Satan!


Belittling Apologette for these names.


Krusader
Apologette
CARMella
Athanasius
Catherine Aurelia

A rose by any other name still smells like a rose that got sprayed on by my ****er spanial.

You don't remember doing this? Maybe in your Bill Clinton king of though processes you don't think of it as actually being an attack.. IHS jim
I thought is was funny! :)

[Sir]

Belittling Apologette for these names.


Krusader
Apologette
CARMella
Athanasius
Catherine Aurelia

A rose by any other name still smells like a rose that got sprayed on by my ****er spanial.

You don't remember doing this? Maybe in your Bill Clinton king of though processes you don't think of it as actually being an attack.. IHS jim

You are confused. I didn't belittle her for having those names. That was the point. I don't care what she calls herself and i don't care how many different names she uses. She is the same person and the person (not the names) is what my reference to the rose was about.

remember it was you that made the argument that using a false name is akin to having a false jesus. And it was Apologette that made the claim that I used multple usernames. So the "attack" about names was you guys. My argument isn't about the names but rather the person behind those names is still the same bitter, anti-christ, anti-mormon, false-christianity bigot regardless of what she calls herself.

[Libby]

Libby your name was signed at the bottom of your testimony that you gave coming out of Mormonism so I hardly thought you were keeping it a secret. Some people give out their real names and others do not. And no you didn't have to complain to Jill all you had to do was simply ask me.

That's not true. I asked you several times, but you kept doing it. I finally had Jill delete the link (and asked Russ to remove my "testimony", such as it was), so that no one else would decide it was "okay" to use my real name, on random boards. I have never used it here, Billy, so I don't know why you would think it was okay.

[Libby]

It is beyond comprehension that the owners of this forum allow a Hindu to post on the Mormonism section. Your interference bespeaks your lost state. You have denied not only Jesus Christ, but the false prophet Joseph Smith, in favor of some bizarre "guru" who tells you everything is a gigantic dream. You have no right or reason to post here, unless it is your goal to attack Christianity and Christians (as do other apostates), and side with the enemies of Christ. You are reprobate, or as the Scriptures state:

I have zero interest in your opinion of me. As an ex-mormon, I have an occasional interest in this board and I have as much right to post here as you do. This is not CARM, Apologette, and I don't answer to you.

You started this thread about, supposed, cyber stalking and I had a perfect example, right from this board...although, I think you are stretching to consider someone using your real name as "cyber stalking". I certainly don't consider Billy a cyber stalker, but it was kind of annoying that he took the liberties with my name that he did. Annoying..yes. Stalker? No.

[alanmolstad]

I just wish all you guys would make more free use of the different IGNORE settings on the different forums you are members of.

Trust me, is ends a lot of problems...


I had an issue with a guy here on this forum that followed me to another website and started to do things i thought to be 'stocking"

I simply placed his name on IGNORE and that was the end of that.

[Apologette]

edited for style

[Billyray]

That's not true. I asked you several times, but you kept doing it. I finally had Jill delete the link (and asked Russ to remove my "testimony", such as it was), so that no one else would decide it was "okay" to use my real name, on random boards. I have never used it here, Billy, so I don't know why you would think it was okay.

Libby what you said is false. You name along with your testimony coming out of Mormonism was on Russ' site and Russ is the one who originally started a new thread with your testimony not me. I quoted sections of your testimony along with the link several times because it was already discussed on this board and it was relavant to our discussion about mormonism and your criticism about mormonism and then your change of heart. You asked me not to use your name and after that point I did not use your name. In fact other than the original link I recall only using your first name once and I went back within several minutes and editted it myself prior to you even asking me to do so. When Russ originally put up the thread and you were critical of Mormonism you didn't seem to mind it but when you changed your position you were obviously not OK with what you said and that is obvious by the fact that you had Jill erase all posts with your testimony in them and you had Russ erase your testimony on his site as well. Your views have obviously changed again and that is fine but your statements critical of Mormonism were certainly relevant on the mormon board especially since they were already discussed here on Russ' thread started specifically about you and your testimony.

[Apologette]

edited for style

[Sir]

Get the word right, it's "stalking" not "stocking." Geesh!

This is how a person in a supervisory position in social work helping abused women by men acts towards other christians, of all people.

Imagine that.

*shudder*

Maybe she is in that position to make women realize that maybe they didn't have it as bad with their abused men. LOL

[Pa Pa]

Maybe because your pals, the Mormons here, have been doing so, or har***ing Christians about what names they use on other sites. This has nothing to do with apologetics and is simply a moronic ploy by Mormons to NOT answer questions about their pedophile, sexal-stalker prophet by diverting attention to something dumb and dumber.

Futhermore, so what if your name was posted on the bottom of your "testimony?" Whose name should have been posted? It's all a dream anyway so don't worry about it.

I have never done so...and you know it.

[Sir]

I have never done so...and you know it.

She is confused, Papa.

She made the first comment about "How many different username accounts do you have" and then James banta began saying that using a fake name means you have a fake jesus.

But when we simply point out their various name son boards they get all upset and claim we are attacking them for their names.

*shrug*

Misguided they are.

[Pa Pa]

Maybe because your pals, the Mormons here, have been doing so, or har***ing Christians about what names they use on other sites. This has nothing to do with apologetics and is simply a moronic ploy by Mormons to NOT answer questions about their pedophile, sexal-stalker prophet by diverting attention to something dumb and dumber.

Futhermore, so what if your name was posted on the bottom of your "testimony?" Whose name should have been posted? It's all a dream anyway so don't worry about it.

Leave Libby alone she is to good for you to run down...stick with me.

[John T]

I just wish all you guys would make more free use of the different IGNORE settings on the different forums you are members of.

Trust me, is ends a lot of problems...


I had an issue with a guy here on this forum that followed me to another website and started to do things i thought to be 'stocking"

I simply placed his name on IGNORE and that was the end of that.

Ah, if simple answers were indeed simple solutions!

In vain, I urged some Christian posters to do that, and the reasons for the refusals range from the "romantic" view that "I can make a difference in these case-hardened TBMs" to the "vengeful" "I will demonstrate the soft underbelly of Mormons".

The reality is that NEITHER extreme works here, and there is no middle ground whereby rational discussion can rule.

Two things are simultaneously at work here:

1) The mormons here are posting evil things. One went so far as to call another poster "***..." and other sordid things: Another accused a female poster of wanting to be a man.

2) The other thing going on is that there is a "benign neglect" of the moderation on this particular forum, and I do not know if that is a universal over the entire site.

The reasons for these conditions existing simultaneously are known to the administrators, and perhaps to close friends. None of the posters fit into either category. However the decision to let the forum slide due to "benign neglect" must not have been done on a whim.

With the legacy of her father's great work in apologetics riding on her shoulders Jill HAD to make decisions that required a greater degree of effort in certain other places.

That is the only logical explanation we can come to, other than the absurd one that she is now wearing garments. :D

Until Jill reveals the underlying reason for her decision, we must honor that, and take appropriate actions that meet our needs without having to commit "blogicide" and be banned for posting retaliatory or objecting posts to the pervasive evil of the TBM mormons who post here.

My way of handling the situation is to AGAIN take my leave willingly. I have exhausted PMs and pointing out the evil of the mormon posters because I came to the conclusion that nothing mattes, EVEN THE PROVED AND ILLEGAL CYBER STALKING OF ANOTHER.

For me, that is the best solution; for others it is a different solution. Top paraphrase Burke: "Evil flourishes on WM because those the good people who objected to it are not taken seriously by others."

[Pa Pa]

Ah, if simple answers were indeed simple solutions!

In vain, I urged some Christian posters to do that, and the reasons for the refusals range from the "romantic" view that "I can make a difference in these case-hardened TBMs" to the "vengeful" "I will demonstrate the soft underbelly of Mormons".

The reality is that NEITHER extreme works here, and there is no middle ground whereby rational discussion can rule.

Two things are simultaneously at work here:

1) The mormons here are posting evil things. One went so far as to call another poster "***..." and other sordid things: Another accused a female poster of wanting to be a man.

2) The other thing going on is that there is a "benign neglect" of the moderation on this particular forum, and I do not know if that is a universal over the entire site.

The reasons for these conditions existing simultaneously are known to the administrators, and perhaps to close friends. None of the posters fit into either category. However the decision to let the forum slide due to "benign neglect" must not have been done on a whim.

