Forum

Donate

Search

Subscribe

jews/911

Feedback

dna

RCC

AIDS

Home

Surveys

Holocaust

IQ

14th Amdt

19th Amdt

Israelites

NWO

Homicide

Blacks

Whites

Signatory

Talmud

Watchman

Gaelic

TRAITORS

Medicine?


Adultery and Fornicators

Posted by: "Jacob Israel" ji@blackexile.com   urbini.rm

Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:40 am (PDT)

<<< Question, in your post here you mentioned Trinitarians, and in Our
Protestant UNITARIAN nation. Are you saying that you don't believe in the
Trinity. I know there is a big controversy on this, but I believe that the
Bible does talk about a Trinity. It is subtle, but it is there. Jesus Christ
mentions this when he refers to the Holy Spirit as he and him. Also, are you
saying that our nation is actually Unitarian. If so, how? I believe that
there may actually be two nations within our nation. One is the Republic,
and the other is Corporate. I am reading the book entitled, "The Real
Lincoln," by DiLorenzo. He actually makes reference that Lincoln established
the Corporate nation within our nation. He did this in order to destroy the
Republican check and balance system that was initially established in our
country by the Constitution. >>>

Agreed about Lincoln, which literally makes him guilty of TREASON of the
highest sort, which explains why jews love him so.

The RCC has been complaining about, persecuting, prosecuting, and MURDERING
Unitarians like our Founding Fathers for millennia now. It was the
abolishment of Unitarians in England in 1774 which was the major impetus for
the American Revolution two years later, in 1776:

The Toleration Act <http://www.uucsv.org/carter.htm> was passed by the
British Parliament in 1689. This act permitted other religious
denominations, such as Puritans, Quakers, Baptists, Catholics, and Jews, to
legally exist in England alongside the Church of England. However, these
non-Anglican denominations, referred to as dissenters or nonconformists,
could only refer to their meeting houses as chapels. The word "church" was
reserved for the Church of England. Also, dissenters were not allowed to
hold public office, serve in the armed forces or attend the universities.

Within the Anglican Communion there was also growing unrest over the
parliamentary requirement that the Anglican clergy must "subscribe" to the
doctrinal articles of the church, including the Athanasian doctrine of the
Trinity. For nearly a century afterwards a growing controversy continued
over that requirement. A climax was reached in 1771, when Parliament refused
a petition to abolish the requirement of "subscription." This precipitated
some of the non-subscribing clergy to withdraw from the church. One of
these, Theophilus Lindsey, was the organizer of the first Unitarian
congregation in England. Lindsey conducted his first service for a large
congregation in an auction room on Essex Street, London, on April 14th,
1774. Among those in that first congregation were Benjamin Franklin and his
friend, Joseph Priestley.

http://fathersmanifesto.net/unitarian.htm

Of course it’s not just the RCC who are Trinitarians—many in Protestant
churches like the Episcopal Church are too. The problem, though, is not
Unitarians trying to force their beliefs on Trinitarians—the problem as we
can see from this very forum is the other way around, and it does not work:

“These facts about Jefferson's religion are known. He was raised as an
Anglican and always maintained some affiliation with the Anglican Church. He
was also known to contribute financially, in fair proportion, to every
denomination in his town. While a student at William and Mary College, he
began to read the Scottish moral philosophers and other authors who had made
themselves students of church history. These scholars opened the door for
Jefferson's informed criticism of prevailing religious institutions and
beliefs. But it was the world renowned English Unitarian minister and
scientist, Joseph Priestley, who had the most profound impact on his
thought. According to Priestley's Corruptions of Christianity, published in
1782, and many other of his books, the teachings of Jesus and his human
character were obscured and obfuscated in the early Christian centuries. As
the Church Fathers adapted Christianity to Mediterranean-primarily
Greek-forms of thought, they contrived doctrines altogether foreign to
Biblical thought, such as the doctrine of the Trinity. Jefferson assumed
that a thoroughly reformed Christian faith, true to Jesus' teaching, would
be purged of all Greek influence and doctrinal absurdity.”

The Russian Orthodox also believe in a “trinity”, but to them, “father” is a
literal father, “son” is his literal son, and the “holy spirit” is the
genealogical line all the way from Jacob to the last Israelite son born a
few seconds ago.

-

jk

From: israeliteidentity@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:israeliteidentity@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Terry Gabrich
Sent: Saturday, October 25, 2008 10:22 AM
To: israeliteidentity@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [israeliteidentity] RE: Adultery and Fornicators

Question, in your post here you mentioned Trinitarians, and in Our
Protestant UNITARIAN nation. Are you saying that you don't believe in the
Trinity. I know there is a big controversy on this, but I believe that the
Bible does talk about a Trinity. It is subtle, but it is there. Jesus Christ
mentions this when he refers to the Holy Spirit as he and him. Also, are you
saying that our nation is actually Unitarian. If so, how? I believe that
there may actually be two nations within our nation. One is the Republic,
and the other is Corporate. I am reading the book entitled, "The Real
Lincoln," by DiLorenzo. He actually makes reference that Lincoln established
the Corporate nation within our nation. He did this in order to destroy the
Republican check and balance system that was initially established in our
country by the Constitution.

-------Original Message-------

From: Jacob <mailto:ji@blackexile.com> Israel

Date: 10/25/2008 11:44:52 AM

To: 'Ray <mailto:ray266@centurytel.net> Earmest'

Cc: houseisrael@yahoogroups.com; Israelites@yahoogroups.com;
israeliteidentity@yahoogroups.com; hilloftorah@yahoogroups.com;
christiandentity@yahoogroups.com; identity@yahoogroups.com;
davidicke2@yahoogroups.com; TWOMIFTG@yahoogroups.com;
thespiritofjacob@yahoogroups.com; christiandentity@yahoogroups.com;
jewsareedom@yahoogroups.com; mamzers@yahoogroups.com

Subject: [israeliteidentity] RE: Adultery and Fornicators

Well said, Ray,

<<< have diminion over the

fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over

every living thing that moveth upon the earth. There

is nothing complicated about this at all.>>>

But to a kikeaholic, EVERYTHING is complicated, even this SIMPLE
commandment.

Thanks to the adverse influence of trinitarians in OUR Protestant, UNITARIAN
nation, spotted owls and THOUSANDS of other *animals* now have more human
rights than humans, and PARTICULARLY Adamites.

It’s IMPOSSIBLE for these *morons* to figure out that you can’t give a dog a
human right without TAKING IT AWAY FROM AN ADAMITE.

-

jk

From: Ray Earmest [mailto:ray266@centurytel.net]
Sent: Friday, October 24, 2008 4:34 AM
To: Jacob Israel
Subject: Re: Adultery and Fornicators

We don't need to question the fact that God loves "every-

body, but to recognize just who "everybody" is, according

to the bible. The answer is simple: Read Genesis 5:1 &

2:

"THIS (notice capatilized emphasis) is the book of the gen-

erations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the

likeness of God mad he him; Male and female created he

them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in t

the day when they were created."

Adamites ARE God's people, and the entire bible, from

Genesis one, through Revelation 22:21, are of, and for, the

Adam descendants. No African monkeys, Asian pimps,

or any other "adapted" human beings are included in the

book of Genesis, nor the rest of the bible.

Read this Genesis 5:1-2 and educate the church heads of

this and other Christian nations, if possible; which I think

definitely is NOT. I know who I am - do you?

Ray Earnest

PS: Genesis 1:25, 1:26, and 1:27 says it all; God created

every "animal" separate from all others;...and, we are cre-

ated in the image of God, and are to multiply and replenish

the earth, and subdue it; and have diminion over the

fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over

every living thing that moveth upon the earth. There

is nothing complicated about this at all.

Ray Earnest

----- Original Message -----

From: Jacob Israel <mailto:ji@blackexile.com>

To: israeliteidentity@yahoogroups.com

Cc: houseisrael@yahoogroups.com ; Israelites@yahoogroups.com ;
israeliteidentity@yahoogroups.com ; hilloftorah@yahoogroups.com ;
christiandentity@yahoogroups.com ; identity@yahoogroups.com ;
davidicke2@yahoogroups.com ; TWOMIFTG@yahoogroups.com ;
thespiritofjacob@yahoogroups.com ; christiandentity@yahoogroups.com ;
jewsareedom@yahoogroups.com ; mamzers@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2008 2:49 PM

Subject: Adultery and Fornicators

<<< One of the biggest lies in the church today is that God loves everybody.
Nobody even tries to question this when they read how God told the
Israelites to kill all the Caananites and then all the Amelekites. I think
that there probably were innocent men, women, and children in both of these
groups, but God still told Israel to kill them all. King Saul failed to do
so, and he lost his kingdom. Samuel had to kill the last Amelikite (the
king) by himself. The majority of the people in the churches today would
rather sacrifice to God rather than be obedient to God. What did Samuel tell
Saul, "isn't obedience better than sacrifice?" >>>

There are so many big LIES in the church that I have a hard time tracking
down which is the biggest. This is certainly one of the most obvious,
though, and the only way to explain how so many people could READ Scripture,
compare it to what they heard in the “church” [or most likely now from the
jewsmedia], and CONTINUE to believe the jew LIES rather than the real Word
of God, is that we’ve been subjected to the world’s most sophisticated and
successful Zionist brainwashing campaign ever known. Who knows what we
would not know now without the internet, and who knows how much of our *own*
history is STILL missing even WITH the internet?

The church makes a big deal out of how we supposedly benefited from Jesus’
sacrifice—but what might Jesus have accomplished had the jews NOT succeeded
in SHUTTING HIM UP by brutally murdering Him [something the “church” almost
praises these filthy kikes for]? It’s reminiscent of how kikes and
kikeaholics and other mamzers like the four stooges want to SHUT US UP today
isn’t it?

http://fathersmanifesto.net/cathoholicism.htm

-

jk

From: israeliteidentity@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:israeliteidentity@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Terry Gabrich
Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2008 12:56 PM
To: israeliteidentity@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [israeliteidentity] Adultery and Fornicators

One of the biggest lies in the church today is that God loves everybody.
Nobody even tries to question this when they read how God told the
Israelites to kill all the Caananites and then all the Amelekites. I think
that there probably were innocent men, women, and children in both of these
groups, but God still told Israel to kill them all. King Saul failed to do
so, and he lost his kingdom. Samuel had to kill the last Amelikite (the
king) by himself. The majority of the people in the churches today would
rather sacrifice to God rather than be obedient to God. What did Samuel tell
Saul, "isn't obedience better than sacrifice?"

-------Original Message-------

From: Jacob <mailto:ji@blackexile.com> Israel

Date: 10/22/2008 2:29:00 PM

To: Israelites@yahoogroups.com; jewsareedom@yahoogroups.com;
houseisrael@yahoogroups.com; Israelites@yahoogroups.com;
israeliteidentity@yahoogroups.com; hilloftorah@yahoogroups.com;
christiandentity@yahoogroups.com; identity@yahoogroups.com;
davidicke2@yahoogroups.com; TWOMIFTG@yahoogroups.com;
thespiritofjacob@yahoogroups.com; christiandentity@yahoogroups.com;
jewsareedom@yahoogroups.com; mamzers@yahoogroups.com

Cc: jacobandesau@yahoogroups.com; evedemian@verizon.net; 'Faith Full'
<mailto:alecoque33@gmail.com>

Subject: [israeliteidentity] Adultery and Fornicators

Debunked,

If you were trying to demonstrate that you indeed are a silly, easily
beguiled woman, quoting these faggots as “authorities” on anything was a
great way to go:

<<< According to Poole:Mal 1:3 I hated; I loved not Esau or his posterity as
I loved Jacob and his posterity: this not loving, comparatively, is a
hating, God showed not the same kindness to the twin brothers; the one was
more enriched with the fruits of God’s love, and had cause to be thankful;
the other had no cause to complain, for God did him no wrong. >>>>

God HATED Esau, but “did him no wrong”?

God “made his mountains a waste” but “did him no wrong”?

God made Esau’s “heritage a desert for jackals”, but “did him no wrong”?

God PREORDAINED THAT the younger, Jacob, would RULE the firstborn son Esau,
but “did him no wrong”? This is a punishment to the EXTREME in a
patriarchal society like Israelites.

God called Esau a FORNICATOR, but “did him no wrong”?

God CUT OFF Esau FOREVER, Obadiah 1:10 For [thy] violence against thy
brother Jacob shame shall cover thee, and thou shalt be cut off forever, but
“did him no wrong”?

God SLAUGHTERED descendants of Esau Obadiah 1:9 And thy mighty [men], O
Teman, shall be dismayed, to the end that every one of the mount of Esau may
be cut off by slaughter, but “did him no wrong”?

Sure, debunked! From Esau’s perspective, God could not POSSIBLY have done
Esau MORE WRONG!

If WE did this to you and your fellow silly, easily beguiled women and the
rest of your filthy “church”, we GUARANDAMNTEE you that you would NOT
believe that we “did you no wrong”, didn’t “hate” you, or simply “loved you
less”?

Your penchant to HATE the Word of God is noted—by God Himself.

jk

From: Israelites@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Israelites@yahoogroups.com] On
Behalf Of Debunks
Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2008 11:59 AM
To: jewsareedom@yahoogroups.com
Cc: Jacob Israel; jacobandesau@yahoogroups.com; evedemian@verizon.net; Faith
Full
Subject: [Israelites] Re: [jewsareedom] Adultery and Fornicators

Haha. Never at a loss for something stupid to say, are you, Mr. Knight?
You don't like it because I corrected you on your usual infantile
interpretation of

God 'hates' Esau? You think I pulled that information out of thin air?
Well, allow me to correct you AGAIN - How many times will it be now? - Let's
defer to some MALE Bible commentators on this passage -

According to Poole:

Mal 1:3

I hated; I loved not Esau or his posterity as I loved Jacob and his
posterity: this not loving, comparatively, is a hating, God showed not the
same kindness to the twin brothers; the one was more enriched with the
fruits of God’s love, and had cause to be thankful; the other had no cause
to complain, for God did him no wrong.

