Did Arafat die of aids?

Originally posted by church mouse guy:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by corinne:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by church mouse guy:
Bush......should ignore sodomites as they are Democrats like Blacks, Jews, and Muslims.

Click to expand...

ER... do I understand well what you wrote, Churchmouse? Democrats are sodomites, and blacks, jews and muslims, as well??? Could you please clarify this sentence for me? I want to make sure I understood you right before letting off steam.
Thanks

Corinne
http://www.christianresistance.com </font>[/QUOTE]With pleasure. There are 4 groups in the USA who vote Democrat--they are gays and lesbians (sodomites), Blacks, Jews, and Muslims.

The Constitution Party is complaining that some homosexuals got government appointments from Bush. If so, then Bush should re-consider his politics as he will not get their votes and there would be no other reason to appoint them.

Jews are leaving the Democrat Party as hardcore leftists are anti-Israel and anti-Jewish. However, Bush only won a minority of Jewish votes. Blacks and gays and lesbians are over 90% Democrat. Muslims were over 90% Democrat, also, in 2004.

As for France, I don't think France is well-enough prepared militarily to defend against Iran if Iran is allowed to develop missiles or has already. The mistake made by some French is to think that Islam will give you a pass indefinitely. America has a lot of dead buried in France but I could not say that France and the USA have the same interests and values. France has dreams of the past but her future is clouded. Hopefully, the French will wake up before it is too late. </font>[/QUOTE]First of all, I think you should stop referring to homosexuals as sodomites. There are heterosexual couples who practice sodomy, they just happen to be from different sexes. Does that make sodomy OK in your book churchmouse if a man and a woman are involved and not two men?

Secdond, you have a very poor understanding of France and its people, you should refrain from making such statements as the ones above.

France and its people are permanently prepared for any attack by anyone. And we have the most ruthless intelligence service in the world, except maybe for the Mossad, so our government knows what is going on extremely well. Iran is not a real threat right now.

I feel to understand how Islam gives France a pass. We have had more arab terrorism than most countries and our public service rejects all their attempts to islamise our schools. They do not integrate well, and the gap is widening.

We are fully awake. We just have not acted yet. When we do, it will be a blood bath. Mark my words.

Corinne

Originally posted by church mouse guy:
but I will add that I think that he should ignore sodomites as they are Democrats like Blacks, Jews, and Muslims.

Click to expand...

Huh? I often agree with you but this simply isn't true.

Homosexuals constitute no more than 5% of the population and along with those who would vote support for them couldn't move 10% of the electorate.

Blacks account for about 30%-40% of Dem support and vote at a better rate than whites.

Jews are beginning to split more evenly. But even if they weren't, Jews and Muslims together account for much less than 10% of our population.

If all the Dems got were these groups, the best they could ever do is 40%... and that is probably a high estimate.

First of all, I think you should stop referring to homosexuals as sodomites.

Click to expand...

That's what the Bible calls them.

No. Suha Arafat now lives in Tunis, from what I heard.

Click to expand...

Well, like I said, since his wife lived in Paris, it would not be unreasonable to assume that's why Arafat was flown to France.

Suha Arafat, 41, lives in Paris and has not been to the West Bank or seen her husband since the latest round of Palestinian violence began in 2000.

Click to expand...

USA Today

Ariel Sharon directed the murders of Sabrah and Chatilah in which thousands of innocents died, including children. Oh but these raids were carried out by the Israeli Army, therefore legal? Whereas the palestinians, armed with bricks and rocks, are terrorists? They are so demune of everything that the only thing the most desparate of them (and, I admit, the most brainwashed too) can think of is blow themselves up. Both Sharon and Arafat are reformed murderers. What comforts me is that Arafat will not go to heaven and neither will Sharon.

Click to expand...

I would now like to address this untruth you have propagated on the Board, straight out of the PLO-propaganda machine.