With the legacy of her father's great work in apologetics riding on her shoulders Jill HAD to make decisions that required a greater degree of effort in certain other places.

That is the only logical explanation we can come to, other than the absurd one that she is now wearing garments. :D

Until Jill reveals the underlying reason for her decision, we must honor that, and take appropriate actions that meet our needs without having to commit "blogicide" and be banned for posting retaliatory or objecting posts to the pervasive evil of the TBM mormons who post here.

My way of handling the situation is to AGAIN take my leave willingly. I have exhausted PMs and pointing out the evil of the mormon posters because I came to the conclusion that nothing mattes, EVEN THE PROVED AND ILLEGAL CYBER STALKING OF ANOTHER.

For me, that is the best solution; for others it is a different solution. Top paraphrase Burke: "Evil flourishes on WM because those the good people who objected to it are not taken seriously by others."

John...seriously when have you ever advocated kindness to anyone other than a Christian; and seldom to them.

[John T]

Leave Libby alone she is to good for you to run down...stick with me.
Your promise to ignore Apologette did not last 24 hours.

Yep, you are a man of your word.

[Pa Pa]

Your promise to ignore Apologette did not last 24 hours.

Yep, you are a man of your word.

It was not a promise, just something I did. Where did I give my word I would not respond to her...and how is this an answer to what I wrote concerning you? At least she answers question or charges...maybe you could learn something from her.

[alanmolstad]

Until Jill reveals ....
It's none of your business what Jill does with her website.

You are not expected to understand what she does, and you are not expected to judge what she does.

she has the right to run her website any way she wants....case-closed!

You.......You on the other hand gave your word that you would follow her rules about how to post on her site.

You didnt have to agree to this, and you dont have to come to this site at all.
But if you do come to her site and post here, you better keep your word that you gave her and everyone else here.


I may disagree with guys like Papa, but i watch my posts to make sure that every word i write is in keeping with the rules that both Papa and I have agreed to be held under.


You want to follow different rules?...fine, go start your own website and you can make up your own rules too!


but here, here you better keep your word and follow the rules because to do different is to show yourself to be a very poor reflection of the faith you so highly claim.

[Apologette]

It's none of your business what Jill does with her website.

You are not expected to understand what she does, and you are not expected to judge what she does.

she has the right to run her website any way she wants....case-closed!

You.......You on the other hand gave your word that you would follow her rules about how to post on her site.

You didnt have to agree to this, and you dont have to come to this site at all.
But if you do come to her site and post here, you better keep your word that you gave her and everyone else here.


I may disagree with guys like Papa, but i watch my posts to make sure that every word i write is in keeping with the rules that both Papa and I have agreed to be held under.


You want to follow different rules?...fine, go start your own website and you can make up your own rules too!


but here, here you better keep your word and follow the rules because to do different is to show yourself to be a very poor reflection of the faith you so highly claim.

I disagree. If this site is no longer being monitored (and it appears it is not) then we should be told that. Something is amiss here, and you know it, I'm sure.

[Pa Pa]

I disagree. If this site is no longer being monitored (and it appears it is not) then we should be told that. Something is amiss here, and you know it, I'm sure.

I like mods...they help keep me under control. She was online two days ago.

[alanmolstad]

a owner of a forum like this does not need to tell us squat.

The owner can set up all kinds of rules for people to follow, yet the owner does not have to follow any rules at all.

the owner has the right to highlight posts for any reason,
or clear posts for any reason,
or ban people for any reason.

The owner has no obligation to inform guests of anything.

The flip-side is that no guest 'has" to be here.
We are all here only because we want to be here.
I dont have to post here, but when I do I have to follow the given rules that cover such things.....EVEN IF OTHERS DO NOT FOLLOW THE SAME RULES!



I am responsible only for my own posts, they are the only posts i can actually control, thus I am to blame if my wording bends or breaks the rules...

[Apologette]

a owner of a forum like this does not need to tell us squat.

The owner can set up all kinds of rules for people to follow, yet the owner does not have to follow any rules at all.

the owner has the right to highlight posts for any reason,
or clear posts for any reason,
or ban people for any reason.

The owner has no obligation to inform guests of anything.

The flip-side is that no guest 'has" to be here.
We are all here only because we want to be here.
I dont have to post here, but when I do I have to follow the given rules that cover such things.....EVEN IF OTHERS DO NOT FOLLOW THE SAME RULES!



I am responsible only for my own posts, they are the only posts i can actually control, thus I am to blame if my wording bends or breaks the rules...

Yes they do. If they make rules then they should be enforced. John is right.

[alanmolstad]

Yes they do. If they make rules then they should be enforced. John is right.


John......can go make his own website where he can follow whatever rules he wants.

at John's website John can do whatever John wants to do.

If I were to become a guest at john's website, then John can make up rules for me to follow, and i have to follow them....

But along the way, John can do whatever he wants on his own website.
No one can force by rule or by moral imperative that john do squat.

if John wants to ban everyone just for the heck of it...guess what?..he gets to it's his site!


the flip side of this is that if I dont like the way John runs his site guess what?, he cant make me go there......

[Apologette]

John......can go make his own website where he can follow whatever rules he wants.

at John's website John can do whatever John wants to do.

If I were to become a guest at john's website, then John can make up rules for me to follow, and i have to follow them....

But along the way, John can do whatever he wants on his own website.
No one can force by rule or by moral imperative that john do squat.

if John wants to ban everyone just for the heck of it...guess what?..he gets to it's his site!


the flip side of this is that if I dont like the way John runs his site guess what?, he cant make me go there......

You have my opinion. Now "don't mess things up."

[James Banta]

You have my opinion. Now "don't mess things up."

See, this sounds like Alan is taking ownership of this site? I want to know.. Does he now rule WM? If so there will be major changes at least for me.. IHS jim

[Apologette]

See, this sounds like Alan is taking ownership of this site? I want to know.. Does he now rule WM? If so there will be major changes at least for me.. IHS jim

Well, I think Jill needs to address the issue. You can always come back to CARM - we ALL know who's in charge there, and we don't have to think twice about it (ha!). Diane is a good person, I've learned over the years. She does a really tough *** well. She is really fair and level-headed. I've been suspended multiple times from CARM for being a brat, and I deserved it!

[Libby]

Libby what you said is false. You name along with your testimony coming out of Mormonism was on Russ' site and Russ is the one who originally started a new thread with your testimony not me. I quoted sections of your testimony along with the link several times because it was already discussed on this board and it was relavant to our discussion about mormonism and your criticism about mormonism and then your change of heart. You asked me not to use your name and after that point I did not use your name. In fact other than the original link I recall only using your first name once and I went back within several minutes and editted it myself prior to you even asking me to do so. When Russ originally put up the thread and you were critical of Mormonism you didn't seem to mind it but when you changed your position you were obviously not OK with what you said and that is obvious by the fact that you had Jill erase all posts with your testimony in them and you had Russ erase your testimony on his site as well. Your views have obviously changed again and that is fine but your statements critical of Mormonism were certainly relevant on the mormon board especially since they were already discussed here on Russ' thread started specifically about you and your testimony.

What I said was not "false", Billy. I had to ask you two or three times to stop using my first name, when you addressed me in posts, on this forum. I did use my real name on Russ' forum, but I certainly, now, regret doing that, thanks to you.

[Libby]

Originally Posted by Apologette View Post

Maybe because your pals, the Mormons here, have been doing so, or har***ing Christians about what names they use on other sites. This has nothing to do with apologetics and is simply a moronic ploy by Mormons to NOT answer questions about their pedophile, sexal-stalker prophet by diverting attention to something dumb and dumber.

Futhermore, so what if your name was posted on the bottom of your "testimony?" Whose name should have been posted? It's all a dream anyway so don't worry about it.

I think you must have deleted this post. Looks like you are deleting all of your posts on this thread. What's up with that?

So, apparently, using someone's real name is only a problem, if it happens to you.

[alanmolstad]

Let it go ...

Its of little value here to drag in issues from other sites.

[John T]

I just wish all you guys would make more free use of the different IGNORE settings on the different forums you are members of.

Trust me, is ends a lot of problems...


I had an issue with a guy here on this forum that followed me to another website and started to do things i thought to be 'stocking"

I simply placed his name on IGNORE and that was the end of that.