According to John Gill -

Mal 1:3 And I hated Esau,.... Or, "rejected" him, as the Targum; did not
love him as Jacob: this was a negative, not positive hatred; it is true of
him, personally considered; not only by taking away the birthright and
blessing from him, which he despised; but by denying him his special grace,
leaving him in his sins, and to his lusts, so that he became a profane
person; shared not in the grace of God here, and had no part in the eternal
inheritance with the saints in light; and likewise it is true of his
posterity, as the following instances show:

According to Jameson, Fausset and Brown-

Mal 1:3

hated — not positively, but relatively; that is, did not choose him out to
be the object of gratuitous favor, as I did Jacob (compare Luk_14:26, with
Mat_10:37; Gen_29:30, Gen_29:31; Deu_21:15, Deu_21:16).

And that is just a few among many authorities that might be cited....It
seems , therefore, that it is 'your' interpretation that is effeminate and
based upon emotion, rather than fact or authority, Miss Knight.,

-------Original Message-------

From: Jacob Israel <mailto:ji@blackexile.com>

Date: 10/22/2008 11:39:32 AM

To: israeliteidentity@yahoogroups.com

Cc: houseisrael@yahoogroups.com; Israelites@yahoogroups.com;
israeliteidentity@yahoogroups.com; hilloftorah@yahoogroups.com;
christiandentity@yahoogroups.com; identity@yahoogroups.com;
davidicke2@yahoogroups.com; TWOMIFTG@yahoogroups.com;
thespiritofjacob@yahoogroups.com; christiandentity@yahoogroups.com;
jewsareedom@yahoogroups.com; mamzers@yahoogroups.com

Subject: [jewsareedom] Adultery and Fornicators

<<< True, I thought debunks was a woman until he starting to say he and him
when referring to himself. I wonder if he might be a Roman Catholic priest.
If so, it could be a good chance that he is a pedophile. >>>

Me too. Nobody ever believed debunked was a man. We let her keep up the
pretense merely to let her play out her little game. NO man would claim
that hate does not mean hate, since not even most Catholic WOMEN do.

In Boston alone, there are 1,845,846 Catholics who just “legalized” gay
marriage in Massachusetts, just as kikeaholic-infested New York did
recently, at the same time that PROTESTANT states, like 72% of the voters in
Kansas and 92% of the voters in Florida, amended their state constitutions
to OUTLAW “gay marriages”.

How can it be explained that so many legislators in primarily Catholic
states are so fond of faggots that they IGNORE God’s LAW, they GNORE the
will of we the people, they IGNORE common sense, they IGNORE *multiple*
legitimate public mandates, they IGNORE the entire Bill of Rights, and
ESTABLISH such an anti-Christ position?

Well, TWO HUNDRED AND TWENTY [220] “PRIESTS” in Boston alone ADMITTED to
buggering little children, and getting away with it. The grandmaster of
pedophiles, “Cardinal law”, was REWARDED for it by being promoted to the
Vatican while the only non-faggot priests, who are few and far between, were
quietly PUNISHED. Such things cause errant legislators to pass anti-Christ
laws.

The population of Catholics is dropping, FAST, and right now there are at
most 60 million in the US [hallelujah]. With 40,000 priests [and also
dropping fast, hallelujah], this is 1,500 Catholics per priest, so the total
number of priests in Boston is 1,231, of whom 31% are KNOWN, PROVEN IN A
COURT OF LAW, FAGGOTS. If that many of them are PROVEN faggots—it’s no
stretch of the imagination that ONE HUNDRED PERCENT of these “priests” are
faggots.

What could be more revealing of the evil nature of this “church” than for it
to try to recreate Sodom and Gomorrah right under our very noses?

http://fathersmanifesto.net/cathoholicism.htm

-

jk

From: israeliteidentity@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:israeliteidentity@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Terry Gabrich
Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2008 10:11 AM
To: israeliteidentity@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [israeliteidentity] Adultery and Fornicators

True, I thought debunks was a woman until he starting to say he and him when
referring to himself. I wonder if he might be a Roman Catholic priest. If
so, it could be a good chance that he is a pedophile.

-------Original Message-------

From: Jacob Israel <mailto:ji@blackexile.com>

Date: 10/22/2008 12:05:43 PM

To: TWOMIFTG@yahoogroups.com

Cc: 'Debunks' <mailto:Debunks@sbcglobal.net> ; houseisrael@yahoogroups.com;
Israelites@yahoogroups.com; israeliteidentity@yahoogroups.com;
hilloftorah@yahoogroups.com; christiandentity@yahoogroups.com;
identity@yahoogroups.com; davidicke2@yahoogroups.com;
TWOMIFTG@yahoogroups.com; thespiritofjacob@yahoogroups.com;
christiandentity@yahoogroups.com; jewsareedom@yahoogroups.com;
mamzers@yahoogroups.com

Subject: [israeliteidentity] Adultery and Fornicators

Faith BULL .hit whines:

<<< Oh, and Debunks is not a she! LOL! FF>>>

Many of us have read many, many posts from debunked. Not a single one of
them would even HINT that debunked is a man. If he IS a man, his silly and
effeminate beliefs, his easily beguiled persona, his notorious claim that
hate does not mean hate, that the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob even
“LOVES Esau”, only just slightly less than He LOVES Jacob, by itself CUTS
HIM OUT:

Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be
not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor
effeminate, nor mamzers, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor
revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God 1 Colossians
6:9-10

These terms are not negotiable. Even SUPPORTING fornicators [read: race
mixers], even THINKING about supporting fornicators, CUTS YOU OUT! Simply
having the APPEARANCE of effeminate CUTS YOU OUT!

And you think whores will be in Heaven? HA! You’ll be*lucky* if whores
aren’t sent BELOW Hell.

jk

PS—if you EVER think we’ll ever take advice from a woman, much less a PAGAN
woman, much less a PAGAN, blasphemous, foul mouthed, un-Godly, anti-Christ
whose only claim to fame so far is malicious LIBEL and malicious SLANDER,
you need to study VERY CLOSELY exactly which part of the Torah Paul quoted
above, and why Jesus could NEVER have “fulfilled” it. If PAUL intended for
this part of the Word of God to be abolished—WHY WOULD HE QUOTE IT? I don’t
even know WOMEN, even CATHOLIC women, who insist, after READING Scripture,
that God does NOT hate Esau, putting debunked LOWER than mere effeminate.

From: TWOMIFTG@yahoogroups.com [mailto:TWOMIFTG@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
Of Faith Full
Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2008 5:05 AM
To: TWOMIFTG@yahoogroups.com
Cc: Debunks
Subject: Re: [TWOMIFTG] Adultery

Terry, I hate to tell you this, but I know Jesus Christ, and have known Him
and had Him in my life ALL MY LIFE since I was a child, and I am very happy
in my relationship with Him. I wonder if you can say that, or your deranged
pal jk, who has no time for anything, much less Jesus Christ, who
he doesn't believe to be God the Son, because he fills his head - and yours
- with so much poppycock about who's fornicating with who. Who cares?

JK makes me laugh. He says he came close to becoming a Roman Catholic!

They wouldn't have had you, my friend. Your ignorance would be enough. No,
the Catholic Church only take sincere individuals who love their fellow man.
The Catholic Church is not racist - obviously, as it operates in every part
of the world and our saints are from every walk in life, every nation under
the sun.

Oh, as for the Eucharist, the main focus of our liturgy - I wouldn't even
bother to try to explain this sacred event to a dunce like you. I tried
before but received ridicule for my efforts. It would be an indignity to
God to try any further. Let Him shine his grace upon you and ENLIGHTEN you
- if He wishes. He will find a way to do this much better than I. But you
couldn't have come close to being a Catholic with your mindset and lack of
basic Christian doctrine and your weird cultish ideas. No, sir, they
wouldn't let you in!

Oh, and Debunks is not a she! LOL!

FF

On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 7:10 PM, Jacob Israel <ji@blackexile.com> wrote:

<<< Debunk is full of Roman Catholic doctrine, this is why she is so
confused. There is no meaning in her life because she doesn't know Jesus
Christ. >>>

I actually didn't believe the RCC doctrine could be this bad. I was hoping
that it was just one errant Catholic with not a brain in her head who
grossly misrepresented it. When she became the first to explain that when a
Catholic participates in the "eucharist", they believe they are *literally*
eating *literal* flesh and *literal* blood, she put me over the edge. This
makes the craziest witch doctor of Africa seem reasonable by comparison.

It would be bad enough if it was just cannibalism. But this is by
definition, even in SCRIPTURE, a serious mental illness. In NO place in the
entire one million words in the Word of God does God ever condone eating
human flesh and human blood, much less that of the "Son of God" [to quote
Jesus].

This is vile stuff. This is even *worse* than witchcraft:

· Exo 22:18 Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.

· Deu 18:10 There shall not be found among you any one that maketh
his son or his daughter to pass through the fire, or that useth divination,
or an observer of times, or an enchanter, or a witch,

· 1Sa 15:23 For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and
stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry. Because thou hast rejected the
word of the LORD, he hath also rejected thee from being king.

· 2Ki 9:22 And it came to pass, when Joram saw Jehu, that he said, Is
it peace, Jehu? And he answered, What peace, so long as the whoredoms of thy
mother Jezebel and her witchcrafts are so many?

-

jk

From: israeliteidentity@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:israeliteidentity@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Terry Gabrich
Sent: Friday, October 17, 2008 1:24 PM
To: israeliteidentity@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [israeliteidentity] Re: [jewsareedom] Adultery

Debunk is full of Roman Catholic doctrine, this is why she is so confused.
There is no meaning in her life because she doesn't know Jesus Christ.

-------Original Message-------

From: Jacob Israel <mailto:ji@blackexile.com>

Date: 10/17/2008 12:22:53 PM

To: jewsareedom@yahoogroups.com; TWOMIFTG@yahoogroups.com

Cc: mamzers@yahoogroups.com; jewsareedom@yahoogroups.com;
thespiritofjacob@yahoogroups.com; TWOMIFTG@yahoogroups.com;
davidicke2@yahoogroups.com; identity@yahoogroups.com;
christiandentity@yahoogroups.com; hilloftorah@yahoogroups.com;
israeliteidentity@yahoogroups.com; Israelites@yahoogroups.com;
houseisrael@yahoogroups.com

Subject: [israeliteidentity] Re: [jewsareedom] Adultery

* <<<Utter madness. What wretchedness you espouse, jk.>>>

Why don't you tell us, step by step debunked, WHY you "think" God's LAW
would not apply to Esau but DOES apply to everyone else?

Once again, this is God's LAW regarding marriage--and do not claim Jesus
"fulfilled" it unless you can show us chapter and verse that He REALLY DID
(which btw according to Jesus Himself would require at LEAST three
witnesses):

* Exodus 22:16-17 And if a man entice a maid that is not betrothed,
and lie with her, he shall surely endow her to be his wife. If her father
utterly refuse to give her unto him, he shall pay money according to the
dowry of virgins.

Do you have a record that Esau ever paid the dowry of virgins? No? Then
according to GOD HIMSELF, the instant he had SEX with Mahalath, he was
MARRIED to her, right? Do you have a record that Esau never had sex with
her? No? Then the following verse is PROOF that Esau not only had SEX with
Mahalath, not only did NOT pay the dowry of virgins, but that Esau WAS
married to Mahalath, right?:

* Then went Esau unto Ishmael, and took unto the wives which he had
Mahalath the daughter of Ishmael Abraham's son, the sister of Nebajoth, to
be his wife. Genesis 28:9

It doesn't say he fornicated with Mahalath, right? It doesn't say Esau
RAPED her, or had incest wilth her, or had oral sex with her, or in ANY
other way was "lewd" with her, or had "voluntary sexual intercourse on the
part of an unmarried person with a person of the opposite sex" as one
dictionary claims, or had "Fornication applies to any act of extra marital
sexual acts between two or more individuals" as YOU claimed, nor did he
"commit lewdness, as an unmarried man or woman, or as a married man with an
unmarried woman" as ANOTHER dictionary claims.

It says "to be his WIFE"! Period.

So explain again--WHY DID GOD CALL ESAU A FORNICATOR???

What EXACTLY did Esau do to become a FORNICATOR--who cannot be forgiven even
after shedding crockadile tears by the buckletloads?

jk

----- Original Message -----

From: JPB <mailto:debunks@sbcglobal.net>

To: TWOMIFTG@yahoogroups.com ; jewsareedom@yahoogroups.com

Cc: houseisrael@yahoogroups.com ; Israelites@yahoogroups.com ;
israeliteidentity@yahoogroups.com ; hilloftorah@yahoogroups.com ;
christiandentity@yahoogroups.com ; identity@yahoogroups.com ;
davidicke2@yahoogroups.com ; TWOMIFTG@yahoogroups.com ;
thespiritofjacob@yahoogroups.com ; jewsareedom@yahoogroups.com ;
mamzers@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2008 2:39 PM

Subject: Re: [jewsareedom] Adultery

Utter madness. What wretchedness you espouse, jk.

-------Original Message-------

From: Jacob Israel <mailto:ji@blackexile.com>

Date: 10/14/2008 2:31:19 PM

To: TWOMIFTG@yahoogroups.com

Cc: houseisrael@yahoogroups.com; Israelites@yahoogroups.com;
israeliteidentity@yahoogroups.com; hilloftorah@yahoogroups.com;
christiandentity@yahoogroups.com; identity@yahoogroups.com;
davidicke2@yahoogroups.com; TWOMIFTG@yahoogroups.com;
thespiritofjacob@yahoogroups.com; jewsareedom@yahoogroups.com;
mamzers@yahoogroups.com

Subject: [jewsareedom] Adultery

Faith bull's law:

fornication NOUN:

Sexual intercourse between partners who are not married to each other.

God's LAW:

* Exodus 22:1-7 And if a man entice a maid that is not betrothed, and
lie with her, he shall surely endow her to be his wife. If her father
utterly refuse to give her unto him, he shall pay money according to the
dowry of virgins.

Did Esau pay the dowry of virgins? NO. So when ESAU had sex with Mahalath,
Ishmael's daughter and Abraham's grand-daughter, he was not FORNICATING, he
was MARRYING.

jk

----- Original Message -----

From: Faith Full <mailto:alecoque33@gmail.com>

To: TWOMIFTG@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2008 12:05 PM

Subject: Re: [TWOMIFTG] Re: [israeliteidentity] Adultery

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition.
2000.

fornication

SYLLABICATION:

for·ni·ca·tion

<http://www.bartleby.com/61/12.html> PRONUNCIATION:

<http://www.bartleby.com/61/wavs/78/F0267800.wav> Error! Filename not
specified. fôrError! Filename not specified.nError! Filename not
specified.-kError! Filename not specified.Error! Filename not
specified.shError! Filename not specified.n

NOUN:

Sexual intercourse between partners who are not married to each other.