Report of the Commission of Inquiry into
the Events at the Refugee Camps in Beirut
(The Kahan Commission)
(February 8, 1983)


The Commission determined that the massacre at Sabra and Shatilla was carried out by a Phalangist unit, acting on its own but its entry was known to Israel. No Israeli was directly responsible for the events which occurred in the camps. But the Commission asserted that Israel had indirect responsibility for the massacre since the I.D.F. held the area, Mr. Begin was found responsible for not exercising greater involvement and awareness in the matter of introducing the Phalangists into the camps. Mr. Sharon was found responsible for ignoring the danger of bloodshed and revenge when he approved the entry of the Phalangists into the camps as well as not taking appropriate measures to prevent bloodshed.

Click to expand...

Source

To be irresponsible is quite a bit different from "directing murders" as you have claimed. There is no way Mr. Sharon can even compare to Arafat. First of all, Mr. Sharon has not stolen billions of dollars from the Israeli people that has been given through the UN. Unlike Arafat, who let his people live in squalor while he lined his pockets with money given in International Aid, the US money, included, in which they find themselves in poverty. To claim they only have rocks for weapons is also not true. Arms are smuggled into the Gaza Strip via tunnels from Egypt.

[ November 22, 2004, 06:03 PM: Message edited by: LadyEagle ]

Originally posted by LadyEagle:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />First of all, I think you should stop referring to homosexuals as sodomites.

Click to expand...

That's what the Bible calls them. </font>[/QUOTE]Sorry, LE, but the term sodomite in scripture (KJV) referrs to either a male temple prostitute, or a resident of the city of Sodom. Not arguing with you (or anyone else on the topic), just wanted to kindly and respectfully clarify.

Not to bicker, Mr. John, over the sodomite issue, but here is a link to the SBC publication:

The problem with the NIV translation is that it LIMITS this sin to that particular connection rather than allowing the larger meaning of homosexuality in general. It also creates the confusion that the practice of sodomy in the Old Testament and the sin of Sodom itself was limited to male prostitution.

Click to expand...

http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/sodomitesin.htm

Originally posted by LadyEagle:
Not to bicker, Mr. John, over the sodomite issue, but here is a link to the SBC publication:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />The problem with the NIV translation is that it LIMITS this sin to that particular connection rather than allowing the larger meaning of homosexuality in general. It also creates the confusion that the practice of sodomy in the Old Testament and the sin of Sodom itself was limited to male prostitution.

Click to expand...

http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/sodomitesin.htm </font>[/QUOTE]
I doubt David Cloud is affiliated with the SBC.

Whoa, LE, I didn't say that homosexuality wasn't a sin in scripture. Indeed, it is. I'm simply clarifying that the scriptural use of the word "sodomite" in the KJV is used to refer to either a male temple prostitute or a resident of Sodom.

Try not to read between the lines... I'm on your side.

I doubt David Cloud is affiliated with the SBC.

Click to expand...

OOPS! Good catch, LOL.

Originally posted by LadyEagle:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />First of all, I think you should stop referring to homosexuals as sodomites.

Click to expand...

That's what the Bible calls them. </font>[/QUOTE]LadyEagle,

This term is full of scorn and unworthy of a Christian, in my opinion. You show a radical understanding of the term which is also false.

There are, LadyEagle, HETEROSEXUALS WHO ALSO PRACTICE SODOMY. Are they sodomites too? Why stop at the homosexuals? Why not include the heteros? Just go right ahead and call a cat "a cat": just condemn sodomy and leave the homosexuals sin if they want to. It is their problem, not yours. Their sexuality is their private concern, nothing to do with you. It will not stop them from being saved if they believe in the Lord Jesus Christ. Your arbitrary judgments are sins too, and frankly you should be well advised to take care of your own sins and stop looking at other persons' sins. You have little

Mentioned in the Bible are the men of the city of Sodom. The word "sodomite" appears nowhere that I can see.

Sodom is only mentioned twice in the Old Testament:

Genesis 19:4
As they were preparing to retire for the night, all the men of Sodom, young and old, came from all over the city and surrounded the house.

Genesis 19:24
Then the LORD rained down fire and burning sulfur from the heavens on Sodom and Gomorrah.

and twice in the New Testament:

Luke 10:12
"I tell you, it will be more bearable on that day for Sodom than for that town." (he is talking about any town which will not welcome Christians when the Kingdom of God is near)

Matthew 11:24
"But I tell you that it will be more bearable for Sodom on the day of judgment than for you."