Some may be gluttons for punishment. :)

Seriously, if the problem were limited to one poster, your advice would be spot-on. However, because the problem is rampant on the mormon board ( am not sure about elsewhere), then different tactics are in order.

Your opinion is noted. We thank you for it, but if some choose not to follow it, then that is their choice, OK?

[James Banta]

Well, I think Jill needs to address the issue. You can always come back to CARM - we ALL know who's in charge there, and we don't have to think twice about it (ha!). Diane is a good person, I've learned over the years. She does a really tough *** well. She is really fair and level-headed. I've been suspended multiple times from CARM for being a brat, and I deserved it!



Diane's insults over political matter were hard to take.. I don't like Glen Beck no matter what his political views are.. He ties all his politics to the Elders of mormonism saving the cons***ution.. He is disgusting!! To come back to CARM I have to kowtow to that kind of thinking.. I am very conservative politically, to be branded as a liberal because I reject one leader of the mormon right was serious name calling.. Name calling to the point that I would have been banned for life if I had said such things about her. I love her as my sister in Christ and don't question her place in the Kingdom.., I believe we both yearn for Jesus to be Ruler and King over all of us. Until He comes and sets up that Kingdom I am free to reject any or all men that wish political power over me.. I can't be a Republican because they have failed to do what they know has to be done.. They tax and spend as much as any Democrat. I am a Cons***utionalists, even though no one will listen to them they are far more concerned with our freedom under law than any man now running for high office.. This is my one and only political statement and my last word on rejoining CARM.. IHS jim

[Billyray]

I did use my real name on Russ' forum, but I certainly, now, regret doing that, thanks to you.

And that is the point Libby. The only possible way that I would know who you are was the fact that your real name was already linked to "Libby" in some way on this site.

1. You gave your testimony about the false teachings of Mormonism and your real name to Russ who published that on his website.

2. Russ then started a thread that included your testimony linking "Libby" to your real name by including both your testimony and his website link at the bottom of his post.

[Libby]

And that is the point Libby. The only possible way that I would know who you are was the fact that your real name was already linked to "Libby" in some way on this site.

1. You gave your testimony about the false teachings of Mormonism and your real name to Russ who published that on his website.

2. Russ then started a thread that included your testimony linking "Libby" to your real name by including both your testimony and his website link at the bottom of his post.

So? Why would you think that gives you some kind of permission to use my real name here? You never did it before, when the link was first posted, two or three years ago. Not until I started defending Mormons, again. You, then, decided it was okay to go after me in any way that I might find annoying.

[James Banta]

I thought is was funny! :)

Then you are A FOOL.. IHS jim

[Libby]

Namecalling is against the rules.

[Sir]

Namecalling is against the rules.

He knows.

That's the test of character, right? When you know what is right and wrong and you do right even when nobody is watching.

James seems to be of the at***ude that since Jill hasn't been around to slap everyone's wrists for breaking rules then he will simply join in and break them too.

He justifies it.

Character and integrity are not adjectives I use when describing James.

[James Banta]

You are confused. I didn't belittle her for having those names. That was the point. I don't care what she calls herself and i don't care how many different names she uses. She is the same person and the person (not the names) is what my reference to the rose was about.

remember it was you that made the argument that using a false name is akin to having a false jesus. And it was Apologette that made the claim that I used multple usernames. So the "attack" about names was you guys. My argument isn't about the names but rather the person behind those names is still the same bitter, anti-christ, anti-mormon, false-christianity bigot regardless of what she calls herself.

I would rather ask Apologette if she saw it as an attempt to belittle.. I don't like false names.. It makes me think that a person is ashamed of their witness.. BUT I don't know of any commandment that is broken by using a false name.. If you didn't mean belittlement here why would you keep bringing up false names used by another poster? I have never attacked you for your lack of frankness about your name here.. Call yourself what ever you want.. I for one am not ashamed of the Gospel of Christ.. You can't tell me you aren't, the action of all that hide scream so loudly I can't hear them tell me that they are not ashamed.. That include all, even Christians that hide.. If I were LDS I would use a false name too. There is nothing to be proud of in the Mormon gospel.. IHS jim

[Billyray]

So? Why would you think that gives you some kind of permission to use my real name here?
Because it was already linked to this site via Russ' thread and you freely gave out your real name to Russ and you stood by your testimony that you gave to him. Only recently have you seemed to have a change of heart and had all of the posts with your testimony deleted and also had them deleted from Russ' site. The bottom line is that your real name was already freely accessable to anyone who read the thread that was started by Russ about you and your testimony. If you didn't want it out there then you should not have made it available in the first place.

[Libby]

All you are doing is dancing around trying to justify something that was clearly wrong.

I did not give you permission to use my real name on this site or any other, just because my name was "out there on the internet". Preposterous.

Why did you only start using it two or three years, after it was posted? Likely, because you knew that I wouldn't like it. That has been your MO, every since I came back, defending Mormonism.

[Billyray]

All you are doing is dancing around trying to justify something that was clearly wrong.


As I recall I used your first name once and edited it out within several minutes after posting it and did so prior to you saying anything to me about it. Isn't that correct?

[Libby]

That is not my recollection. You used it once, in the beginning. I made a fuss. You deleted. A couple of months later you started using it again, in all of your posts to me. That's when I contacted Jill.

[James Banta]

That is not my recollection. You used it once, in the beginning. I made a fuss. You deleted. A couple of months later you started using it again, in all of your posts to me. That's when I contacted Jill.

You had better do it again! I will not change defending my faith and standing up for truth because you don't like it.. IHS jim

[Billyray]

That is not my recollection. You used it once, in the beginning. I made a fuss. You deleted. A couple of months later you started using it again, in all of your posts to me. That's when I contacted Jill.As I recall that is not at all what happened. Other than the link to Russ' site I used your first name once and I edited it out prior to you saying anything about it to me and I never used you last name. But anyone who linked to Russ' site from Russ' original thread was free to see your name that you freely gave to him. Right?

[Libby]

You had better do it again! I will not change defending my faith and standing up for truth because you don't like it.. IHS jim

Who asked you to? Do you even know what Billy and I are talking about??

[Sir]

As I recall that is not at all what happened. Other than the link to Russ' site I used your first name once and I edited it out prior to you saying anything about it to me and I never used you last name. But anyone who linked to Russ' site from Russ' original thread was free to see your name that you freely gave to him. Right?

Sooooo, why can't billyray simply stop using Libby's real name and end this silly argument?

Isn't it as easy as saying, "Oh, I see you would not like me to use it. Okay, I won't"

That is what a good christian would do.

[Billyray]

Sooooo, why can't billyray simply stop using Libby's real name and end this silly argument?


Libby is not her real name.

[Sir]

Libby is not her real name.

:eek:

duh....

If you did use her real name and she is asking you not to do it, I say, be a good christian and don't use it.

Is that hard?

[Billyray]

If you did use her real name and she is asking you not to do it, I say, be a good christian and don't use it.

Is that hard?

Didn't you read my post? I used her first name (not her last name) once and I went back on my own accord after several minutes and edited it out. She later PM me about it but I had already changed it back to "Libby" prior to me even reading her complaint.

[Billyray]

Why did you only start using it two or three years, after it was posted?
If you didn't want your real name ***ociated with "Libby" why did you give it to Russ in the first place and why didn't you have him remove it earlier especially Russ started the thread about you with a link directly to his site?

[Libby]

If you didn't want your real name ***ociated with "Libby" why did you give it to Russ in the first place and why didn't you have him remove it earlier especially Russ started the thread about you with a link directly to his site?

Basically, you are asking me why I put my real name out there? I won't do it again, Billy, thanks to you. I was naive and didn't expect anyone to take advantage. I wanted to put my real name to my testimony. I didn't expect people like you to use it on boards, like this, where I always use a pseudonym.

[Billyray]

Basically, you are asking me why I put my real name out there? I won't do it again, Billy, thanks to you.


Some people use their real names and others do not it is an individual preference. This is true at CARM, MADB, and here on this board. For those who use their real names I don't think that they see it as a big issue.




I was naive and didn't expect anyone to take advantage.

The way I see it is that when you were coming out of Mormonism and were critical of Mormonism and provided your testimony with your real name you were OK with it but when your views changed and you tried to distance yourself from your original criticism you seemed bothered by what you had written. Isn't that the case? BTW how did I take advantage of you?

[alanmolstad]

So? Why would you think that gives you some kind of permission to use my real name here? .