WORD HISTORY:

The word fornication had a lowly beginning suitable to what has long been
the low moral status of the act to which it refers. The Latin wordfornix,
from which fornicError! Filename not specified.tiError! Filename not
specified., the ancestor of fornication, is derived, meant "a vault, an
arch." The term also referred to a vaulted cellar or similar place where
prostitutes plied their trade. This sense of fornix in Late Latin yielded
the verb fornicError! Filename not specified.rError! Filename not
specified., "to commit fornication," from which is derivedfornicError!
Filename not specified.tiError! Filename not specified., "whoredom,
fornication." Our word is first recorded in Middle English about 1303.

On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 2:53 PM, Jacob Israel <ji@blackexile.com> wrote:

* <<<Why isn't fornication adultery, and adultery fornication?>>>

Dear Terry,

I was simply agreeing with Biship David that, by his definitions [and I'm
not sure where he gets them, as they don't even match the definitions I
have, which we both know are already in conflict with Scripture] adultery
and fornication are not the same.

Scripture tells US [but not a lot of other people] that God called Esau a
fornicator because of his selection of wives [Canaanites, Hittites,
Ishmaelites, etc.]. Esau was never under God's EVERLASTING Covenant where
we find the prohibition against Israelites, and ONLY Israelites,
adulterating the holy seed, or adultery.

But now Bishop David dug his hole even deeper by saying "fornication is
sexual intercourse between unmarried persons" and "adultery is a married
person having sexual intercourse with anyone other than the one he/she is
married to".

The "he/she" tells us the whole story--to Bishop David, the Word of God is
anathema:

* Exodus 22:1-7 And if a man entice a maid that is not betrothed, and
lie with her, he shall surely endow her to be his wife. If her father
utterly refuse to give her unto him, he shall pay money according to the
dowry of virgins.

When given the choice between following: 1) feminazis like Faith bull and
debunked and jpb, and fallen biships like Bishop David who equates "he" to
"she", or 2) following the WORD OF GOD; I do believe we'll find MOST of the
271 million people in this country CLAIMING to be "Christians" on the RIGHT
side of God's Law.

-

jk

----- Original Message -----

From: Terry Gabrich <mailto:isaiah14@sbcglobal.net>

To: israeliteidentity@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2008 10:44 AM

Subject: Re: [israeliteidentity] Adultery

Why isn't fornication adultery, and adultery fornication?

-------Original Message-------

From: Jacob Israel <mailto:ji@blackexile.com>

Date: 10/14/2008 11:27:17 AM

To: ChristianPatriot@yahoogroups.com

Cc: houseisrael@yahoogroups.com; Israelites@yahoogroups.com;
israeliteidentity@yahoogroups.com; hilloftorah@yahoogroups.com;
christiandentity@yahoogroups.com; identity@yahoogroups.com;
davidicke2@yahoogroups.com; TWOMIFTG@yahoogroups.com;
thespiritofjacob@yahoogroups.com; jewsareedom@yahoogroups.com;
mamzers@yahoogroups.com

Subject: [israeliteidentity] Adultery

The only INDIVIDUAL in the entire Holy Bible who God HATES is Esau:

* As it is written: "I loved Jacob but hated Esau," Romans 9:13

If fornication had nothing to do with his marrying Canaanite women who
Abraham and Isaac and Rebekah did NOT want him to marry, and then Ishmaelite
women who STILL did not abate God's HATE, then exactly which Word of God
does?:

* Then went Esau unto Ishmael, and took unto the wives which he had
Mahalath the daughter of Ishmael Abraham's son, the sister of Nebajoth, to
be his wife. Genesis 28:9

We can't ignore why it is that God HATES Esau. There are many other people
called fornicators in Scripture and God doesn't HATE them. Even his own
mother HATED Esau for this "And Rebekah saith unto Isaac, `I have been
disgusted with my life because of the presence of the daughters of Heth; if
Jacob take a wife of the daughters of Heth, like these--from the daughters
of the land--why do I live?'":

* "Adultery, in no way, is fornication and fornication, in no way, is
adultery. That is what I am showing you."

Agreed. But why did you ignore that, by your own definition that "it is
fornication on the part of the latter, though adultery for the former", Esau
could also not be accused of adultery, because by GOD'S LAW, his act of
laying with these other women is *marriage*, not *adultery*:

* Exodus 22:1-7 And if a man entice a maid that is not betrothed, and
lie with her, he shall surely endow her to be his wife. If her father
utterly refuse to give her unto him, he shall pay money according to the
dowry of virgins.

jk

----- Original Message -----

From: djour8142 <mailto:djour8142@yahoo.com>

To: ChristianPatriot@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2008 1:45 AM

Subject: [ChristianPatriot] Re: Adultery

The word is fornicator, -OR- PROFANE PERSON, AS ESAU.

Notice it does NOT say that Esau was a Fornicator. Esau was a profane
person.

The article is -OR- not AND.

It does not say fornicator -and- profane person. It says -or- profane
person as Esau.

Fornication is done during the betrothal period. Can one fornicate
against God? Yes. As we are betrothed to GOD and at the same time we
can have other gods before HIM. When we have other gods Before GOD WE
FORNICATE AGAINST GOD.

Remember these words "in this understanding." There are other
understandings as I have shown you. The previous understanding I have
shown you is the sexual intercourse understanding.

Adultery, in no way, is fornication and fornication, in no way, is
adultery. That is what I am showing you.

There is spiritual fornication -which is against the holy ghost- and
there is carnal fornication- which is against your own fleshly body.

David

--- In ChristianPatriot@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:ChristianPatriot%40yahoogroups.com> , "Jacob Israel" <ji@...>
wrote:
>
> a.. <<<Fornication. Unlawful sexual intercourse between two
unmarried
> persons. Further, if one of the persons be married and the other
not,
> it is fornication on the part
> of the latter, though adultery for the former.
> A divorced Person is considered married or having been married in
> this understanding.>>>
>
>
>
> HOW, then, was Esau a fornicator?
>
>
> a.. Hebrews 12:16-17 Lest there be any fornicator, or profane
person, as Esau, who for one morsel of meat sold his birthright. For
ye know how that afterward, when he would have inherited the
blessing, he was rejected: for he found no place of repentance,
though he sought it carefully with tears.
>
>
> Esau wasn't divorced. Esau wasn't unmarried. So Esau was not a
fornicator because of "sexual intercourse between two unmarried
persons", nor because of "fornication on the part of the latter
[where "latter" is the numarried person]".
>
> By THIS definition, you might claim Esau was guilty of "adultery",
but by GOD'S LAW when Esau had sex "outside of marriage", it was
called MARRIAGE:
>
> a.. Exodus 22:1-7 And if a man entice a maid that is not
betrothed, and lie with her, he shall surely endow her to be his
wife. If her father utterly refuse to give her unto him, he shall pay
money according to the dowry of virgins
>
> Since Esau didn't pay the "dowry of virgins" when he "took"
Mahalath "to be his wife", we cannot claim he was guilty of adultery
either:
> a.. Then went Esau unto Ishmael, and took unto the wives which he
had Mahalath the daughter of Ishmael Abraham's son, the sister of
Nebajoth, to be his wife. Genesis 28:9
> YOUR definition means Esau would be guilty of neither fornication
or adultery.
>
> WHY, then, was Esau called a fornicator?
>
> -
>
>
>
> jk
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: djour8142
> To: ChristianPatriot@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:ChristianPatriot%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Monday, October 13, 2008 6:37 AM
> Subject: [ChristianPatriot] Adultery
>
>
> Adultery
>
> Mat 5:27 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou
> shalt not commit adultery:
> Mat 5:28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to
> lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his
heart.
>
> Mat 5:32 But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his
wife,
> saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit
adultery:
> and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth
adultery.
>
> Fornication. Unlawful sexual intercourse between two unmarried
> persons. Further, if one of the persons be married and the other
not,
> it is fornication on the part
> of the latter, though adultery for the former.
> A divorced Person is considered married or having been married in
> this understanding.
>
> Mat 19:9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife,
> except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth
> adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit
> adultery.
>
> Mark 10:11 And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his
> wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her.
> Mark 10:12 And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be
married
> to another, she committeth adultery.
>
> Luke 16:18 Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another,
> committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away
from
> her husband committeth adultery.
>
> Rom 7:3 So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to
> another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her
husband be
> dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress,
though
> she be married to another man.
>
> 1 Cor 6:9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the
> kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor
idolaters,
> nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with
> mankind,
> 1 Cor 6:10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers,
> nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
>
> Heb 13:4 Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but
> whoremongers and adulterers God will judge.
> Heb 13:5 Let your conversation be without covetousness; and be
> content with such things as ye have: for he hath said, I will
never
> leave thee, nor forsake thee.
> Heb 13:6 So that we may boldly say, The Lord is my helper, and I
> will not fear what man shall do unto me.
>
> James 4:4 Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the
> friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore
will
> be a friend of the world is the enemy of God.
> James 4:5 Do ye think that the scripture saith in vain, The spirit
> that dwelleth in us lusteth to envy?
>
> Fornication. Unlawful sexual intercourse between two unmarried
> persons. Further, if one of the persons be married and the other
not,
> it is fornication on the part
> of the latter, though adultery for the former.
> A divorced Person is considered married or having been married in
> this understanding.
>

<http://www.incredimail.com/index.asp?id=109096&rui=107196570> FREE
Animations for your email - by IncrediMail! Click Here!



<http://www.incredimail.com/index.asp?id=109095&rui=107196570> FREE
Animations for your email - by IncrediMail! Click Here!

<http://www.incredimail.com/index.asp?id=501344&rui=107196570> FREE! 100s
of New E-cards For Every Occasion!



<http://www.incredimail.com/index.asp?id=501344&rui=107196570> FREE! 100s
of New E-cards For Every Occasion!

_____

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
Version: 8.0.175 / Virus Database: 270.8.2/1741 - Release Date: 10/23/2008
7:54 AM

<http://www.incredimail.com/index.asp?id=501344&rui=107196570> FREE! 100s
of New E-cards For Every Occasion!

Back to top

Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
Messages in this topic (10)

1b.

Adultery and Fornicators

Posted by: "Jacob Israel" ji@blackexile.com   urbini.rm

Sun Oct 26, 2008 3:09 pm (PDT)

<<< Most church's in the U.S. Do believe in a Trinity. As I said, Jesus
seems to reference the Holy Spirit as a personality, and part of the God
head. The Old Testament shows God the Father dealing with a people, and the
second person of the Trinity (Jesus Christ) shows up in prophecies, in Job
(when all of a sudden there is a fourth person talking to Job, when only 3
friends initially came to him), and Proverbs 8. The New Testament reveals
Jesus Christ (the second person of the Trinity), and he mentions the third
person of the Trinity as he and him, and when he says that he is going to
send the comforter. Upon Christ's resurrection God performs his final act by
going into the temple and ripping the shroud dividing the Holy of Holy place
and the Holy place in two. The Holy Spirit (third person of the Trinity) is
released upon Christ's death and resurrection. It may have been the Holy
Spirit that ripped the shroud in two. However, I believe that it was God's
final act. The keys to heaven and Hell were given to Jesus Christ, and this
is why he went to Hell and took the keys of Hell from Satan. God and the
Holy Spirit always point to Jesus Christ for redemption. I believe that the
Holy Spirit is actually the silent third part of the trinity. This is
something that the RCC doesn't understand. No matter how they pray to Mary;
their prayers will never be answered because God and the Holy Spirit always
point to Jesus Christ for redemption, for salvation, and for all the
answers. >>>

From my perspective at least, it was the church and errant translators who
first introduced this concept, but centuries after the jews brutally
murdered Jesus. Something this important is something God would have stated
CLEARLY from the GET GO—but instead we have Him quoted as saying:

Deuteronomy 6:4 being named by it's first Hebrew word pronounced: “Shema”
meaning “HEAR” in English. When the question was ask of YaHWe-shua, in Mark
12:28b “Which is the first commandment of all?” (Mark 12:29) HE “answered
him, THE FIRST of all the commandments

is,http://www.modestapparelchristianclothinglydiaofpurpledressescustomsewing
.com/The%20Shema%20in%20hebrew.gif .”

Quoting: Deut.6:4 “Hear, O Israel; YaHWeH our God YaHWeH is ONE.”

in Mark 12:29

Transliterated: Shema , O Israel ; YaHWeH
Elohim YaHWeH echad. .

http://www.modestapparelchristianclothinglydiaofpurpledressescustomsewing.co
m/The%20Shema%20YHWH%20gold%20on%20black.gif
http://www.modestapparelchristianclothinglydiaofpurpledressescustomsewing.co
m/The%20Shema%20YHWH%20gold%20on%20black.gif

The Hebrew word order ends with the word "ONE".
The KJV uses the Greek O.T. word order, instead of the original Hebrew word
order Messiah would use.




For 5,000+ years, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob who said "I never
change" and "this Torah shall never change" never once even hinted that He
was a "trinitarian" "god", and the Israelites who followed Him all that time
never ONCE considered this possibility in any perspective in any of their
voluminous writings. Jesus Himself, who said He was the SON of God 46
times, and who also said "not a tittle of the Torah can fail", confirmed
that God was NOT a "trinity". So where then does the "church" get the
authority to add words to Scripture which were never there before, to
attempt to justify their BLASPHEMY which claims that God DID change, Jesus
DID lie, and the "trinity" ALWAYS existed?