As you can see, you are told here that even homosexuals might very well be judged more lightly than you will be. If I were you, I'd try to show more compassion than scorn.

Make no mistake about it, I do not condone homosexuality, I'd rather see people be heterosexuals. I just think that people who are homosexuals deserve to be treated like human beings and not like biblical pests. They might be sinners, but it is not my choice or yours, it is their choice to sin.

Corinne

[ November 23, 2004, 11:09 AM: Message edited by: Gina L ]

Originally posted by Scott J:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by church mouse guy:
but I will add that I think that he should ignore sodomites as they are Democrats like Blacks, Jews, and Muslims.

Click to expand...

Huh? I often agree with you but this simply isn't true.

Homosexuals constitute no more than 5% of the population and along with those who would vote support for them couldn't move 10% of the electorate.

Blacks account for about 30%-40% of Dem support and vote at a better rate than whites.

Jews are beginning to split more evenly. But even if they weren't, Jews and Muslims together account for much less than 10% of our population.

If all the Dems got were these groups, the best they could ever do is 40%... and that is probably a high estimate. </font>[/QUOTE]I think that my statement accidently implied that these groups constituted the Democrat Party. Of course, they do not. Other groups such as organized labor, for example, are part of the Democrat coalition dating from 1932 and FDR.

Blacks voted about 90% for Kerry in 2004 as did homosexuals and Muslims. It is true that Jews are starting to split with about a third now going Republican, but Jews are also part of the FDR coalition and have voted Democrat since 1932 until 2004 when they expressed their admiration and support for President George W. Bush.

Other Democrat groups would be government employees at all levels; especially those now organized by labor; college professors and teachers; journalists; and some other ethnic minorities, particularly Catholics, such as Irish Catholics in Boston and Chicago, for example, Polish Catholics, etc. Hispanics split in 2004 with only a slight majority going to Kerry. This was a major setback for Democrats, as the other JFK carried Hispanics with the help of people like Raymond Tellez, Mayor of El Paso, and later ambassador to Costa Rica under Kennedy. Farmers were historically GOP in the North but switched to FDR in 1932, who federalized the market--I am not sure how farmers vote nowadays but I think that they are split. Hoosier farmers tended to remain GOP because of Lincoln's roots in Indiana and his friendship with Gov. Morton, who rallied to the Union cause before any other state with both men and money. Indiana remained GOP throughout the FDR era and has resumed that historic stance in 2004, a disaster for Hoosier Democrats, who disliked Kerry because Indiana Gov. Kernan (since defeated) was a POW in Viet Nam who heard Kerry's words as a prisoner.

No, all I intended to say was that the 4 most loyal groups to the Democrats are Blacks, Sodomites, Jews, and Muslims.

Nothing like Cruden's Complete Concordance for the King James Version and Sword Searcher Scripture software!

Deuteronomy 23:17 There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel.

1 Kings 14:24 And there were also sodomites in the land: and they did according to all the abominations of the nations which the LORD cast out before the children of Israel.

1 Kings 15:12 And he took away the sodomites out of the land, and removed all the idols that his fathers had made.

1 Kings 22:46 And the remnant of the sodomites, which remained in the days of his father Asa, he took out of the land.

2 Kings 23:7 And he brake down the houses of the sodomites, that were by the house of the LORD, where the women wove hangings for the grove.


In conclusion, sodomite is a perfectly proper English word.

Corrine, how very convenient for you to leave out -

Romans 1:[26] For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

[27] And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

[28] And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;


And, whether you like it or not, sodomite is a perfectly proper English word.