Good point...

But rather than bicker about the past i think you should just tell bill to call you be your forum name and let that be the end the matter...

If anyone calls you something else put them on ignore

[Sir]

I would rather ask Apologette if she saw it as an attempt to belittle.. I don't like false names.. It makes me think that a person is ashamed of their witness.. BUT I don't know of any commandment that is broken by using a false name.. If you didn't mean belittlement here why would you keep bringing up false names used by another poster?


No, she brought up the false notion that I use multiple names (a charge she often makes against LDS in an attempt to discredit them).

You then made the charge that using a false name means you have a false jesus.

I don't "keep bringing up false names". I simply pointed to all the names that apologette uses on different sites. I couldn't care less what she calls herself. According to you, though, she has a false jesus and is ashamed of Jesus because they aren't her real name.

That's the silly predicament you put yourself in.


I have never attacked you for your lack of frankness about your name here.. Call yourself what ever you want.. I for one am not ashamed of the Gospel of Christ.. You can't tell me you aren't, the action of all that hide scream so loudly I can't hear them tell me that they are not ashamed.. That include all, even Christians that hide.. If I were LDS I would use a false name too. There is nothing to be proud of in the Mormon gospel.. IHS jim

I wonder why your wife went by "neverending" and "blueskies". maybe she was ashamed of jesus. Or ashamed to be called Valerie Banta in public. ;)

[alanmolstad]

Basically, ..... I was naive .....

Well...then i share in being that too...

[Libby]

Well...then i share in being that too...

Live and learn, right?

[Libby]

Good point...

But rather than bicker about the past i think you should just tell bill to call you be your forum name and let that be the end the matter...

If anyone calls you something else put them on ignore

Oh, it's been settled (I HOPE). I only mentioned it, because Apologette was trying to make a silly case about only LDS doing such things. I wanted her to know that wasn't the case. She did start this thread, so it is on subject.

[alanmolstad]

Live and learn, right?

Well....live is correct...but is learn?

[Pa Pa]

Then you are A FOOL.. IHS jim

Why are you acting this way, Jim?

[James Banta]

No, she brought up the false notion that I use multiple names (a charge she often makes against LDS in an attempt to discredit them).

You then made the charge that using a false name means you have a false jesus.

I don't "keep bringing up false names". I simply pointed to all the names that apologette uses on different sites. I couldn't care less what she calls herself. According to you, though, she has a false jesus and is ashamed of Jesus because they aren't her real name.

That's the silly predicament you put yourself in.



I wonder why your wife went by "neverending" and "blueskies". maybe she was ashamed of jesus. Or ashamed to be called Valerie Banta in public. ;)

I said masking yourself in a different name is what you are taught by your Jesus.. You read what you want into everything. I never said about that being the evidence of having a false Jesus.. I am not is any predicament. I will use the scripture again to add authority to my position


Romans 1:16
For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek

If other are ashamed I can't help that.. All I can do is stay true to my Lord and stand up for him in my way.. That is to not hide my iden***y.. You know both of Valerie's nicks.. How is that hiding? She made it clear who she was and used the nick to express her faith in that nick.. Is that what you are doing? What is your real name? Are you ashamed to have people know? I am not neither was Valerie.. But Sir never has let anyone know who he is.. He is ashamed of His Jesus and the gospel according to mormonism. That isn't a predicament for me but you are sure in one.. IHS jim

[James Banta]

Why are you acting this way, Jim?

It isn't me that is acting the fool.. IHS jim

[James Banta]

Who asked you to? Do you even know what Billy and I are talking about??

Use of your real name.. If that bugs you you need to report about everything I say here from now in.. I am dropping the nice nice talk.. IHS jim

[Libby]

Use of your real name.. If that bugs you you need to report about everything I say here from now in.. I am dropping the nice nice talk.. IHS jim

That makes ZERO sense.

Have you used my real name anywhere on this board? Not that I'm aware of.

[Sir]

That makes ZERO sense.

Have you used my real name anywhere on this board? Not that I'm aware of.

LOL.....what else is new, Libby? James hasn't made sense for a long time now.

[Libby]

Yeah, well, I know James has some medical problems that can affect cognitive function. I really mean him no harm, but it would probably be best for him and all concerned if he gave up posting. There has got to be more positive ways to spend time. (I know there is, as a matter of fact, which is why I don't come here much, anymore :))..

I, sincerely, hope that Jill and her family are okay. It's not like her to abandon the board for such a long period of time. Hopefully, she is just busy...

[James Banta]

LOL.....what else is new, Libby? James hasn't made sense for a long time now.

Just saying so (Attacking me personally) doesn't make what you say true.. I can turn to my brothers in Christ here and they understand what I am talking about in every post I write.. You can't do it? Must be because I speak of heavenly things while you (and mormonism) speaks of earthly things such as eternal procreation.. While sex isn't the only thing about mormonism that men are drawn to it is an important point that shows just how sequed mormonism is as to doctrine..

The fact is to say that I hardly ever make sense is a LIE. If it were true you should be able to show how this statement is factual, you haven't accomplished anything but make an unsupported statement.. IHS jim

[James Banta]

Yeah, well, I know James has some medical problems that can affect cognitive function. I really mean him no harm, but it would probably be best for him and all concerned if he gave up posting. There has got to be more positive ways to spend time. (I know there is, as a matter of fact, which is why I don't come here much, anymore :))..

I, sincerely, hope that Jill and her family are okay. It's not like her to abandon the board for such a long period of time. Hopefully, she is just busy...

You are flat out LYING.. There is no cognitive disfunction in my mind. No more than there is in Papa mind.. Just because a person has been in a car accident doesn't make them S T U P I D.. To wander off the straight way (Jesus) into strange philosophies as you have done, makes me wonder if your thought processes haven't been strained because of some neurological defect.. See how easy a person can name call both directly as how I started this post and indirectly as I finished it.. You used just the second kind of personal attack.. If you keep it up, I will continue to use both! You are neither a mormon nor a Christian.. I don't see how your inpit has anything to do with this forum.. Libby just go away.. IHS jim

[Libby]

James, it's "dysfunction" and I never said you did have dysfunction. I said, your heart disease can cause cognitive dysfunction, due to a lack of oxygen. That's a fact. Not trying to pick on you, at all. I, actually feel very sorry for you.


Libby just go away.. IHS jim

"Go away, in His Service"?? Really? Do you think Jesus would tell me to go away?

At any rate, Jill told me I am welcome here, so you will have to live with it. Of course, you are always free to leave, yourself...or put me on ignore.

[alanmolstad]

Libby.....stay.....

[Libby]

Thanks, Alan.

I'll be here...off and on.

[alanmolstad]

Thanks, Alan.

I'll be here...off and on.
My own time here is precious and short.....like life itself.

[Libby]

Life is very short. You really start to know that, at my age.

[James Banta]

James, it's "dysfunction" and I never said you did have dysfunction. I said, your heart disease can cause cognitive dysfunction, due to a lack of oxygen. That's a fact. Not trying to pick on you, at all. I, actually feel very sorry for you.



"Go away, in His Service"?? Really? Do you think Jesus would tell me to go away?

At any rate, Jill told me I am welcome here, so you will have to live with it. Of course, you are always free to leave, yourself...or put me on ignore.

It's not my site.. It's Jill's.. If she says you are welcome here then to her you are.. I still would rather you were gone.. Jesus called men hypocrites liars, snakes and son of the devil.. That is pretty clear he didn't want them around.. You twist the Gospel into a universal salvation. You allow anyone that uses the name of Jesus to be His children. Even when they deny His divinity as the one and only true and living ETERNAL GOD.. IHS jim

[Libby]

Jesus loved the whole world, James. Why do Christians always focus, so much, on what they perceive to be his wrath? Do you not believe he intended for the Pharisees to be saved, as well?


I still would rather you were gone.

Why? Why not just put me on ignore, James? I really wouldn't mind.

[alanmolstad]

It's not my site.. It's Jill's.. If she says you are welcome here then to her you are.. I still would rather you were gone..



"Go into all the world...except if you run into Libby, then you are forgiven if you tell her to "get lost"

[Libby]

It's okay, Alan.

Doesn't matter.

"Just because I wander, doesn't mean I'm lost." ;)

[James Banta]

[Libby;136320]Jesus loved the whole world, James. Why do Christians always focus, so much, on what they perceive to be his wrath? Do you not believe he intended for the Pharisees to be saved, as well?