If you very carefully study the concept “holy spirit”, which was translated
from “khodesh ruach”, which literally means “set apart lineage”, you will
see that WE, not God, are the “set apart lineage” of Jacob. Jesus is also
of that lineage, so He too is of the holy spirit, but He Himself said He is
*not* THE holy spirit. Since God is the progenitor of the Israelites, He’s
not AN Israelite [of the holy spirit], just as Abraham was the progenitor of
the Arabs but was NOT an Arab:

<<<Jefferson also expressed general agreement with his friend Joseph
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Priestley> Priestley's Unitarian
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitarianism> form of Christianity. In an
1822 letter to Benjamin Waterhouse
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Waterhouse> he wrote, "I rejoice
that in this blessed country of free inquiry and belief, which has
surrendered its conscience to neither kings or priests, the genuine doctrine
of only one God is reviving, and I trust that there is not a young man now
living in the United States who will not die a Unitarian."[69]
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ThomasJefferson#cite_note-68> >>>

I really don’t know how many people who belong to churches which profess the
“trinity” just don’t believe it, but most people I know, including most
Catholics, don’t. If Mr. Jefferson was wrong on this count, it’s the first
time I’ve run across it );

-

jk

From: israeliteidentity@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:israeliteidentity@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Terry Gabrich
Sent: Sunday, October 26, 2008 12:04 PM
To: israeliteidentity@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [israeliteidentity] Adultery and Fornicators

Most church's in the U.S. Do believe in a Trinity. As I said, Jesus seems to
reference the Holy Spirit as a personality, and part of the God head. The
Old Testament shows God the Father dealing with a people, and the second
person of the Trinity (Jesus Christ) shows up in prophecies, in Job (when
all of a sudden there is a fourth person talking to Job, when only 3 friends
initially came to him), and Proverbs 8. The New Testament reveals Jesus
Christ (the second person of the Trinity), and he mentions the third person
of the Trinity as he and him, and when he says that he is going to send the
comforter. Upon Christ's resurrection God performs his final act by going
into the temple and ripping the shroud dividing the Holy of Holy place and
the Holy place in two. The Holy Spirit (third person of the Trinity) is
released upon Christ's death and resurrection. It may have been the Holy
Spirit that ripped the shroud in two. However, I believe that it was God's
final act. The keys to heaven and Hell were given to Jesus Christ, and this
is why he went to Hell and took the keys of Hell from Satan. God and the
Holy Spirit always point to Jesus Christ for redemption. I believe that the
Holy Spirit is actually the silent third part of the trinity. This is
something that the RCC doesn't understand. No matter how they pray to Mary;
their prayers will never be answered because God and the Holy Spirit always
point to Jesus Christ for redemption, for salvation, and for all the
answers.

-------Original Message-------

From: Jacob <mailto:ji@blackexile.com> Israel

Date: 10/26/2008 12:40:30 PM

To: israeliteidentity@yahoogroups.com

Cc: houseisrael@yahoogroups.com; Israelites@yahoogroups.com;
israeliteidentity@yahoogroups.com; hilloftorah@yahoogroups.com;
christiandentity@yahoogroups.com; identity@yahoogroups.com;
davidicke2@yahoogroups.com; TWOMIFTG@yahoogroups.com;
thespiritofjacob@yahoogroups.com; christiandentity@yahoogroups.com;
jewsareedom@yahoogroups.com; mamzers@yahoogroups.com

Subject: [israeliteidentity] Adultery and Fornicators

<<< Question, in your post here you mentioned Trinitarians, and in Our
Protestant UNITARIAN nation. Are you saying that you don't believe in the
Trinity. I know there is a big controversy on this, but I believe that the
Bible does talk about a Trinity. It is subtle, but it is there. Jesus Christ
mentions this when he refers to the Holy Spirit as he and him. Also, are you
saying that our nation is actually Unitarian. If so, how? I believe that
there may actually be two nations within our nation. One is the Republic,
and the other is Corporate. I am reading the book entitled, "The Real
Lincoln," by DiLorenzo. He actually makes reference that Lincoln established
the Corporate nation within our nation. He did this in order to destroy the
Republican check and balance system that was initially established in our
country by the Constitution. >>>

Agreed about Lincoln, which literally makes him guilty of TREASON of the
highest sort, which explains why jews love him so.

The RCC has been complaining about, persecuting, prosecuting, and MURDERING
Unitarians like our Founding Fathers for millennia now. It was the
abolishment of Unitarians in England in 1774 which was the major impetus for
the American Revolution two years later, in 1776:

The Toleration <http://www.uucsv.org/carter.htm> Act was passed by the
British Parliament in 1689. This act permitted other religious
denominations, such as Puritans, Quakers, Baptists, Catholics, and Jews, to
legally exist in England alongside the Church of England. However, these
non-Anglican denominations, referred to as dissenters or nonconformists,
could only refer to their meeting houses as chapels. The word "church" was
reserved for the Church of England. Also, dissenters were not allowed to
hold public office, serve in the armed forces or attend the universities.

Within the Anglican Communion there was also growing unrest over the
parliamentary requirement that the Anglican clergy must "subscribe" to the
doctrinal articles of the church, including the Athanasian doctrine of the
Trinity. For nearly a century afterwards a growing controversy continued
over that requirement. A climax was reached in 1771, when Parliament refused
a petition to abolish the requirement of "subscription." This precipitated
some of the non-subscribing clergy to withdraw from the church. One of
these, Theophilus Lindsey, was the organizer of the first Unitarian
congregation in England. Lindsey conducted his first service for a large
congregation in an auction room on Essex Street, London, on April 14th,
1774. Among those in that first congregation were Benjamin Franklin and his
friend, Joseph Priestley.

http://fathersmanifesto.net/unitarian.htm

Of course it’s not just the RCC who are Trinitarians—many in Protestant
churches like the Episcopal Church are too. The problem, though, is not
Unitarians trying to force their beliefs on Trinitarians—the problem as we
can see from this very forum is the other way around, and it does not work:

“These facts about Jefferson's religion are known. He was raised as an
Anglican and always maintained some affiliation with the Anglican Church. He
was also known to contribute financially, in fair proportion, to every
denomination in his town. While a student at William and Mary College, he
began to read the Scottish moral philosophers and other authors who had made
themselves students of church history. These scholars opened the door for
Jefferson's informed criticism of prevailing religious institutions and
beliefs. But it was the world renowned English Unitarian minister and
scientist, Joseph Priestley, who had the most profound impact on his
thought. According to Priestley's Corruptions of Christianity, published in
1782, and many other of his books, the teachings of Jesus and his human
character were obscured and obfuscated in the early Christian centuries. As
the Church Fathers adapted Christianity to Mediterranean-primarily
Greek-forms of thought, they contrived doctrines altogether foreign to
Biblical thought, such as the doctrine of the Trinity. Jefferson assumed
that a thoroughly reformed Christian faith, true to Jesus' teaching, would
be purged of all Greek influence and doctrinal absurdity.”

The Russian Orthodox also believe in a “trinity”, but to them, “father” is a
literal father, “son” is his literal son, and the “holy spirit” is the
genealogical line all the way from Jacob to the last Israelite son born a
few seconds ago.

-

jk

From: israeliteidentity@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:israeliteidentity@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Terry Gabrich
Sent: Saturday, October 25, 2008 10:22 AM
To: israeliteidentity@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [israeliteidentity] RE: Adultery and Fornicators

Question, in your post here you mentioned Trinitarians, and in Our
Protestant UNITARIAN nation. Are you saying that you don't believe in the
Trinity. I know there is a big controversy on this, but I believe that the
Bible does talk about a Trinity. It is subtle, but it is there. Jesus Christ
mentions this when he refers to the Holy Spirit as he and him. Also, are you
saying that our nation is actually Unitarian. If so, how? I believe that
there may actually be two nations within our nation. One is the Republic,
and the other is Corporate. I am reading the book entitled, "The Real
Lincoln," by DiLorenzo. He actually makes reference that Lincoln established
the Corporate nation within our nation. He did this in order to destroy the
Republican check and balance system that was initially established in our
country by the Constitution.

-------Original Message-------

From: Jacob <mailto:ji@blackexile.com> Israel

Date: 10/25/2008 11:44:52 AM

To: 'Ray Earmest' <mailto:ray266@centurytel.net>

Cc: houseisrael@yahoogroups.com; Israelites@yahoogroups.com;
israeliteidentity@yahoogroups.com; hilloftorah@yahoogroups.com;
christiandentity@yahoogroups.com; identity@yahoogroups.com;
davidicke2@yahoogroups.com; TWOMIFTG@yahoogroups.com;
thespiritofjacob@yahoogroups.com; christiandentity@yahoogroups.com;
jewsareedom@yahoogroups.com; mamzers@yahoogroups.com

Subject: [israeliteidentity] RE: Adultery and Fornicators

Well said, Ray,

<<< have diminion over the

fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over

every living thing that moveth upon the earth. There

is nothing complicated about this at all.>>>

But to a kikeaholic, EVERYTHING is complicated, even this SIMPLE
commandment.

Thanks to the adverse influence of trinitarians in OUR Protestant, UNITARIAN
nation, spotted owls and THOUSANDS of other *animals* now have more human
rights than humans, and PARTICULARLY Adamites.

It’s IMPOSSIBLE for these *morons* to figure out that you can’t give a dog a
human right without TAKING IT AWAY FROM AN ADAMITE.

-

jk

From: Ray Earmest [mailto:ray266@centurytel.net]
Sent: Friday, October 24, 2008 4:34 AM
To: Jacob Israel
Subject: Re: Adultery and Fornicators

We don't need to question the fact that God loves "every-

body, but to recognize just who "everybody" is, according

to the bible. The answer is simple: Read Genesis 5:1 &

2:

"THIS (notice capatilized emphasis) is the book of the gen-

erations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the

likeness of God mad he him; Male and female created he

them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in t

the day when they were created."

Adamites ARE God's people, and the entire bible, from

Genesis one, through Revelation 22:21, are of, and for, the

Adam descendants. No African monkeys, Asian pimps,

or any other "adapted" human beings are included in the

book of Genesis, nor the rest of the bible.

Read this Genesis 5:1-2 and educate the church heads of

this and other Christian nations, if possible; which I think

definitely is NOT. I know who I am - do you?

Ray Earnest

PS: Genesis 1:25, 1:26, and 1:27 says it all; God created

every "animal" separate from all others;...and, we are cre-

ated in the image of God, and are to multiply and replenish

the earth, and subdue it; and have diminion over the

fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over

every living thing that moveth upon the earth. There

is nothing complicated about this at all.

Ray Earnest

----- Original Message -----

From: Jacob Israel <mailto:ji@blackexile.com>

To: israeliteidentity@yahoogroups.com

Cc: houseisrael@yahoogroups.com ; Israelites@yahoogroups.com ;
israeliteidentity@yahoogroups.com ; hilloftorah@yahoogroups.com ;
christiandentity@yahoogroups.com ; identity@yahoogroups.com ;
davidicke2@yahoogroups.com ; TWOMIFTG@yahoogroups.com ;
thespiritofjacob@yahoogroups.com ; christiandentity@yahoogroups.com ;
jewsareedom@yahoogroups.com ; mamzers@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2008 2:49 PM

Subject: Adultery and Fornicators

<<< One of the biggest lies in the church today is that God loves everybody.
Nobody even tries to question this when they read how God told the
Israelites to kill all the Caananites and then all the Amelekites. I think
that there probably were innocent men, women, and children in both of these
groups, but God still told Israel to kill them all. King Saul failed to do
so, and he lost his kingdom. Samuel had to kill the last Amelikite (the
king) by himself. The majority of the people in the churches today would
rather sacrifice to God rather than be obedient to God. What did Samuel tell
Saul, "isn't obedience better than sacrifice?" >>>

There are so many big LIES in the church that I have a hard time tracking
down which is the biggest. This is certainly one of the most obvious,
though, and the only way to explain how so many people could READ Scripture,
compare it to what they heard in the “church” [or most likely now from the
jewsmedia], and CONTINUE to believe the jew LIES rather than the real Word
of God, is that we’ve been subjected to the world’s most sophisticated and
successful Zionist brainwashing campaign ever known. Who knows what we
would not know now without the internet, and who knows how much of our *own*
history is STILL missing even WITH the internet?

The church makes a big deal out of how we supposedly benefited from Jesus’
sacrifice—but what might Jesus have accomplished had the jews NOT succeeded
in SHUTTING HIM UP by brutally murdering Him [something the “church” almost
praises these filthy kikes for]? It’s reminiscent of how kikes and
kikeaholics and other mamzers like the four stooges want to SHUT US UP today
isn’t it?

http://fathersmanifesto.net/cathoholicism.htm

-

jk

From: israeliteidentity@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:israeliteidentity@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Terry Gabrich
Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2008 12:56 PM
To: israeliteidentity@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [israeliteidentity] Adultery and Fornicators

One of the biggest lies in the church today is that God loves everybody.
Nobody even tries to question this when they read how God told the
Israelites to kill all the Caananites and then all the Amelekites. I think
that there probably were innocent men, women, and children in both of these
groups, but God still told Israel to kill them all. King Saul failed to do
so, and he lost his kingdom. Samuel had to kill the last Amelikite (the
king) by himself. The majority of the people in the churches today would
rather sacrifice to God rather than be obedient to God. What did Samuel tell
Saul, "isn't obedience better than sacrifice?"

-------Original Message-------

From: Jacob <mailto:ji@blackexile.com> Israel

Date: 10/22/2008 2:29:00 PM

To: Israelites@yahoogroups.com; jewsareedom@yahoogroups.com;
houseisrael@yahoogroups.com; Israelites@yahoogroups.com;
israeliteidentity@yahoogroups.com; hilloftorah@yahoogroups.com;
christiandentity@yahoogroups.com; identity@yahoogroups.com;
davidicke2@yahoogroups.com; TWOMIFTG@yahoogroups.com;
thespiritofjacob@yahoogroups.com; christiandentity@yahoogroups.com;
jewsareedom@yahoogroups.com; mamzers@yahoogroups.com

Cc: jacobandesau@yahoogroups.com; evedemian@verizon.net; 'Faith Full'
<mailto:alecoque33@gmail.com>

Subject: [israeliteidentity] Adultery and Fornicators

Debunked,

If you were trying to demonstrate that you indeed are a silly, easily
beguiled woman, quoting these faggots as “authorities” on anything was a
great way to go:

<<< According to Poole:Mal 1:3 I hated; I loved not Esau or his posterity as
I loved Jacob and his posterity: this not loving, comparatively, is a
hating, God showed not the same kindness to the twin brothers; the one was
more enriched with the fruits of God’s love, and had cause to be thankful;
the other had no cause to complain, for God did him no wrong. >>>>

God HATED Esau, but “did him no wrong”?