Corrine, there is more than one definition of sodomy. In one case it refers to certain acts that may occur between any couple, but the definition that LE refers to is the one that refers to the sins of Sodom, which were homosexuality. Sodomy in this case refers to ANY type of physical relationship between members of the same sex, or with an animal.
A simple check on the definition of the word will show you that.
As it is a sin that is prevalent in our society and one that is very unclean, and further being spread and promoted as anything BUT sin, it receives much more focus from American Christians than many others.
It is not a personal decision that we need to stay out of. It affects our lives and our children and our society as a whole. It's not as simple as "yet another sin". It is nullifying the truth of the Scriptures in the minds of everyone in this nation because of the push to accept such a lifestyle as normal and acceptable. It destroys families and quenches the spirit and it is NOT ok to stand by and say "to each his own" when you see another human soul heading toward self destruction and laying the foundation for the rest of the population to do likewise.
Gina

Just so you know, Arafat's nephew is going to release the medical files to the Palestinian Authorities. This should soon help put an end to the speculations.

Corinne

[ November 23, 2004, 11:08 AM: Message edited by: Gina L ]

This term is full of scorn and unworthy of a Christian, in my opinion.

Click to expand...

That is correct, it is your opinion. Would you rather I call them fags, fruits, queers, perverts, or which term is least scornful?

You show a radical understanding of the term which is also false.

Click to expand...

You show no understanding of the term sodomy. But that is to be expected from someone who has been brainwashed into thinking it is an acceptable "alternative" lifestyle. Sad.

There are, LadyEagle, HETEROSEXUALS WHO ALSO PRACTICE SODOMY.

Click to expand...

Wow, thanks for enlightening me on sexuality.

Are they sodomites too? Why stop at the homosexuals? Why not include the heteros?

Click to expand...

Because the marriage bed is undefiled according to Scripture. If you are speaking of illicit heterosexual sex, that is sin, as well, but it is not called an abomination as sexual perversion is, men/men, women/women as in Romans 1.

Just go right ahead and call a cat "a cat": just condemn sodomy and leave the homosexuals sin if they want to.

Click to expand...

Jesus wouldn't have done that - He would have called them to repent. Calling someone to repentence is more compassionate than letting them burn in an eternal hell, but many people who refuse to call homosexuality an abomination refuse to believe in a literal hell, as well, it seems.

It is their problem, not yours. Their sexuality is their private concern, nothing to do with you.

Click to expand...

No, it is a societal problem that is leaking like a cancer spreading throughout society. Children are being taught to accept this as an "alternative lifestyle." Well it is not an alternative lifestyle, it is a perverted, evil lifestyle, and Christians have a duty to stand up and speak out against having this crammed into our society like it is normal. Would you defend beastiality or pedophilia as a "private concern?"

It will not stop them from being saved if they believe in the Lord Jesus Christ.

Click to expand...

Not according to the Bible. The Bible calls for Repentence - turning from wicked ways. Romans 1 correctly states that if they don't repent, they will be turned over to reprobate minds.

Your arbitrary judgments are sins too,

Click to expand...

Homosexuality is not an "arbitrary" sin according to Romans 1.

and frankly you should be well advised to take care of your own sins and stop looking at other persons' sins.

Click to expand...

Really. You should be well advised to study your Bible and quit text proofing.

Mentioned in the Bible are the men of the city of Sodom. The word "sodomite" appears nowhere that I can see.

Sodom is only mentioned twice in the Old Testament:

Genesis 19:4
As they were preparing to retire for the night, all the men of Sodom, young and old, came from all over the city and surrounded the house.

Genesis 19:24
Then the LORD rained down fire and burning sulfur from the heavens on Sodom and Gomorrah.

and twice in the New Testament:

Luke 10:12
"I tell you, it will be more bearable on that day for Sodom than for that town." (he is talking about any town which will not welcome Christians when the Kingdom of God is near)

Matthew 11:24
"But I tell you that it will be more bearable for Sodom on the day of judgment than for you."

As you can see, you are told here that even homosexuals might very well be judged more lightly than you will be.

Click to expand...

No, that is not what it means - you've taken Scripture out of context to try and prove your point, which fails when you Rightly Divide the Word of Truth.

If I were you, I'd try to show more compassion than scorn.

Click to expand...

Use of the word sodomite is scorn? Really? Again, that is your opinion, which is biased.

Make no mistake about it, I do not condone homosexuality, I'd rather see people be heterosexuals. I just think that people who are homosexuals deserve to be treated like human beings and not like biblical pests. They might be sinners, but it is not my choice or yours, it is their choice to sin.