God wrath is for sin, all of us are in sin. Because of this God wrath is poured out on us. BUT Jesus has taken God's wrath for the sins of all who will believe in Him. Why do we point that out? Because it is the knowledge of sin that leads us to Jesus and therefore justification. Knowing about God's wrath is a reason we turn to Jesus..




Why? Why not just put me on ignore, James? I really wouldn't mind.

Because someone need to counter your UNBIBLICAL and untrue statements,, You need a keeper! IHS jim

[James Banta]

"Go into all the world...except if you run into Libby, then you are forgiven if you tell her to "get lost"

Alan, what scripture are you going to use to support the idea that a person need to be told, told again, and retold as Libby has been? Since she has been given the words of live knows then well in her head why am I not excused from giving her the word. Why then can't I agree with the Lord when he said:


Matthew 25:41
Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels

I think you are starting to emulate Libby in siding with error over truth IHS jim

[alanmolstad]

I think you are starting to emulate Libby......

I would hope that the best of what we both have rubs off on each other...that is true...

[Libby]

I would hope that the best of what we both have rubs off on each other...that is true...

Amen to that, Alan. We all have something positive to give.

James is correct that I have heard and know the "Ev version" of the gospel, probably, better than some who subscribe to it. I reject parts of it (what I consider to be ungodly parts) as it greatly disturbs my soul. I don't believe in the vengeful "god" of the Old Testament that some choose to worship. I do believe in Jesus and all of the miracles he performed and even that he died for our sins. I know that is true, because I have a Holy Spirit testimony of it. I know Jesus Christ, because he lives in me. But, there are many peripherals that I do not believe, because I cannot. I'm very comfortable with that, because I belong to Jesus and I know he understands. James..not so much. ;) But, it's okay. I love James and I pray for him.

[alanmolstad]

Amen to that, Alan. We all have something positive to give.

James is correct that I have heard and know the "Ev version" of the gospel, .

just so Im up to speed,,,whats the EV version again?

[Libby]

Just some basics (as that is a HUGE subject!) :)

-inerrant Bible
-we are born in sin and cannot choose God on our own
-God chooses for salvation (and by default, chooses for ****ation)
-Jesus Christ is the "only" way back to God
-Trinitarian understanding of God

[alanmolstad]

EV stands for......?

[Libby]

EV stands for......?

Evangelical

[alanmolstad]

Evangelical
as far as i know, there is no one single "Evangelical version of the Bible"

I like to use the NIV myself, but many Evangelicals only go with the King James.

To each his own, as all the versions are in agreement anyway...

[Libby]

as far as i know, there is no one single "Evangelical version of the Bible"

I like to use the NIV myself, but many Evangelicals only go with the King James.

To each his own, as all the versions are in agreement anyway...

All of the Bible versions are similar, yes (I have used them all over the last four years), but there are certainly many different "interpretations" of the Bible, even within the Evangelical community. I mostly studied Calvinism. I have even read most of Calvin's Ins***utes. I bought the two volume set a couple of years ago. Calvin was very intellectual and, perhaps, very spiritual, in his own way, but he wasn't really a very "nice" man. His understanding of God was a little on the dark side, IMO (but his times were very dark). I am sure he has received more light by now. :)

[James Banta]

All of the Bible versions are similar, yes (I have used them all over the last four years), but there are certainly many different "interpretations" of the Bible, even within the Evangelical community. I mostly studied Calvinism. I have even read most of Calvin's Ins***utes. I bought the two volume set a couple of years ago. Calvin was very intellectual and, perhaps, very spiritual, in his own way, but he wasn't really a very "nice" man. His understanding of God was a little on the dark side, IMO (but his times were very dark). I am sure he has received more light by now. :)

You and Alan seem to think that discussing this in the mormonism channel is proper.. THIS LINE OF DISCUSSION HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE SUBJECT OF THIS CHANNEL. Take it to the Christianity - Protestantism channel that is where it belongs.. There you can talk about Calvinism to your hearts content. Here either tie it to mormonism or don't discuss it at all.. There is a lot that could be said on this subject but NOT here.. IHS jim

[alanmolstad]

All of the Bible versions are similar, yes)

Good to hear.
i was just asking because it seemed like I had missed out on some new Bible translation that was getting well-known by others.

The thing with Calvin is that you can mix and match his ideas.
You do not have to think that just because he got one or two things correct that you have to toss in everything or forget it all.

Walter Martin would pick out I think it was 3 things from Calvin's 5 points and he would agree with them, but then turn around and toss out the 2 other things.

I had a topic with a link to a recording of Martin teaching on Calvin's 5 points, but the link is no longer connection so whoever ran that site has turned it off for now.

[Billyray]

All of the Bible versions are similar, yes (I have used them all over the last four years), but there are certainly many different "interpretations" of the Bible, even within the Evangelical community. I mostly studied Calvinism. I have even read most of Calvin's Ins***utes. I bought the two volume set a couple of years ago. Calvin was very intellectual and, perhaps, very spiritual, in his own way, but he wasn't really a very "nice" man. His understanding of God was a little on the dark side, IMO (but his times were very dark). I am sure he has received more light by now. :)

Libby you seem to forget that those who hold to Calvinism do not follow the man Calvin but follow what the Bible teaches. Each point has a basis in scripture. The five points of Calvinism were in response to 5 points of contention brought up by students of Arminius against tradition teaching within the Protestant church i.e. Armininian teaching was not the original Prostestant teaching. You can read more about it at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synod_of_Dort

If you have a specific question we can look at the Bible to see what the scriptures teach.

[Billyray]

Libby here were the 5 points of contention called the "Five Articles of Remonstrance" that were brought up by the followers of Arminius disagreeing with existing tenets of the reformed church. The 5 points of Calvinism were in response to the 5 points of contention brought up by the followers of Arminius.


Five Articles of Remonstrance
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Remonstrance_of_1610

[Libby]

Libby you seem to forget that those who hold to Calvinism do not follow the man Calvin but follow what the Bible teaches. Each point has a basis in scripture. The five points of Calvinism were in response to 5 points of contention brought up by students of Arminius against tradition teaching within the Protestant church i.e. Armininian teaching was not the original Prostestant teaching. You can read more about it at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synod_of_Dort

If you have a specific question we can look at the Bible to see what the scriptures teach.

No, I know that Calvinists claim that they do not follow Calvin, but they do accept a lot of his teachings (although, not all). Calvin, for example, believed baptism was necessary for salvation. I know, most Calvinists, today, do not believe that.

I don't mind discussing it with you, Billy. I am more interested in the character and nature of God, and how that seems to be contradictory to some Calvinist beliefs.

I don't think we are going to agree on the nature of God, because I do not accept a characterization of God, just because it was written down in the Bible.

[Libby]

My biggest problem with Calvinism is the idea that a benevolent and loving God would choose only a few of his children (his creation or however you want to describe us) for salvation.

If we are all equally sinful and God does not choose based on merit anyway, there is no perceived justice...none. The Bible tells us that our God is a just God.

*** 37:23
The Almighty is beyond our reach and exalted in power; in his justice and great righteousness, he does not oppress.

Psalm 33:5
The LORD loves righteousness and justice; the earth is full of his unfailing love.

Psalm 106:3
Blessed are they who maintain justice, who constantly do what is right.

[Billyray]

No, I know that Calvinists claim that they do not follow Calvin, but they do accept a lot of his teachings (although, not all).
For some reason it seems like you are saying that people believe things that are not Biblical. Is that what you are saying? If so can you give me an example?

[Billyray]

I am more interested in the character and nature of God, and how that seems to be contradictory to some Calvinist beliefs.


How does it conflict with what the Bible teaches?

[Libby]

How does it conflict with what the Bible teaches?

If God is a just God (and the Bible says he is), he will not arbitrarily pick and choose for salvation. Fact is, I don't believe he would pick and choose, at all. If we are all equally sinful (as you believe), and there is no selection by merit, then it would be incredibly unjust to choose just a few.

[Libby]

For some reason it seems like you are saying that people believe things that are not Biblical. Is that what you are saying? If so can you give me an example?

I think the Bible can be interpreted in many ways that are not in keeping with the true "spirit" of the Bible.

[Billyray]

If God is a just God (and the Bible says he is), he will not arbitrarily pick and choose for salvation.