God “made his mountains a waste” but “did him no wrong”?

God made Esau’s “heritage a desert for jackals”, but “did him no wrong”?

God PREORDAINED THAT the younger, Jacob, would RULE the firstborn son Esau,
but “did him no wrong”? This is a punishment to the EXTREME in a
patriarchal society like Israelites.

God called Esau a FORNICATOR, but “did him no wrong”?

God CUT OFF Esau FOREVER, Obadiah 1:10 For [thy] violence against thy
brother Jacob shame shall cover thee, and thou shalt be cut off forever, but
“did him no wrong”?

God SLAUGHTERED descendants of Esau Obadiah 1:9 And thy mighty [men], O
Teman, shall be dismayed, to the end that every one of the mount of Esau may
be cut off by slaughter, but “did him no wrong”?

Sure, debunked! From Esau’s perspective, God could not POSSIBLY have done
Esau MORE WRONG!

If WE did this to you and your fellow silly, easily beguiled women and the
rest of your filthy “church”, we GUARANDAMNTEE you that you would NOT
believe that we “did you no wrong”, didn’t “hate” you, or simply “loved you
less”?

Your penchant to HATE the Word of God is noted—by God Himself.

jk

From: Israelites@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Israelites@yahoogroups.com] On
Behalf Of Debunks
Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2008 11:59 AM
To: jewsareedom@yahoogroups.com
Cc: Jacob Israel; jacobandesau@yahoogroups.com; evedemian@verizon.net; Faith
Full
Subject: [Israelites] Re: [jewsareedom] Adultery and Fornicators

Haha. Never at a loss for something stupid to say, are you, Mr. Knight?
You don't like it because I corrected you on your usual infantile
interpretation of

God 'hates' Esau? You think I pulled that information out of thin air?
Well, allow me to correct you AGAIN - How many times will it be now? - Let's
defer to some MALE Bible commentators on this passage -

According to Poole:

Mal 1:3

I hated; I loved not Esau or his posterity as I loved Jacob and his
posterity: this not loving, comparatively, is a hating, God showed not the
same kindness to the twin brothers; the one was more enriched with the
fruits of God’s love, and had cause to be thankful; the other had no cause
to complain, for God did him no wrong.

According to John Gill -

Mal 1:3 And I hated Esau,.... Or, "rejected" him, as the Targum; did not
love him as Jacob: this was a negative, not positive hatred; it is true of
him, personally considered; not only by taking away the birthright and
blessing from him, which he despised; but by denying him his special grace,
leaving him in his sins, and to his lusts, so that he became a profane
person; shared not in the grace of God here, and had no part in the eternal
inheritance with the saints in light; and likewise it is true of his
posterity, as the following instances show:

According to Jameson, Fausset and Brown-

Mal 1:3

hated — not positively, but relatively; that is, did not choose him out to
be the object of gratuitous favor, as I did Jacob (compare Luk_14:26, with
Mat_10:37; Gen_29:30, Gen_29:31; Deu_21:15, Deu_21:16).

And that is just a few among many authorities that might be cited....It
seems , therefore, that it is 'your' interpretation that is effeminate and
based upon emotion, rather than fact or authority, Miss Knight.,

-------Original Message-------

From: Jacob <mailto:ji@blackexile.com> Israel

Date: 10/22/2008 11:39:32 AM

To: israeliteidentity@yahoogroups.com

Cc: houseisrael@yahoogroups.com; Israelites@yahoogroups.com;
israeliteidentity@yahoogroups.com; hilloftorah@yahoogroups.com;
christiandentity@yahoogroups.com; identity@yahoogroups.com;
davidicke2@yahoogroups.com; TWOMIFTG@yahoogroups.com;
thespiritofjacob@yahoogroups.com; christiandentity@yahoogroups.com;
jewsareedom@yahoogroups.com; mamzers@yahoogroups.com

Subject: [jewsareedom] Adultery and Fornicators

<<< True, I thought debunks was a woman until he starting to say he and him
when referring to himself. I wonder if he might be a Roman Catholic priest.
If so, it could be a good chance that he is a pedophile. >>>

Me too. Nobody ever believed debunked was a man. We let her keep up the
pretense merely to let her play out her little game. NO man would claim
that hate does not mean hate, since not even most Catholic WOMEN do.

In Boston alone, there are 1,845,846 Catholics who just “legalized” gay
marriage in Massachusetts, just as kikeaholic-infested New York did
recently, at the same time that PROTESTANT states, like 72% of the voters in
Kansas and 92% of the voters in Florida, amended their state constitutions
to OUTLAW “gay marriages”.

How can it be explained that so many legislators in primarily Catholic
states are so fond of faggots that they IGNORE God’s LAW, they GNORE the
will of we the people, they IGNORE common sense, they IGNORE *multiple*
legitimate public mandates, they IGNORE the entire Bill of Rights, and
ESTABLISH such an anti-Christ position?

Well, TWO HUNDRED AND TWENTY [220] “PRIESTS” in Boston alone ADMITTED to
buggering little children, and getting away with it. The grandmaster of
pedophiles, “Cardinal law”, was REWARDED for it by being promoted to the
Vatican while the only non-faggot priests, who are few and far between, were
quietly PUNISHED. Such things cause errant legislators to pass anti-Christ
laws.

The population of Catholics is dropping, FAST, and right now there are at
most 60 million in the US [hallelujah]. With 40,000 priests [and also
dropping fast, hallelujah], this is 1,500 Catholics per priest, so the total
number of priests in Boston is 1,231, of whom 31% are KNOWN, PROVEN IN A
COURT OF LAW, FAGGOTS. If that many of them are PROVEN faggots—it’s no
stretch of the imagination that ONE HUNDRED PERCENT of these “priests” are
faggots.

What could be more revealing of the evil nature of this “church” than for it
to try to recreate Sodom and Gomorrah right under our very noses?

http://fathersmanifesto.net/cathoholicism.htm

-

jk

From: israeliteidentity@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:israeliteidentity@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Terry Gabrich
Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2008 10:11 AM
To: israeliteidentity@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [israeliteidentity] Adultery and Fornicators

True, I thought debunks was a woman until he starting to say he and him when
referring to himself. I wonder if he might be a Roman Catholic priest. If
so, it could be a good chance that he is a pedophile.

-------Original Message-------

From: Jacob Israel <mailto:ji@blackexile.com>

Date: 10/22/2008 12:05:43 PM

To: TWOMIFTG@yahoogroups.com

Cc: 'Debunks' <mailto:Debunks@sbcglobal.net> ; houseisrael@yahoogroups.com;
Israelites@yahoogroups.com; israeliteidentity@yahoogroups.com;
hilloftorah@yahoogroups.com; christiandentity@yahoogroups.com;
identity@yahoogroups.com; davidicke2@yahoogroups.com;
TWOMIFTG@yahoogroups.com; thespiritofjacob@yahoogroups.com;
christiandentity@yahoogroups.com; jewsareedom@yahoogroups.com;
mamzers@yahoogroups.com

Subject: [israeliteidentity] Adultery and Fornicators

Faith BULL .hit whines:

<<< Oh, and Debunks is not a she! LOL! FF>>>

Many of us have read many, many posts from debunked. Not a single one of
them would even HINT that debunked is a man. If he IS a man, his silly and
effeminate beliefs, his easily beguiled persona, his notorious claim that
hate does not mean hate, that the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob even
“LOVES Esau”, only just slightly less than He LOVES Jacob, by itself CUTS
HIM OUT:

Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be
not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor
effeminate, nor mamzers, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor
revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God 1 Colossians
6:9-10

These terms are not negotiable. Even SUPPORTING fornicators [read: race
mixers], even THINKING about supporting fornicators, CUTS YOU OUT! Simply
having the APPEARANCE of effeminate CUTS YOU OUT!

And you think whores will be in Heaven? HA! You’ll be*lucky* if whores
aren’t sent BELOW Hell.

jk

PS—if you EVER think we’ll ever take advice from a woman, much less a PAGAN
woman, much less a PAGAN, blasphemous, foul mouthed, un-Godly, anti-Christ
whose only claim to fame so far is malicious LIBEL and malicious SLANDER,
you need to study VERY CLOSELY exactly which part of the Torah Paul quoted
above, and why Jesus could NEVER have “fulfilled” it. If PAUL intended for
this part of the Word of God to be abolished—WHY WOULD HE QUOTE IT? I don’t
even know WOMEN, even CATHOLIC women, who insist, after READING Scripture,
that God does NOT hate Esau, putting debunked LOWER than mere effeminate.

From: TWOMIFTG@yahoogroups.com [mailto:TWOMIFTG@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
Of Faith Full
Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2008 5:05 AM
To: TWOMIFTG@yahoogroups.com
Cc: Debunks
Subject: Re: [TWOMIFTG] Adultery

Terry, I hate to tell you this, but I know Jesus Christ, and have known Him
and had Him in my life ALL MY LIFE since I was a child, and I am very happy
in my relationship with Him. I wonder if you can say that, or your deranged
pal jk, who has no time for anything, much less Jesus Christ, who
he doesn't believe to be God the Son, because he fills his head - and yours
- with so much poppycock about who's fornicating with who. Who cares?

JK makes me laugh. He says he came close to becoming a Roman Catholic!

They wouldn't have had you, my friend. Your ignorance would be enough. No,
the Catholic Church only take sincere individuals who love their fellow man.
The Catholic Church is not racist - obviously, as it operates in every part
of the world and our saints are from every walk in life, every nation under
the sun.

Oh, as for the Eucharist, the main focus of our liturgy - I wouldn't even
bother to try to explain this sacred event to a dunce like you. I tried
before but received ridicule for my efforts. It would be an indignity to
God to try any further. Let Him shine his grace upon you and ENLIGHTEN you
- if He wishes. He will find a way to do this much better than I. But you
couldn't have come close to being a Catholic with your mindset and lack of
basic Christian doctrine and your weird cultish ideas. No, sir, they
wouldn't let you in!

Oh, and Debunks is not a she! LOL!

FF

On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 7:10 PM, Jacob Israel <ji@blackexile.com> wrote:

<<< Debunk is full of Roman Catholic doctrine, this is why she is so
confused. There is no meaning in her life because she doesn't know Jesus
Christ. >>>

I actually didn't believe the RCC doctrine could be this bad. I was hoping
that it was just one errant Catholic with not a brain in her head who
grossly misrepresented it. When she became the first to explain that when a
Catholic participates in the "eucharist", they believe they are *literally*
eating *literal* flesh and *literal* blood, she put me over the edge. This
makes the craziest witch doctor of Africa seem reasonable by comparison.

It would be bad enough if it was just cannibalism. But this is by
definition, even in SCRIPTURE, a serious mental illness. In NO place in the
entire one million words in the Word of God does God ever condone eating
human flesh and human blood, much less that of the "Son of God" [to quote
Jesus].

This is vile stuff. This is even *worse* than witchcraft:

· Exo 22:18 Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.

· Deu 18:10 There shall not be found among you any one that maketh
his son or his daughter to pass through the fire, or that useth divination,
or an observer of times, or an enchanter, or a witch,

· 1Sa 15:23 For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and
stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry. Because thou hast rejected the
word of the LORD, he hath also rejected thee from being king.

· 2Ki 9:22 And it came to pass, when Joram saw Jehu, that he said, Is
it peace, Jehu? And he answered, What peace, so long as the whoredoms of thy
mother Jezebel and her witchcrafts are so many?

-

jk

From: israeliteidentity@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:israeliteidentity@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Terry Gabrich
Sent: Friday, October 17, 2008 1:24 PM
To: israeliteidentity@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [israeliteidentity] Re: [jewsareedom] Adultery

Debunk is full of Roman Catholic doctrine, this is why she is so confused.
There is no meaning in her life because she doesn't know Jesus Christ.

-------Original Message-------

From: Jacob Israel <mailto:ji@blackexile.com>

Date: 10/17/2008 12:22:53 PM

To: jewsareedom@yahoogroups.com; TWOMIFTG@yahoogroups.com

Cc: mamzers@yahoogroups.com; jewsareedom@yahoogroups.com;
thespiritofjacob@yahoogroups.com; TWOMIFTG@yahoogroups.com;
davidicke2@yahoogroups.com; identity@yahoogroups.com;
christiandentity@yahoogroups.com; hilloftorah@yahoogroups.com;
israeliteidentity@yahoogroups.com; Israelites@yahoogroups.com;
houseisrael@yahoogroups.com

Subject: [israeliteidentity] Re: [jewsareedom] Adultery

* <<<Utter madness. What wretchedness you espouse, jk.>>>

Why don't you tell us, step by step debunked, WHY you "think" God's LAW
would not apply to Esau but DOES apply to everyone else?

Once again, this is God's LAW regarding marriage--and do not claim Jesus
"fulfilled" it unless you can show us chapter and verse that He REALLY DID
(which btw according to Jesus Himself would require at LEAST three
witnesses):

* Exodus 22:16-17 And if a man entice a maid that is not betrothed,
and lie with her, he shall surely endow her to be his wife. If her father
utterly refuse to give her unto him, he shall pay money according to the
dowry of virgins.

Do you have a record that Esau ever paid the dowry of virgins? No? Then
according to GOD HIMSELF, the instant he had SEX with Mahalath, he was
MARRIED to her, right? Do you have a record that Esau never had sex with
her? No? Then the following verse is PROOF that Esau not only had SEX with
Mahalath, not only did NOT pay the dowry of virgins, but that Esau WAS
married to Mahalath, right?:

* Then went Esau unto Ishmael, and took unto the wives which he had
Mahalath the daughter of Ishmael Abraham's son, the sister of Nebajoth, to
be his wife. Genesis 28:9

It doesn't say he fornicated with Mahalath, right? It doesn't say Esau
RAPED her, or had incest wilth her, or had oral sex with her, or in ANY
other way was "lewd" with her, or had "voluntary sexual intercourse on the
part of an unmarried person with a person of the opposite sex" as one
dictionary claims, or had "Fornication applies to any act of extra marital
sexual acts between two or more individuals" as YOU claimed, nor did he
"commit lewdness, as an unmarried man or woman, or as a married man with an
unmarried woman" as ANOTHER dictionary claims.