Click to expand...

Good thing you aren't condoning homosexuality or you might be kicked off the board. It's in violation of the posting rules of this board.

Ever heard the story of throwing a rock into a pack of dogs? The one who yelps the loudest is the one who got hit. Think about it.

Originally posted by LadyEagle:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />
I would now like to address this untruth you have propagated on the Board, straight out of the PLO-propaganda machine.
Report of the Commission of Inquiry into
the Events at the Refugee Camps in Beirut
(The Kahan Commission)
(February 8, 1983)

The Commission determined that the massacre at Sabra and Shatilla was carried out by a Phalangist unit, acting on its own but its entry was known to Israel. No Israeli was directly responsible for the events which occurred in the camps. But the Commission asserted that Israel had indirect responsibility for the massacre since the I.D.F. held the area, Mr. Begin was found responsible for not exercising greater involvement and awareness in the matter of introducing the Phalangists into the camps. Mr. Sharon was found responsible for ignoring the danger of bloodshed and revenge when he approved the entry of the Phalangists into the camps as well as not taking appropriate measures to prevent bloodshed.

Click to expand...

Source

To be irresponsible is quite a bit different from "directing murders" as you have claimed. There is no way Mr. Sharon can even compare to Arafat. First of all, Mr. Sharon has not stolen billions of dollars from the Israeli people that has been given through the UN. Unlike Arafat, who let his people live in squalor while he lined his pockets with money given in International Aid, the US money, included, in which they find themselves in poverty. To claim they only have rocks for weapons is also not true. Arms are smuggled into the Gaza Strip via tunnels from Egypt. </font>[/QUOTE]Er... your source says that Mr Sharon was found RESPONSIBLE, not IRRESPONSIBLE like you say (learn how to read). What happened is exactly the same thing as if someone opened the door of your chicken coop for a herd of foxes. Sharon knew what was going to happen, and did nothing to prevent the massacres.

Corinne

Originally posted by LadyEagle:
Not to bicker, Mr. John, over the sodomite issue, but here is a link to the SBC publication:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />The problem with the NIV translation is that it LIMITS this sin to that particular connection rather than allowing the larger meaning of homosexuality in general. It also creates the confusion that the practice of sodomy in the Old Testament and the sin of Sodom itself was limited to male prostitution.

Click to expand...

http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/sodomitesin.htm </font>[/QUOTE]Whatever, the term "sodomite" applies to whoever practices sodomy, heterosexual or homosexual. The term should not be used to categorise homosexuals. Just so you know, there are some homosexuals who do not practice sodomy, &lt;edited by moderator - this is a family board&gt; (yes, yes !!!!).

Corinne

[ November 23, 2004, 11:35 AM: Message edited by: C4K ]

Originally posted by church mouse guy:
Nothing like Cruden's Complete Concordance for the King James Version and Sword Searcher Scripture software!

Deuteronomy 23:17 There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel.

1 Kings 14:24 And there were also sodomites in the land: and they did according to all the abominations of the nations which the LORD cast out before the children of Israel.

1 Kings 15:12 And he took away the sodomites out of the land, and removed all the idols that his fathers had made.

1 Kings 22:46 And the remnant of the sodomites, which remained in the days of his father Asa, he took out of the land.

2 Kings 23:7 And he brake down the houses of the sodomites, that were by the house of the LORD, where the women wove hangings for the grove.


In conclusion, sodomite is a perfectly proper English word.

Click to expand...

Yes, "sodomite" is in the English Dictionary and the definition is: "someone who practices sodomy". It could be a homosexual or a heterosexual. The word does not define only homosexuals.

That was my point.

Corinne

No Corinne, it doesn't. It has almost always referred to homosexuality. That is the original meaning of the word.
Also, this conversation is getting too explicit for my taste. If you want to get into details on sexuality I will move a copy of this to each of the private forums, as we have a lot of young visitors who don't need to read this on the open forums.
So please everyone, find alternative phrasings for explicit terms.
Thanks.
Gina