It is not arbitrary--we just don't know the reasons that he does what he does. Clearly even Arminians believe that some are elected before the foundation of the world prior to any one of us even being born and this can't be changed (the basis for election is debated but the fact that God elects is not)

[Billyray]

I think the Bible can be interpreted in many ways that are not in keeping with the true "spirit" of the Bible.

Do you have a specific example so we can look at it?

[Libby]

It is not arbitrary--we just don't know the reasons that he does what he does. Clearly even Arminians believe that every one of us is elected or not from before the foundation of the world prior to any one of us even being born and this can't be changed (the basis for election is debated but the fact that each one is elected is not)

It's not just that we don't know....there is no possible explanation for that kind of inquity, unless you are suddenly a believer in reincarnation or the pre-existence.

[Libby]

Actually, even that doesn't explain it, if the choice isn't based on any kind of merit.

[Billyray]

....there is no possible explanation for that kind of inquity. . .
But you are judging God for what he does based on what you believe he should or should not do. Right?

[Billyray]

Actually, even that doesn't explain it, if the choice isn't based on any kind of merit.
Noboby is saved by merit. We are saved by grace through faith and not by our works.

[Libby]

But you are judging God for what he does based on what you believe he should or should not do. Right?

Wrong. I don't believe that is something God does. That's your belief, not mine. I am trying to show you how it's not possible for a benevolent and loving God to behave in such an unjust fashion.

[Billyray]

Wrong. I don't believe that is something God does. That's your belief, not mine. I am trying to show you how it's not possible for a benevolent and loving God to behave in such an unjust fashion.

But you are judging the character of God and how he should or should not act based on what you think is right or wrong.

For exampe look at the OT--the parts where God told those to kill men woman and children--haven't you said that this was not right and judged God based on these sections of scripture?

[Billyray]

I am trying to show you how it's not possible for a benevolent and loving God to behave in such an unjust fashion.
Was God unjust to send the flood killing thousands of innocent babies?

[Billyray]

Exodus 11
4 So Moses said, “This is what the Lord says: ‘About midnight I will go throughout Egypt. 5 Every firstborn son in Egypt will die, from the firstborn son of Pharaoh, who sits on the throne, to the firstborn son of the female slave, who is at her hand mill, and all the firstborn of the cattle as well. 6 There will be loud wailing throughout Egypt—worse than there has ever been or ever will be again.

Was God unjust to kill all of firstborn in Egypt especially the young "innocent" babies?

[Billyray]

I am trying to show you how it's not possible for a benevolent and loving God to behave in such an unjust fashion.

Libby you can't accept the God of the Bible as given to us in the Bible. You have judged him as a uncaring and unfair God and in the process you have simply rejected all of the scripture that you don't like. The problem with this is that this has lead you astray.

[Libby]

I want to make one thing perfectly clear, Billy. I do not presume to "judge God". That is a very poor and extremely inaccurate view of my beliefs.

I have told you that I do not believe in an inerrant Bible, therefore, my beliefs about God were not formed "completely" from the Bible (although, they are, in part).

So, when you say I "judge God" that is simply not true. I understand it is true from YOUR perspective, but definitely not from mine.

My beliefs about God come, in part, from the Bible and other scripture, as well as my own personal relationship with with Jesus and the Divine. My understanding is not perfect and it's always in progress (as I believe is true for all). I reject whatever seems out of sync with God's character, as I understand it, in this time and place. That doesn't mean my view is in stone...it's not. We are all on the path and all learning as we go.

[Libby]

But you are judging the character of God and how he should or should not act based on what you think is right or wrong.

For exampe look at the OT--the parts where God told those to kill men woman and children--haven't you said that this was not right and judged God based on these sections of scripture?

No, I have said, I do not believe God did that.

Characterizing that belief as "judging God" is extremely inaccurate. If I don't believe God did it, to begin with, then how could I judge him for doing it?

[Libby]

Libby you can't accept the God of the Bible as given to us in the Bible.

Now, this is partially true. I don't accept "some of the things" attributed to God, by man, that are given to us in the Bible.

[Billyray]

I want to make one thing perfectly clear, Billy. I do not presume to "judge God". That is a very poor and extremely inaccurate view of my beliefs.



But that is what you are doing when you judge God by what you think he should or should not do.

[Billyray]

I reject whatever seems out of sync with God's character. . .

Which is exactly what I have been saying Libby--you reject scripture because it does not meet your standard of what God should or should not do. This gives you an excuse to say that the Bible is corrupted because the god you make up in your mind would never do something like that. Agree?

[Billyray]

No, I have said, I do not believe God did that.


But the Bible clearly teaches that he did and you have decided that God should not do that so you simply reject that section of scripture. This is what I mean when I say that you have judged God and decided what he should or should not do.

[Billyray]

I don't accept "some of the things" attributed to God, by man, that are given to us in the Bible.
Instead of accepting that the Bible is the word of God and accepting it as it is you have rejected parts that you do not like. And I would venture to say that you would do the same with other teachings that you feel objectionable with Calvinism. You might say something along the lines of "my God would never do that" so you just ignore that section of the Bible. Just because it may not make perfect sense to us does not give us the right to judge God and his actions.

[Libby]

But that is what you are doing when you judge God by what you think he should or should not do.

Again, I don't "judge God" at all. That is an untruth.


Characterizing that belief as "judging God" is extremely inaccurate. If I don't believe God did it, to begin with, then how could I judge him for doing it?

[Libby]

Which is exactly what I have been saying Libby--you reject scripture because it does not meet your standard of what God should or should not do. This gives you an excuse to say that the Bible is corrupted because the god you make up in your mind would never do something like that. Agree?

Your characterizations are always wildly inaccurate.


you reject scripture because it does not meet your standard of what God should or should not do.

I don't reject any scripture. I reject the premise that it is ALL from God.

You reject scripture, as well, Billy. You hold to only the Bible, when there are numerous other books, out there, that many thousands of people consider holy scripture (the Book of Mormon, the Bhagavad Gita, the Talmud, the Koran, etc). What is your "excuse" for rejecting those "scriptures"?

[Libby]

Instead of accepting that the Bible is the word of God and accepting it as it is you have rejected parts that you do not like.

I question parts that don't make sense or seem incongruent with God's nature. God gave us a brain for a reason.


And I would venture to say that you would do the same with other teachings that you feel objectionable with Calvinism.

Absolutely, I would and do.

[Billyray]

Again, I don't "judge God" at all. That is an untruth.

That is exactly what you are doing Libby but you are unaware that you are even doing that. You have a set of criteria of how you think God should do things and when he doesn't do things to your liking you disregard scripture as "man made" and inaccurate.

[Billyray]

Your characterizations are always wildly inaccurate.



Not at all, you are just in denial.

Let me ask you do believe that God caused a flood like the Bible speaks about that killed thousands of "innocent" children?

[Libby]

That is exactly what you are doing Libby but you are unaware of even doing it. You have a set of criteria of how God should do things and when he doesn't do things to your liking you disregard scripture as "man made" and inaccurate.

You are actually describing yourself. You have a set of criteria that can be found only in the Bible, thus rejecting anything or anyone that may have a slightly different view, based on other scripture or personal experience.

[Libby]

Not at all, you are just in denial.

And, thus the merry-go-round ride begins. Nuh uh. ;)

We are never going to see eye to eye (at least, not this time around).

[Billyray]

I question parts that don't make sense or seem incongruent with God's nature.

Incongruent with God's nature based on what you think his nature should be like.

[Billyray]

You are actually describing yourself.

No Libby I am describing you and you are denying that you are doing this.

[Billyray]

And, thus the merry-go-round ride begins.

Call it what you want Libby but what I have said is the truth.

[Libby]

Call it what you want Libby but what I have said is the truth.

It may be what you believe, but it's not the truth. And, I am in a much better position to know what I believe, than you are.

But, that's okay. What you or I believe, here and now, is really not important in the bigger picture.

[Sir]

It may be what you believe, but it's not the truth. And, I am in a much better position to know what I believe, than you are.

But, that's okay. What you or I believe, here and now, is really not important in the bigger picture.

Libby,

Billyray needs to feel he is always right. So I just let him spin on his merry-go-round so he can feel that he has what he thinks is right.

That's why he has 20,000+ posts here alone trying to tell others that what they believe is false.

It speaks more about him than any of us.