It says "to be his WIFE"! Period.

So explain again--WHY DID GOD CALL ESAU A FORNICATOR???

What EXACTLY did Esau do to become a FORNICATOR--who cannot be forgiven even
after shedding crockadile tears by the buckletloads?

jk

----- Original Message -----

From: JPB <mailto:debunks@sbcglobal.net>

To: TWOMIFTG@yahoogroups.com ; jewsareedom@yahoogroups.com

Cc: houseisrael@yahoogroups.com ; Israelites@yahoogroups.com ;
israeliteidentity@yahoogroups.com ; hilloftorah@yahoogroups.com ;
christiandentity@yahoogroups.com ; identity@yahoogroups.com ;
davidicke2@yahoogroups.com ; TWOMIFTG@yahoogroups.com ;
thespiritofjacob@yahoogroups.com ; jewsareedom@yahoogroups.com ;
mamzers@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2008 2:39 PM

Subject: Re: [jewsareedom] Adultery

Utter madness. What wretchedness you espouse, jk.

-------Original Message-------

From: Jacob Israel <mailto:ji@blackexile.com>

Date: 10/14/2008 2:31:19 PM

To: TWOMIFTG@yahoogroups.com

Cc: houseisrael@yahoogroups.com; Israelites@yahoogroups.com;
israeliteidentity@yahoogroups.com; hilloftorah@yahoogroups.com;
christiandentity@yahoogroups.com; identity@yahoogroups.com;
davidicke2@yahoogroups.com; TWOMIFTG@yahoogroups.com;
thespiritofjacob@yahoogroups.com; jewsareedom@yahoogroups.com;
mamzers@yahoogroups.com

Subject: [jewsareedom] Adultery

Faith bull's law:

fornication NOUN:

Sexual intercourse between partners who are not married to each other.

God's LAW:

* Exodus 22:1-7 And if a man entice a maid that is not betrothed, and
lie with her, he shall surely endow her to be his wife. If her father
utterly refuse to give her unto him, he shall pay money according to the
dowry of virgins.

Did Esau pay the dowry of virgins? NO. So when ESAU had sex with Mahalath,
Ishmael's daughter and Abraham's grand-daughter, he was not FORNICATING, he
was MARRYING.

jk

----- Original Message -----

From: Faith Full <mailto:alecoque33@gmail.com>

To: TWOMIFTG@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2008 12:05 PM

Subject: Re: [TWOMIFTG] Re: [israeliteidentity] Adultery

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition.
2000.

fornication

SYLLABICATION:

for·ni·ca·tion

<http://www.bartleby.com/61/12.html> PRONUNCIATION:

<http://www.bartleby.com/61/wavs/78/F0267800.wav> Error! Filename not
specified. fôrError! Filename not specified.nError! Filename not
specified.-kError! Filename not specified.Error! Filename not
specified.shError! Filename not specified.n

NOUN:

Sexual intercourse between partners who are not married to each other.

WORD HISTORY:

The word fornication had a lowly beginning suitable to what has long been
the low moral status of the act to which it refers. The Latin wordfornix,
from which fornicError! Filename not specified.tiError! Filename not
specified., the ancestor of fornication, is derived, meant "a vault, an
arch." The term also referred to a vaulted cellar or similar place where
prostitutes plied their trade. This sense of fornix in Late Latin yielded
the verb fornicError! Filename not specified.rError! Filename not
specified., "to commit fornication," from which is derivedfornicError!
Filename not specified.tiError! Filename not specified., "whoredom,
fornication." Our word is first recorded in Middle English about 1303.

On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 2:53 PM, Jacob Israel <ji@blackexile.com> wrote:

* <<<Why isn't fornication adultery, and adultery fornication?>>>

Dear Terry,

I was simply agreeing with Biship David that, by his definitions [and I'm
not sure where he gets them, as they don't even match the definitions I
have, which we both know are already in conflict with Scripture] adultery
and fornication are not the same.

Scripture tells US [but not a lot of other people] that God called Esau a
fornicator because of his selection of wives [Canaanites, Hittites,
Ishmaelites, etc.]. Esau was never under God's EVERLASTING Covenant where
we find the prohibition against Israelites, and ONLY Israelites,
adulterating the holy seed, or adultery.

But now Bishop David dug his hole even deeper by saying "fornication is
sexual intercourse between unmarried persons" and "adultery is a married
person having sexual intercourse with anyone other than the one he/she is
married to".

The "he/she" tells us the whole story--to Bishop David, the Word of God is
anathema:

* Exodus 22:1-7 And if a man entice a maid that is not betrothed, and
lie with her, he shall surely endow her to be his wife. If her father
utterly refuse to give her unto him, he shall pay money according to the
dowry of virgins.

When given the choice between following: 1) feminazis like Faith bull and
debunked and jpb, and fallen biships like Bishop David who equates "he" to
"she", or 2) following the WORD OF GOD; I do believe we'll find MOST of the
271 million people in this country CLAIMING to be "Christians" on the RIGHT
side of God's Law.

-

jk

----- Original Message -----

From: Terry Gabrich <mailto:isaiah14@sbcglobal.net>

To: israeliteidentity@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2008 10:44 AM

Subject: Re: [israeliteidentity] Adultery

Why isn't fornication adultery, and adultery fornication?

-------Original Message-------

From: Jacob Israel <mailto:ji@blackexile.com>

Date: 10/14/2008 11:27:17 AM

To: ChristianPatriot@yahoogroups.com

Cc: houseisrael@yahoogroups.com; Israelites@yahoogroups.com;
israeliteidentity@yahoogroups.com; hilloftorah@yahoogroups.com;
christiandentity@yahoogroups.com; identity@yahoogroups.com;
davidicke2@yahoogroups.com; TWOMIFTG@yahoogroups.com;
thespiritofjacob@yahoogroups.com; jewsareedom@yahoogroups.com;
mamzers@yahoogroups.com

Subject: [israeliteidentity] Adultery

The only INDIVIDUAL in the entire Holy Bible who God HATES is Esau:

* As it is written: "I loved Jacob but hated Esau," Romans 9:13

If fornication had nothing to do with his marrying Canaanite women who
Abraham and Isaac and Rebekah did NOT want him to marry, and then Ishmaelite
women who STILL did not abate God's HATE, then exactly which Word of God
does?:

* Then went Esau unto Ishmael, and took unto the wives which he had
Mahalath the daughter of Ishmael Abraham's son, the sister of Nebajoth, to
be his wife. Genesis 28:9

We can't ignore why it is that God HATES Esau. There are many other people
called fornicators in Scripture and God doesn't HATE them. Even his own
mother HATED Esau for this "And Rebekah saith unto Isaac, `I have been
disgusted with my life because of the presence of the daughters of Heth; if
Jacob take a wife of the daughters of Heth, like these--from the daughters
of the land--why do I live?'":

* "Adultery, in no way, is fornication and fornication, in no way, is
adultery. That is what I am showing you."

Agreed. But why did you ignore that, by your own definition that "it is
fornication on the part of the latter, though adultery for the former", Esau
could also not be accused of adultery, because by GOD'S LAW, his act of
laying with these other women is *marriage*, not *adultery*:

* Exodus 22:1-7 And if a man entice a maid that is not betrothed, and
lie with her, he shall surely endow her to be his wife. If her father
utterly refuse to give her unto him, he shall pay money according to the
dowry of virgins.

jk

----- Original Message -----

From: djour8142 <mailto:djour8142@yahoo.com>

To: ChristianPatriot@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2008 1:45 AM

Subject: [ChristianPatriot] Re: Adultery

The word is fornicator, -OR- PROFANE PERSON, AS ESAU.

Notice it does NOT say that Esau was a Fornicator. Esau was a profane
person.

The article is -OR- not AND.

It does not say fornicator -and- profane person. It says -or- profane
person as Esau.

Fornication is done during the betrothal period. Can one fornicate
against God? Yes. As we are betrothed to GOD and at the same time we
can have other gods before HIM. When we have other gods Before GOD WE
FORNICATE AGAINST GOD.

Remember these words "in this understanding." There are other
understandings as I have shown you. The previous understanding I have
shown you is the sexual intercourse understanding.

Adultery, in no way, is fornication and fornication, in no way, is
adultery. That is what I am showing you.

There is spiritual fornication -which is against the holy ghost- and
there is carnal fornication- which is against your own fleshly body.

David

--- In ChristianPatriot@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:ChristianPatriot%40yahoogroups.com> , "Jacob Israel" <ji@...>
wrote:
>
> a.. <<<Fornication. Unlawful sexual intercourse between two
unmarried
> persons. Further, if one of the persons be married and the other
not,
> it is fornication on the part
> of the latter, though adultery for the former.
> A divorced Person is considered married or having been married in
> this understanding.>>>
>
>
>
> HOW, then, was Esau a fornicator?
>
>
> a.. Hebrews 12:16-17 Lest there be any fornicator, or profane
person, as Esau, who for one morsel of meat sold his birthright. For
ye know how that afterward, when he would have inherited the
blessing, he was rejected: for he found no place of repentance,
though he sought it carefully with tears.
>
>
> Esau wasn't divorced. Esau wasn't unmarried. So Esau was not a
fornicator because of "sexual intercourse between two unmarried
persons", nor because of "fornication on the part of the latter
[where "latter" is the numarried person]".
>
> By THIS definition, you might claim Esau was guilty of "adultery",
but by GOD'S LAW when Esau had sex "outside of marriage", it was
called MARRIAGE:
>
> a.. Exodus 22:1-7 And if a man entice a maid that is not
betrothed, and lie with her, he shall surely endow her to be his
wife. If her father utterly refuse to give her unto him, he shall pay
money according to the dowry of virgins
>
> Since Esau didn't pay the "dowry of virgins" when he "took"
Mahalath "to be his wife", we cannot claim he was guilty of adultery
either:
> a.. Then went Esau unto Ishmael, and took unto the wives which he
had Mahalath the daughter of Ishmael Abraham's son, the sister of
Nebajoth, to be his wife. Genesis 28:9
> YOUR definition means Esau would be guilty of neither fornication
or adultery.
>
> WHY, then, was Esau called a fornicator?
>
> -
>
>
>
> jk
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: djour8142
> To: ChristianPatriot@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:ChristianPatriot%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Monday, October 13, 2008 6:37 AM
> Subject: [ChristianPatriot] Adultery
>
>
> Adultery
>
> Mat 5:27 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou
> shalt not commit adultery:
> Mat 5:28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to
> lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his
heart.
>
> Mat 5:32 But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his
wife,
> saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit
adultery:
> and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth
adultery.
>
> Fornication. Unlawful sexual intercourse between two unmarried
> persons. Further, if one of the persons be married and the other
not,
> it is fornication on the part
> of the latter, though adultery for the former.
> A divorced Person is considered married or having been married in
> this understanding.
>
> Mat 19:9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife,
> except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth
> adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit
> adultery.
>
> Mark 10:11 And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his
> wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her.
> Mark 10:12 And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be
married
> to another, she committeth adultery.
>
> Luke 16:18 Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another,
> committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away
from
> her husband committeth adultery.
>
> Rom 7:3 So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to
> another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her
husband be
> dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress,
though
> she be married to another man.
>
> 1 Cor 6:9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the
> kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor
idolaters,
> nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with
> mankind,
> 1 Cor 6:10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers,
> nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
>
> Heb 13:4 Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but
> whoremongers and adulterers God will judge.
> Heb 13:5 Let your conversation be without covetousness; and be
> content with such things as ye have: for he hath said, I will
never
> leave thee, nor forsake thee.
> Heb 13:6 So that we may boldly say, The Lord is my helper, and I
> will not fear what man shall do unto me.
>
> James 4:4 Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the
> friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore
will
> be a friend of the world is the enemy of God.
> James 4:5 Do ye think that the scripture saith in vain, The spirit
> that dwelleth in us lusteth to envy?
>
> Fornication. Unlawful sexual intercourse between two unmarried
> persons. Further, if one of the persons be married and the other
not,
> it is fornication on the part
> of the latter, though adultery for the former.
> A divorced Person is considered married or having been married in
> this understanding.
>

<http://www.incredimail.com/index.asp?id=109096&rui=107196570> FREE
Animations for your email - by IncrediMail! Click Here!



<http://www.incredimail.com/index.asp?id=109095&rui=107196570> FREE
Animations for your email - by IncrediMail! Click Here!

<http://www.incredimail.com/index.asp?id=501344&rui=107196570> FREE! 100s
of New E-cards For Every Occasion!



<http://www.incredimail.com/index.asp?id=501344&rui=107196570> FREE! 100s
of New E-cards For Every Occasion!

_____

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
Version: 8.0.175 / Virus Database: 270.8.2/1741 - Release Date: 10/23/2008
7:54 AM

<http://www.incredimail.com/index.asp?id=501344&rui=107196570> FREE! 100s
of New E-cards For Every Occasion!

<http://www.incredimail.com/index.asp?id=501344&rui=107196570> FREE! 100s
of New E-cards For Every Occasion!

Back to top

Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
Messages in this topic (10)

2.

Stanese be heapum fruitful and multiply like a good fornicator

Posted by: "Jacob Israel" ji@blackexile.com   urbini.rm

Sun Oct 26, 2008 11:05 am (PDT)

Faith BULL,

“Prove” what? Your death threats are there for all to see.

If you were a MAN, you would already be in PRISON for it, and thanks to the
brand spanking new Patriot Act, you’d be in Guantanamo with NO lawyer, NO
trial, and no need for any more witnesses.

Only because you are a woman do you “think” you can get away with it. But
the recent increase in the prison population who are women from 4% to 15%
proves this is no longer a valid “defense”.

On top of that, your flooding the internet with your vile paganism and
goddess worshiping “chills free speech” [to use a feminazi term coined by
the grandest feminazi of them all] for the 271 million people in this
country who CLAIM to be Christians. These same courts could easily find
that impinging on their free exercise of religion is an even more serious
crime.

http://fathersmanifesto.net/cathoholicism.htm

jk

From: TWOMIFTG@yahoogroups.com [mailto:TWOMIFTG@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
Of Faith Full
Sent: Saturday, October 25, 2008 11:03 PM
To: TWOMIFTG@yahoogroups.com
Cc: Roman Culture_Of Death; Infallible_Virginia@yahoogroups.com;
rainesco@earthlink.net; the-dialectic-of-the-dialectic@yahoogroups.com;
persians-jews-flies@yahoogroups.com; Debunks
Subject: Re: [TWOMIFTG] Re: Stanese be heapum fruitful and multiply

I want to see my "death threats"!