[Billyray]

Billyray needs to feel he is always right.
Sir do you agree with Libby that large sections of the Bible are inaccurate as written?

[Sir]

Sir do you agree with Libby that large sections of the Bible are inaccurate as written?

If I ever see a post by billyray that doesn't have a ? at the end, I will be utterly surprised.

[Billyray]

If I ever see a post by billyray that doesn't have a ? at the end, I will be utterly surprised.

If you answer my question you will know that I am right about what I have said about Libby.

[Sir]

If you answer my question you will know that I am right about what I have said about Libby.

Like I just said, I know you need to feel like your are always right.

So go ahead!

[Billyray]

Like I just said, I know you need to feel like your are always right.

So go ahead!

But in this case I am right and deep down you agree with me, unless of course you like Libby reject large sections of the Bible because your god would not act like that.

[Sir]

But in this case I am right and deep down you agree with me, unless of course you like Libby reject large sections of the Bible because your god would not act like that.

Whoops...I forgot.

Billyray also needs to try and tell others that they, deep-down, agree with him, thus helping him to feel a more sense of security in his thinking he is always right. :p

So again....if you need to believe I agree with you to help you feel right, go ahead. I really don't care.

:)

[Billyray]

Whoops...I forgot.



Whoops.....I forgot. You don't really want to engage in meaningful conversation.

[Sir]

Whoops.....I forgot. You don't really want to engage in meaningful conversation.

Not with you.

Don't forget anymore.

Remember, you think you are always right, Mormonism is totally wrong and anti-biblical, and claim that you were once a Mormon (even though you make up silly falshoods like today about the food storage thing), so nobody can tell you anything that goes against your ideology.

That's why me and pretty much everyone else has decided that you ride on a merry-go-round that never stops spinning and have all decided to get off and simply let you continue to spin.

If you think you are right all the time, I say great! I hope everything works out for your best. :)

[Libby]

Whoops.....I forgot. You don't really want to engage in meaningful conversation.

You know what? That is actually much more true of you, than Sir.

I don't know why I even tried to engage you, again. I thought we were going to have a discussion about Calvinism, but what you really want to do is launch personal attacks. That's what you are about, Billy. Not "meaningful discussion".

[Billyray]

I thought we were going to have a discussion about Calvinism, but what you really want to do is launch personal attacks.

We are having a discussion about Calvinism and I am trying to show you that the reason you can't accept certain aspects of it is because you have decided for God what he should or should not do and by doing this you have rejected sections of the Bible and labeled those parts as untrue. This discussion is quite meaningful if you will simply open up to what I have been trying to show you.

[James Banta]

I would hope that the best of what we both have rubs off on each other...that is true...

I can hear Lot saying this same thing to Abram as he elected to go into the cities of the plain instead of staying in the hills.. I turn instead to the scripture:


2 Corinthians 6:14
Do not be bound together with unbelievers; for what partnership have righteousness and lawlessness, or what fellowship has light with darkness?
There is no way we as children of God should allow the ways of an unbeliever to rub off on us.. IHS jim

[James Banta]

Amen to that, Alan. We all have something positive to give.

James is correct that I have heard and know the "Ev version" of the gospel, probably, better than some who subscribe to it. I reject parts of it (what I consider to be ungodly parts) as it greatly disturbs my soul. I don't believe in the vengeful "god" of the Old Testament that some choose to worship. I do believe in Jesus and all of the miracles he performed and even that he died for our sins. I know that is true, because I have a Holy Spirit testimony of it. I know Jesus Christ, because he lives in me. But, there are many peripherals that I do not believe, because I cannot. I'm very comfortable with that, because I belong to Jesus and I know he understands. James..not so much. ;) But, it's okay. I love James and I pray for him.


So believing is God is the ability to reject His justice and only hold onto that part of him that is love? Then you deny the NT that teaches that those who reject Him are cast into the Lake of Fire? You go ahead and forget about all of God's attributes and I will accept Him as He has revealed Himself in His word.. Dismissing the part of the Bible you don't like puts you in denial of His word completely for it is written:


2 Timothy 3:16-17
All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.

You apparently don't appear to be adequate, equipped for this work being done on WM.. IHS jim

[James Banta]

Just some basics (as that is a HUGE subject!) :)

-inerrant Bible
-we are born in sin and cannot choose God on our own
-God chooses for salvation (and by default, chooses for ****ation)
-Jesus Christ is the "only" way back to God
-Trinitarian understanding of God

And all those are teaching supported in the Bible.. But your rejection of the Bible makes that support ineffective for you.. Your denial that Jesus is the Way, the Truth, and the Life, and that all men must come through Him to be with the Father makes you non, even anti Christian.. IHS jim

[Sir]

And all those are teaching supported in the Bible.. But your rejection of the Bible makes that support ineffective for you.. Your denial that Jesus is the Way, the Truth, and the Life, and that all men must come through Him to be with the Father makes you non, even anti Christian.. IHS jim

LOL....the Bible is inerrant because the Bible says so.

That's James' philosophy. Very circular.

[RealFakeHair]

LOL....the Bible is inerrant because the Bible says so.

That's James' philosophy. Very circular.

The Book of Mormon is the most perfect book on earth, because?
"I told the brethren, [the twelve Apostles] that the Book of Mormon was the most correct book of any on earth, and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than by any other book." JSHC 7 Vol., 4:461

[Sir]

The Book of Mormon is the most perfect book on earth, because?
"I told the brethren, [the twelve Apostles] that the Book of Mormon was the most correct book of any on earth, and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than by any other book." JSHC 7 Vol., 4:461

Yep. Thank you for demonstrating that you do not understand what circular logic is. Your attempt at re****ing my post to James with this one falls flat.

Try again, maybe?

Now, if the Book of Mormon stated in its pages that it is inerrant and the only book to be trusted, then you might have a point. But even then, the Bible does not even state that, so James uses circular logic to make his case and yet even his own circular logic states things that are untrue.

[RealFakeHair]

Yep. Thank you for demonstrating that you do not understand what circular logic is. Your attempt at re****ing my post to James with this one falls flat.

Try again, maybe?

Now, if the Book of Mormon stated in its pages that it is inerrant and the only book to be trusted, then you might have a point. But even then, the Bible does not even state that, so James uses circular logic to make his case and yet even his own circular logic states things that are untrue.

I have never used my re****el, did I spell that correctly?
Anyway, logic has no place in mormonlandism, that you are correct-tall.:confused:

[Libby]

That's the main problem with "holy books" telling you they are from God. I don't think any one holy book is completely from God, completely void of error creeping in from man, because men wrote them and men are far from perfect.

The LDS are correct about needing the spirit of discernment (the Holy Spirit) to establish truth from error. That is true for books and all things.

[Libby]

And all those are teaching supported in the Bible.. But your rejection of the Bible makes that support ineffective for you.. Your denial that Jesus is the Way, the Truth, and the Life, and that all men must come through Him to be with the Father makes you non, even anti Christian.. IHS jim

I don't reject the Bible, James. You and Billy can keep saying that, but it is simply not true.

[RealFakeHair]

That's the main problem with "holy books" telling you they are from God. I don't think any one holy book is completely from God, completely void of error creeping in from man, because men wrote them and men are far from perfect.

The LDS are correct about needing the spirit of discernment (the Holy Spirit) to establish truth from error. That is true for books and all things.

Being of a simple mind I can only take in One Holy Book at a time. I am too dumb to know which parts of this One Holy Book is correct and which are not.
So I've decided to believe it all.

[Libby]

I am just too dumb to know.

I doubt that (although, Sir may agree with you ;)).. :)

[Billyray]

. I don't think any one holy book is completely from God. . .
And the basis of your belief is that the parts that you think are not consistent with your made up god you simply disregard. Right?

[Libby]

And the basis of your belief is that the parts that you think are not consistent with your made up god you simply disregard. Right?

The complete basis for my belief is the Holy Spirit...period.

[Billyray]

The complete basis for my belief is the Holy Spirit...period.

And the Holy Spirit told you that large sections of the Bible are false?

[Libby]

And the Holy Spirit told you that large sections of the Bible are false?

Not large sections, no. Some of it, yes.

[Billyray]

Not large sections, no. Some of it, yes.

Did the Holy Spirit tell you that there was not a flood and that the section of scripture that speaks about this is false?

[Libby]

Did the Holy Spirit tell you that there was not a flood and that the section of scripture that speaks about this is false?

No. There may have been some kind of local flood (or not) but, scientists tell us there was no global flood. (You guys are big on scientists verifying holy books, right?)

[Billyray]

No. There may have been some kind of local flood (or not) but, scientists tell us there was no global flood. (You guys are big on scientists verifying holy books, right?)
So scientists told you that there was not a flood and thus the section of the Bible that speaks about this is false. Correct?

[Libby]

There may have been some kind of local flood (or not) but, scientists tell us there was no global flood. (You guys are big on scientists verifying holy books, right?)

[Billyray]

There may have been some kind of local flood (or not) but, scientists tell us there was no global flood. (You guys are big on scientists verifying holy books, right?)

So your acceptance or rejection in this case of God's word is based on some scientist who has told you there was never a world wide flood and therefore the Bible is wrong. Is that a fair ***essment of what you believe?

[Libby]

I think scientists pretty much back up my own belief that God didn't create a global flood to kill off most of his creation.

[Billyray]

I think scientists pretty much back up my own belief that God didn't create a global flood to kill off most of his creation.

Do you believe science when it teaches that we evolved from a single cell thus disproving the first several chapters of Genesis?

[Billyray]

I think scientists pretty much back up my own belief that God didn't create a global flood to kill off most of his creation.

So you don't believe that anyone was killed in the flood?

[Libby]

I believe Genesis...but, I don't believe it literally. I think it is metaphorical.

[Libby]

So you don't believe that anyone was killed in the flood?

I don't even know if there was a flood. If there was, it likely wasn't global.

Enough for tonight.

Goodnight!

[Billyray]

I don't even know if there was a flood.

As I have stated before the way I see your position is that you have made up a god in your mind and how he should act then you reject the sections of scripture that doesn't go along with your made up god. You use what ever means necessary to throw out those sections of scripture.

[James Banta]

LOL....the Bible is inerrant because the Bible says so.

That's James' philosophy. Very circular.

Because God says so.. And that reasoning you call circular. May He forgive you. IHS jim

[James Banta]

That's the main problem with "holy books" telling you they are from God. I don't think any one holy book is completely from God, completely void of error creeping in from man, because men wrote them and men are far from perfect.

The LDS are correct about needing the spirit of discernment (the Holy Spirit) to establish truth from error. That is true for books and all things.

So, what you feel is a much better measure of truth then what God has already explained.. So to say "I know it's true because I have a feeling that it is" is more correct than to trust Jesus when He said the He us the Truth.. And that isn't circular thinking? WOW Unbelievable..

To believe the lies of men that has said that errors have been inserted into the text of the scripture is to deny the promises of God.. The only want you can really believe that God never made such a promise is to dent the deity of Jesus.. That is the mark of a nonbeliever a nonchristian.. IHS jim

[Libby]

Because God says so.. And that reasoning you call circular. May He forgive you. IHS jim

You are pulling a "Billy" with that kind of reasoning. You think, just because someone doesn't agree with your line of thinking, that they are disagreeing with GOD, himself. That is very faulty rationale.

[Billyray]

You think, just because someone doesn't agree with your line of thinking, that they are disagreeing with GOD, himself. That is very faulty rationale.

You are disagreeing with God because you throw out his word based on your own feelings, scientists, and any other excuse that you make up simply because your made up god wouldn't do what God has given to us in the Bible.

[Libby]

You are disagreeing with God because you throw out his word based on your own feelings, scientists, and any other excuse that you make up simply because your made up god wouldn't do what God has given to us in the Bible.

No, I do not "throw out HIS words" and I do not "disagree with GOD".

[Billyray]

No, I do not "throw out HIS words" and I do not "disagree with GOD".

Sure you do and I have showed you that you have but you are in denial.

[Libby]

Sure you do and I have showed you that you have but you are in denial.

No, you haven't. You have given me your opinion, just as I have given you mine.

[Billyray]

No, you haven't.

Sure I have. I have repeatedly shown you that you throw out the Bible when it disagrees with what you think God should or should not do. This is nothing more that making up your own god in your own mind.

[Libby]

Sure I have. I have repeatedly shown you that you throw out the Bible when it disagrees with what you think God should or should not do. This is nothing more that making up your own god in your own mind.

You must have been looking at your own posts, when you wrote that! :p

[Billyray]

You must have been looking at your own posts, when you wrote that!

I can go over sections of the Bible to prove what I said was true. Is that what you want me to do?

[James Banta]

You are pulling a "Billy" with that kind of reasoning. You think, just because someone doesn't agree with your line of thinking, that they are disagreeing with GOD, himself. That is very faulty rationale.

This is why I just quote the scripture.. I allow the Holy Spirit to teach the meaning.. I can't count all the time I have done just that and had LDS and other nonbelievers such as you tell me that my interpretation is wrong.. This is what you are doing here calling my reasoning that come directly from the scripture without any slant to it at all faulty.. My reasoning is that there is one God (Isaiah 43:10, Luke 12:29). My reasoning is that all who believe in HIM, Not is some man made creation no matter how close that creation looks like HIM is saved (John 3:15-16, 1 John 5:13). I will not interpret these p***ages they need no explanation.. IHS jim

[Libby]

I allow the Holy Spirit to teach the meaning..

So do I. I think there is a reason we don't always get the same answers. God gives us what we need (and can understand) at any given time. Really, the only thing that matters is our love of God and others, bottom line.

[Billyray]

So do I. I think there is a reason we don't always get the same answers.

Because Christians believe the Bible and you do not.

[Libby]

Because Christians believe the Bible and you do not.

I believe the Bible, just not your interpretation of it.

You reject parts of it, yourself, if it doesn't agree with your Calvinist views.

[Billyray]

I believe the Bible, just not your interpretation of it.


Was there a flood like the Bible speaks about?

[Billyray]

I believe the Bible, just not your interpretation of it.

1 Samuel 15:3
Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy everything that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.'"

Do you believe this part of the Bible?

[Billyray]

I believe the Bible, just not your interpretation of it.


Exodus 11
4 So Moses said, “This is what the Lord says: ‘About midnight I will go throughout Egypt. 5 Every firstborn son in Egypt will die, from the firstborn son of Pharaoh, who sits on the throne, to the firstborn son of the female slave, who is at her hand mill, and all the firstborn of the cattle as well.

Do you believe this part of the Bible?

[Billyray]

I believe the Bible, just not your interpretation of it.

Romans 9
13 Just as it is written: “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”


Do you believe this part of the Bible?

[James Banta]

Namecalling is against the rules.

Sure is but that didn't stop your friends from starting it did it? IHS jim

[James Banta]

He knows.

That's the test of character, right? When you know what is right and wrong and you do right even when nobody is watching.

James seems to be of the at***ude that since Jill hasn't been around to slap everyone's wrists for breaking rules then he will simply join in and break them too.

He justifies it.

Character and integrity are not adjectives I use when describing James.

You are one that started the name calling.. I have always said it accomplishes nothing and still you called me a liar.. I reported you and your post was deleted but you remained.. Yeah that upset me.. It shouldn't have but it did.. Si I raged against you fior some of your out and out false statements and personal attacks on me.. I am done and sorry for allowing my flesh to rule over the spirit who live within me.. You may of course continue.. IHS jim

[Libby]

Romans 9
13 Just as it is written: “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”


Do you believe this part of the Bible?

What, exactly, am I supposed to believe about your "proof text", Billy? That God is a "hater"?

If you believe God hates, I feel sorry for you.

[Billyray]

What, exactly, am I supposed to believe about your "proof text", Billy? That God is a "hater"?

If you believe God hates, I feel sorry for you.

Romans 9
13 Just as it is written: “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”


Do you believe this part of the Bible?

[alanmolstad]

I have had problems with ......
....This is from October of 2012....as I write this its what now?.....the start of 2015?!

Seems to me that Sir and Apologette have carried on like this longer than can be held as "normal".





Im just saying........

[alanmolstad]

I have had problems with Mormons listing on blogs and also here my personal name. I have never given a Mormon permission to do so, and I consider that type of behavior to be threatening and menacing.

However Apologette does raise a good issue and if we look at the listed rules that we all are to follow, we do see that we should always use the listed name here when talking about or addressing other guests.
This should be, and shall be the way we do things here,,,keeping the rules and maintaining this website as a friendly and safe place for all guests to visit.