On Sun, Oct 26, 2008 at 1:48 AM, Pay_the_Piper <pay_the_piper@shaw.ca>
wrote:

You have already done so and it is in the archives.

----- Original Message -----

From: Faith Full <mailto:alecoque33@gmail.com>

To: TWOMIFTG@yahoogroups.com

Cc: Roman Culture_Of Death <mailto:romancultureofdeath@yahoogroups.com> ;
Infallible_Virginia@yahoogroups.com ; rainesco@earthlink.net ;
the-dialectic-of-the-dialectic@yahoogroups.com ;
persians-jews-flies@yahoogroups.com ; Debunks <mailto:Debunks@sbcglobal.net>

Sent: Saturday, October 25, 2008 10:40 PM

Subject: Re: [TWOMIFTG] Re: Stanese be heapum fruitful and multiply

Prove it!

FF

On Sun, Oct 26, 2008 at 1:35 AM, Pay_the_Piper <pay_the_piper@shaw.ca>
wrote:

You are an accomplice to a PROVEN fascist terrorist. Need I say more?

PtP

----- Original Message -----

From: Faith Full <mailto:alecoque33@gmail.com>

To: Pay_the_Piper <mailto:pay_the_piper@shaw.ca>

Cc: Roman Culture_Of Death <mailto:romancultureofdeath@yahoogroups.com> ;
Infallible_Virginia@yahoogroups.com ; rainesco@earthlink.net ; TWOMIFTG
<mailto:twomiftg@yahoogroups.com> ;
the-dialectic-of-the-dialectic@yahoogroups.com ;
persians-jews-flies@yahoogroups.com ; Debunks <mailto:Debunks@sbcglobal.net>

Sent: Saturday, October 25, 2008 10:18 PM

Subject: [TWOMIFTG] Re: Stanese be heapum fruitful and multiply

You're becoming sillier with each e-mail, Porky!

Why delete Debunks? Are you afraid of him?

FF

On Sun, Oct 26, 2008 at 12:57 AM, Pay_the_Piper <pay_the_piper@shaw.ca>
wrote:

The proof is in the archives, fascist Christ-hater!

(cc to your fascist obermeisiter deleted)

----- Original Message -----

From: Faith Full <mailto:alecoque33@gmail.com>

To: Pay_the_Piper <mailto:pay_the_piper@shaw.ca>

Cc: Roman Culture_Of Death <mailto:romancultureofdeath@yahoogroups.com> ;
Infallible_Virginia@yahoogroups.com ; rainesco@earthlink.net ; Debunks
<mailto:Debunks@sbcglobal.net>

Sent: Saturday, October 25, 2008 9:34 PM

Subject: Re: Stanese be heapum fruitful and multiply

Aw, a little projection there, Porky-Boy, isn't there?

Somebody so obsessed with murder and torture as you are would lead one to
wonder...just how do you spend your spare time?

Your accusations are silly.

Grow up or get lost!

FF

On Sat, Oct 25, 2008 at 3:40 PM, Pay_the_Piper <pay_the_piper@shaw.ca>
wrote:

Liar! Fascist word twister! I accuse you of being an ACCOMPLICE to a
dangerous, well-known fascist who supports religious torture-murder as below
..... AND YOU KNOW IT.

PtP

----- Original Message -----

From: Faith Full <mailto:alecoque33@gmail.com>

To: Pay_the_Piper <mailto:pay_the_piper@shaw.ca>

Cc: Infallible_Virginia@yahoogroups.com ; rainesco@earthlink.net ; Debunks
<mailto:Debunks@sbcglobal.net>

Sent: Saturday, October 25, 2008 12:00 PM

Subject: Re: Stanese be heapum fruitful and multiply

Yes, I'm sure that the archives are full of my "death threats" and "acts of
torture" plus "torture threats."

Anything else you'd like to accuse me of?

You should get together with jk - he has a load of descriptions of
me that defy reason.

Boy, oh, boy, if I were guilty of all this, I'd be even busier than I
presently am.

And Joseph is a murderer? Hmm. I wonder if he's murdered anyone recently.
I must ask him. Yes, he's very violent. You only have to read his educated
and rational arguments and lack of vulgarity to see that.

Hmm. The thing is, we don't know anything about you, Porky, now do we?
Oink, oink!

You could be the one with the torture chamber that nobody knows about...what
hidden, dark and sinister secrets do you conceal?

Have a lovely day!

FF

On Sat, Oct 25, 2008 at 1:30 PM, Pay_the_Piper <pay_the_piper@shaw.ca>
wrote:

The postings by "Joseph" the fascist torturer and murderer and your
follow-up as his accomplice are all in the archives as proof.

PtP

----- Original Message -----

From: Faith Full <mailto:alecoque33@gmail.com>

To: Pay_the_Piper <mailto:pay_the_piper@shaw.ca>

Cc: Infallible_Virginia@yahoogroups.com ; rainesco@earthlink.net

Sent: Saturday, October 25, 2008 10:17 AM

Subject: Re: Stanese be heapum fruitful and multiply

Anything you say, Porky!

Anything you say!

Little minds have to be humoured or the mouth starts frothing.

Want to sign up for torture 101? We can give you a discount if you want
several months worth!!!

FF

On Sat, Oct 25, 2008 at 1:08 PM, Pay_the_Piper <pay_the_piper@shaw.ca>
wrote:

"Joseph" was outed long-ago as a proven fascist who subscribes to torture
and murder as religious practice against those anathematized.

He spent much time targeting and anathematizing various individuals online
whom you now attempt to trace personally, ie this is cyber-stalking and it
is sinister. You are his accomplice. He will personally do or oversee the
tortures given a chance.

PtP

----- Original Message -----

From: Faith Full <mailto:alecoque33@gmail.com>

To: Pay_the_Piper <mailto:pay_the_piper@shaw.ca>

Cc: Roman Culture_Of Death <mailto:romancultureofdeath@yahoogroups.com> ;
Infallible_Virginia@yahoogroups.com ; rainesco@earthlink.net

Sent: Saturday, October 25, 2008 9:29 AM

Subject: Re: Stanese be heapum fruitful and multiply

There's nothing honest about you PtP. "Twisted weasel" is what comes to
mind when I think of you, which is rarely.

Sure, anything to please you. Joseph and I have our torture chamber all
ready with the latest gadgets which we want to try out on YOU!

I regularly torture people at lunch hour, when I get the chance.

Happy now?

FF

On Sat, Oct 25, 2008 at 12:04 PM, Pay_the_Piper <pay_the_piper@shaw.ca>
wrote:

There is a big difference between the wording below and your pig-sty
oinking. Also you are the only list discussant who zealously tries to trace
identities across email addresses, passing them in cc on to a well-known
Fascist who subscribes to Third Rome (Reich) torture methods in defence of
his religion, a Fascist any sensible person would be wary of as a mentally
derailed, dangerous and deranged potential domestic terrorist.

But once again you were asked an honest question in reply to your mechanoid,
ie HERETICAL blind dogmas and you ran away oinking.

Oink out for us your "reasoning" as to how New Ireland can be fruitful and
multiply while adhering to God's laws and remain within its carrying
capacity.

Don't forget that Fascist "love" is only fickle fascist fornication. Don't
forget those lampshades. However, Neo Fascist product lines are expanding
and IV will be made into an alligator purse while you will be made into
pigskin boots.

PtP

Sent: Saturday, October 25, 2008 6:43 AM

Subject: Fwd: Re: [TWOMIFTG] Re: Stanese be heapum fruitful and multiply

Oh, oh, Gyan, didn't you know that you have just made a DEATH THREAT, in
PtP's opinion?
Threatening him with "Kingdom Come" as I did.

Now JK is on the bandwagon adding my dire "death threats" to the litany of
my other colourful descriptions (lesbian, fornicator, whore, slut, pedophile
lover...you name it. I have a most interesting lifestyle by his
estimation!)

FF

On Sat, Oct 25, 2008 at 6:02 AM, Gyan <nutmeg2323@yahoo.com.au> wrote:

>
> Ho ho ho and a bottle of rum.
> He can pay the Piper to kingdom come.
>
>
> --- In TWOMIFTG@yahoogroups.com <TWOMIFTG%40yahoogroups.com>, "Faith Full"
> <alecoque33@...> wrote:
> >
> > Why don't you ask Ho! Ho, ho, ho!!!
> > FF
> >
> > On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 5:13 PM, Pay_the_Piper <pay_the_piper@...>wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Tell us how you would live within your carrying capacity in New
> Ireland
> > > while doing all that multiplying. What will your laws say about
> > > multiplication rights?
> > >
> > > PtP
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > *From:* Faith Full <alecoque33@...>
> > > *To:* TWOMIFTG@yahoogroups.com <TWOMIFTG%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > *Cc:* Debunks <Debunks@...>
> > > *Sent:* Friday, October 24, 2008 1:34 PM
> > > *Subject:* Re: [TWOMIFTG] Stanese be heapum fruitful and multiply
> > >
> > > Are you having a good time, PtP, writing to yourself?
> > >
> > > No one else is bothering.
> > >
> > > FF
> > >
> > > On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 3:05 PM, Ho Universal
> <houniversalchurch@...>wrote:
> > >
> > >> Does living within the carrying capacity of your land trump
> fruitful
> > >> and multiply?
> > >>
> > >> --- On *Thu, 10/23/08, Pay_the_Piper <pay_the_piper@...>* wrote:
> > >>
> > >> From: Pay_the_Piper <pay_the_piper@...>
> > >> Subject: [TWOMIFTG] Re: [METAPHYSICS-100] Stanese be heapum
> fruitful and
> > >> multiply
> > >> To:
METAPHYSICS-100@yahoogroups.com<METAPHYSICS-100%40yahoogroups.com>,
> TWOMIFTG@yahoogroups.com <TWOMIFTG%40yahoogroups.com>
> > >> Cc:
metaphysics-100@yahoogroups.com<metaphysics-100%40yahoogroups.com>,
> life-gazette@yahoogroups.com <life-gazette%40yahoogroups.com>,
> > >> future-cities@yahoogroups.com <future-cities%40yahoogroups.com>,
>
UNIVERSALHUMANRIGHTS@yahoogroups.com<UNIVERSALHUMANRIGHTS%40yahoogroups.com>
> > >> Received: Thursday, October 23, 2008, 8:42 PM
> > >>
> > >> How about New Ireland, Chief Stan? A place the size of
> > >> Ireland where FFs ( Faithful Fascists ) can be fruitful and
> multiply beyond
> > >> its carrying capacity?
> > >>
> > >> PtP
> > >>
> > >> ----- Original Message -----
> > >> *From:* Stan Park <chief_stanley_park@...>
> > >> *To:* TWOMIFTG@yahoogroup s.com
<TWOMIFTG@yahoogroups.com<TWOMIFTG%40yahoogroups.com>
> >
> > >> *Cc:* metaphysics- 100@yahoogroups..
> com<metaphysics-100@yahoogroups.com <metaphysics-100%40yahoogroups.com>>
> > >> *Sent:* Thursday, October 23, 2008 11:32 AM
> > >> *Subject:* [METAPHYSICS- 100] Stanese be heapum fruitful and multiply
> > >>
> > >> Breed like rabbits. Forget wisdom of rabbit. Forget carrying
> capacityof Stanistan.
> > >>
> > >> Stanese people eat all potatoes like Irish. Maybe eat forked tongue
> > >> missionary snakes next.. Ugh!
> > >>
> > >> Chief Stan
> > >> $$$ ------------ ------->
> > >>
> > >> --- On *Thu, 10/23/08, Faith Full <alecoque33@gmail.
> com<alecoque33@...>
> > >> >* wrote:
> > >>
> > >> From: Faith Full <alecoque33@gmail. com <alecoque33@...>>
> > >> Subject: Re: [TWOMIFTG] Re: Being "anti-life" - Faith
> > >> To: TWOMIFTG@yahoogroup s.com
<TWOMIFTG@yahoogroups.com<TWOMIFTG%40yahoogroups.com>
> >
>
> > >>
> > >> Received: Thursday, October 23, 2008, 8:54 AM
> > >>
> > >> The trouble is, Gyan, that a Downs Syndrome Child can arrive in any
> > >> family. One doesn't have to be older and therefore more likely
> to have one.
> > >>
> > >> My friend in Ireland had a healthy baby boy who grew up to get a
> PhD at
> > >> age of 23! But her second child, and she was still in early 30s,
> was Down's
> > >> Syndrome. He's now in his early 20s, and has had a considerable
> amount of
> > >> surgery, cataracts, etc. He suffered from depression. Yes, even
> a Downs
> > >> Syndrome child can be depressed. But that was because of the
> meds the docs
> > >> prescribed. She took him off the meds and his mood brightened.
> > >>
> > >> So I don't think it's selfish...one can't always predict. My
> friend just
> > >> expected a normal healthy child like her first one.
> > >>
> > >> Yes, the Catholic Church is against operations to prevent
> parenthood. The
> > >> teaching is that we must not interfere with nature, the way we're
> made,
> > >> (unless for life and death situations), as our bodies are the
> Temple of the
> > >> Holy Spirit and as such should be respected, in keeping with the
> fact that
> > >> God created us, and told us to, "increase and multiply."
> > >>
> > >> Of course, if one knows one is likely to have a Downs Syndrome
> child, I
> > >> would certainly feel that it's better to prevent conception of a
> child like
> > >> that. But if conception occurs, then it's not up to us to
> destroy that
> > >> life. It's in the hands of God.
> > >>
> > >> On the subject of a woman getting her tubes tied - I also know
> someone who
> > >> did. She was not religious and wanted her "freedom." She also
> just didn't
> > >> want children, period! Well, she went ahead and had the
> operation, and
> > >> she's never been right since. She told me she has regretted
> it...it made a
> > >> mess of her system, she's been many times back to the doc as so
> much has
> > >> gone wrong with her reproductive organs. She wishes now she
> could just go
> > >> and have a reversal, but apparently the damage has been done..I
> don't know
> > >> all the details, just the few she's told me. But she said she
> wouldn't
> > >> advise it for any woman. And this is not a religious woman. She
> speaks
> > >> from a health standpoint only.
> > >>
> > >> As for men having vasectomies, that comes with its own set of risks,
> > >> though not as bad as for women.
> > >>
> > >> As far as being harsh in calling Obama anti-life, I actually
> think that's
> > >> quite fair (my description) . He wants to send women out on to the
> > >> battlefield, armed combat, to fight like men and face the same
> risks to
> > >> their lives. I think the battle field is no place for a woman,
> personally.
> > >> I wonder if he will allow his daughters to face the enemy on the
> > >> battlefield should the need or occasion arise. But his views on
> life, on
> > >> abortion, are so abhorrent - though he tries to dress them up in
> a facade of
> > >> reasonableness - but one can see right through him.
> > >>
> > >> Women are the childbearers, those who nurture the next
> generation, the
> > >> gentler sex - those who give men a better perspective. It's
> often been said
> > >> that behind every great man is a great woman. Woman acting like
> men is not
> > >> doing humanity a service at all.
> > >>
> > >> FF
> > >>
> > >> Mind you, I don't like McCain either - or Ms Palin. Just because
> they
> > >> have pro-life views does not in itself make them ideal candidates.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 1:09 AM, Gyan <nutmeg2323@yahoo.
> com.au<nutmeg2323@...>
> > >> > wrote:
> > >>
> > >>>
> > >>> Nah, I can't vote either - but I'm still commenting, despite threats
> > >>> from MacDill. LOL
> > >>>
> > >>> I think "anti-life" is a rather harsh description. I would like to
> > >>> read a bit more about the totality of his views on this topic.
> > >>>
> > >>> If one is "pro-choice" could not one be "pro-life" for
> him/herself and
> > >>> his/her own family - but recognise that others have the right to
> choose?
> > >>>
> > >>> That said - I am against abortion - except in exceptional
> circumstances.
> > >>>
> > >>> When it comes to women who get pregnant at an age where it is well
> > >>> known that having a Downs Syndrome child is a risk, I think this is
> > >>> very selfish {as in Palin's case}. Why not have an operation to
> ensure
> > >>> pregnancy can not occur - or get your husband to have one -
> which many
> > >>> men do these days - out of respect for their wives. Surely this is
> > >>> preferable to either having children who are born and not wanted
> {and
> > >>> therefore not treated well}, or having abortions.
> > >>>
> > >>> These sorts of operations are possibly not allowed by the Catholic
> > >>> Church. Perhaps you can enlighten me.
> > >>>
> > >>> Gyan
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> --- In TWOMIFTG@yahoogroup s.com <TWOMIFTG%40yahoogroups.com>,
> "Faith
> > >>> Full" <alecoque33@ ..> wrote:
> > >>> >
> > >>> > I was kidding. I can't vote. I'm not American, and I don't
> live in the
> > >>> > States.
> > >>> > But the reasons I would not vote for Obama have nothing to do
> with his
> > >>> > colour. As you well know, Gyan, I am not a racist.
> > >>> >
> > >>> > No, it's his anti-life attitude that would make me very nervous.
> > >>> >
> > >>> > Nothing to do with JK's silly, spiteful, erroneous, and so very
> > >>> stupid and
> > >>> > deranged ideas that he is somehow better than a black man, and
> more
> > >>> loved by
> > >>> > God. JK loved by God? He is, but God disdains his behaviour. God
> > >>> loves us
> > >>> > all, but he is so very disappointed and offended by many -
> > >>> particularly John
> > >>> > Knight's disgraceful treatment of his fellow man.
> > >>> >
> > >>> > Thank God he is not running for president! Mind you, nobody would
> > >>> vote for
> > >>> > him, except the 9 or so pals who share his ideas.
> > >>> >
> > >>> > FF
> > >>> >
> > >>> >
> > >>> >
> > >>> > On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 11:48 PM, Gyan <nutmeg2323@ ..> wrote:
> > >>> >
> > >>> > >
> > >>> > > I didn't know that 'God' had made his opinion known
> concerning the
> > >>> > > Presidential election and threatened those white folk who
> dared to
> > >>> > > vote for Obama. Perhaps JK would like to provide some
> evidence of
> > >>> > > this. A clay tablet, peut être? A voice recorded from a
> burning bush?
> > >>> > > A channelling at the local Ohio Neo-Nazi Gathering?
> > >>> > >
> > >>> > > Let's wait till the black aliens arrive. Perhaps they'll
> know. LOL
> > >>> > >
> > >>> > > --- In TWOMIFTG@yahoogroup s.com
> <TWOMIFTG%40yahoogroups.com><TWOMIFTG%40yahoogroups.
> > >>> com <http://40yahoogroups.com>>,
> > >>> "Faith Full"
> > >>> > > <alecoque33@> wrote:
> > >>> > > >
> > >>> > > > I promise I won't vote for Obama! LOL!
> > >>> > > > FF
> > >>> > > >
> > >>> > > > On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 12:44 PM, Jacob Israel <ji@> wrote:
> > >>> > > >
> > >>> > > > > According to the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, ANY White
> > >>> > > man who
> > >>> > > > > votes for this obama nigger banana CANNOT be counted as our
> > >>> > > **brethren** ,
> > >>> > > > > EVER, for the rest of time.
> > >>> > > > >
> > >>> > > > >
> > >>> > > > >
> > >>> > > > > jk
> > >>> > > > >
> > >>> > > > >
> > >>> > > > >
> > >>> > > > > *From:*
> > >>> ChristianPatriot@ yahoogroups. com
> <ChristianPatriot%40yahoogroups.com>
> > >>> <ChristianPatriot%40yahoogroups. com
> <http://40yahoogroups.com>>[mailto:
> > >>> > > > > ChristianPatriot@ yahoogroups.
> com<ChristianPatriot%40yahoogroups.com>
> > >>> <ChristianPatriot%40yahoogroups. com <http://40yahoogroups.com>>]
> > >>> > > *On Behalf Of *djour8142
> > >>> > > > > *Sent:* Wednesday, October 22, 2008 4:54 AM
> > >>> > > > > *To:*
> > >>> ChristianPatriot@ yahoogroups. com
> <ChristianPatriot%40yahoogroups.com>
> > >>> <ChristianPatriot%40yahoogroups. com <http://40yahoogroups.com>>
>
> > >>> > > > > *Subject:* [ChristianPatriot] Please read this editorial
> and pass
> > >>> > > it on AS
> > >>> > > > > QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE FAR & WIDE
> > >>> > > > >
> > >>> > > > >
> > >>> > > > >
> > >>> > > > > Please read this editorial and pass it on AS QUICKLY AS
> > >>> POSSIBLE FAR
> > >>> > > > > & WIDE
> > >>> > > > >
> > >>> > > > > There is a "Michael C. Masters" who lives in McLean, VA – I
> > >>> presume,
> > >>> > > > > but do not know for sure, that he is the author. However, he
> > >>> didn't
> > >>> > > > > show up in any Google searches that I conducted, so I
> guess he
> > >>> > > > > isn't "notorious" enough to be found. I look at that as
> a good
> > >>> thing,
> > >>> > > > > however. On the surface, that suggests he is just
> another citizen
> > >>> > > > > like the rest of us and has no particular ax to grind.
> However,
> > >>> he
> > >>> > > > > HAS done his homework before writting this editorial.
> > >>> > > > >
> > >>> > > > > To Barack Hussein Obama,
> > >>> > > > > The New York Times carried a story on Saturday, October 4,
> > >>> 2008 that
> > >>> > > > > proved you had a significantly closer relationship with Bill
> > >>> Ayers
> > >>> > > > > than what you previously admitted. While the issue of your
> > >>> > > > > relationship is of concern, the greater concern is that you
> > >>> lied to
> > >>> > > > > America about it.
> > >>> > > > > The Chicago Sun reported on May 8, 2008 that FBI records
> > >>> showed that
> > >>> > > > > you had a significantly closer relationship with Tony Rezko
> > >>> than what
> > >>> > > > > you previously admitted. In the interview, you said that
> you only
> > >>> > > > > saw Mr. Rezko a couple of times a year. The FBI files
> showed that
> > >>> > > > > you saw him weekly While the issue of your relationship
> is of
> > >>> > > > > concern, the greater concern is that you lied to America
> about
> > >>> it.
> > >>> > > > > Your speech in Philadelphia on March 18, 2008 about "race"
> > >>> > > > > contradicted your statement to Anderson Cooper on March 14
> > >>> when you
> > >>> > > > > said that you never heard Reverend Wright make his negative
> > >>> > > > > statements about white America. While your attendance at
> Trinity
> > >>> > > > > Church for 20 years is of concern, the greater concern
> is that
> > >>> you
> > >>> > > > > lied to America on March 14.
> > >>> > > > >
> > >>> > > > > In your 1st debate with John McCain, you said that you
> never said
> > >>> > > > > that you would meet with the leaders of Cuba, Venezuela,
> Iran,
> > >>> and
> > >>> > > > > North Korea without "preparations" at lower levels ...
> Joe Biden
> > >>> > > > > repeated your words in his debate with Sarah Palin .. while
> > >>> the video
> > >>> > > > > tape from your debate last February clearly shows that you
> > >>> > > > > answered "I would" to the question of meeting with those
> leaders
> > >>> > > > > within 12 months without "any" preconditions. While your
> > >>> judgement
> > >>> > > > > about meeting with enemies of the USA without
> pre-conditions is
> > >>> of
> > >>> > > > > concern, the greater concern is that you lied to America
> in the
> > >>> > > > > debate with McCain.
> > >>> > > > > On July 14, 2008, you said that you always knew that the
> surge
> > >>> would
> > >>> > > > > work while the video tapes of you from more than a year ago
> > >>> show that
> > >>> > > > > you stated that the surge would not work. While your
> judgement
> > >>> > > > > about military strategy as a potential commander in
> chief is of
> > >>> > > > > concern, the greater concern is that you lied to America on
> > >>> July 14.
> > >>> > > > > You now claim that your reason for voting against
> funding for the
> > >>> > > > > troops was because the bill did not include a time line for
> > >>> > > > > withdrawal while the video tapes of you from more than a
> year ago
> > >>> > > > > show that you voted against additional funding because you
> > >>> wanted our
> > >>> > > > > troops to be removed immediately ... not in 16 months after
> > >>> the 2008
> > >>> > > > > election as you now claim. While your judgement about
> removing
> > >>> our
> > >>> > > > > troops unilaterally in 2007 is of concern, the greater
> concern is
> > >>> > > > > that you lied to America about your previous position.
> > >>> > > > > You claim to have a record of working with Republicans
> while the
> > >>> > > > > record shows that the only bill that you sponsored with a
> > >>> Republican
> > >>> > > > > was with Chuck Lugar ... and it failed. The record shows
> that you
> > >>> > > > > vote 97% in concert with the Democrat party and that you
> have the
> > >>> > > > > most liberal voting record in the Senate. You joined
> > >>> Republicans only
> > >>> > > > > 13% of the time in your votes and those 13% were only after
> > >>> > > > > agreement from the Democrat party. While it is of
> concern that
> > >>> you
> > >>> > > > > fail to include conservatives in your actions and that
> you are
> > >>> such a
> > >>> > > > > liberal, the greater concern is that you distorted the
> truth.
> > >>> > > > > In the primary debates of last February, 2008, you
> claimed to
> > >>> have
> > >>> > > > > talked with a "Captain" of a platoon in Afghanistan "the
> other
> > >>> day"
> > >>> > > > > when in fact you had a discussion in 2003 with a Lieutenant
> > >>> who had
> > >>> > > > > just been deployed to Afghanistan. You lied in that debate.
> > >>> > > > > In your debates last spring, you claimed to have been a
> > >>> "professor of
> > >>> > > > > Constitutional law" when in fact you have never been a
> > >>> professor of
> > >>> > > > > Constitutional law. In this last debate, you were
> careful to say
> > >>> > > > > that you "taught a law class" and never mentioned being a
> > >>> "professor
> > >>> > > > > of Constitutional law." You lied last spring.
> > >>> > > > > You and Joe Biden both claimed that John McCain voted
> against
> > >>> > > > > additional funding for our troops when the actual
> records show
> > >>> the
> > >>> > > > > opposite. You distorted the truth.
> > >>> > > > > You and Joe Biden claim that John McCain voted against
> funding
> > >>> for
> > >>> > > > > alternate energy sources 20 times when the record shows
> that John
> > >>> > > > > McCain specifically voted against funding for bio fuels,
> > >>> especially
> > >>> > > > > corn ... and he was right .... corn is too expensive at
> producing
> > >>> > > > > ethanol, and using corn to make ethanol increased the
> price of
> > >>> corn
> > >>> > > > > from $2 a bushel to $6 a bushel for food. You distorted the
> > >>> > > > > truth.
> > >>> > > > > You and Joe Biden claim that John McCain voted like both of
> > >>> you for
> > >>> > > > > a tax increase on those making as little as $42,000 per year
> > >>> while
> > >>> > > > > the voting record clearly shows that John McCain did not
> vote
> > >>> as you
> > >>> > > > > and Joe Biden. You lied to America.
> > >>> > > > > You and Joe Biden claim that John McCain voted with
> George W.
> > >>> Bush
> > >>> > > > > 90% of the time when you know that Democrats also vote
> 90% of the
> > >>> > > > > time with the President (including Joe Biden) because
> the vast
> > >>> > > > > majority of the votes are procedural. You are one of the few
> > >>> who has
> > >>> > > > > not voted 90% of the time with the president because you
> have
> > >>> been
> > >>> > > > > missing from the Senate since the day you got elected.
> While your
> > >>> > > > > absence from your job in the Senate is of concern, the
> greater
> > >>> > > > > concern is that you spin the facts.
> > >>> > > > > You did not take an active roll in the rescue plan. You
> claimed
> > >>> > > > > that the Senate did not need you while the real reason
> that you
> > >>> > > > > abstained was because of your close relationships with the
> > >>> executives
> > >>> > > > > of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Countrywide, and Acorn ..
> who all
> > >>> helped
> > >>> > > > > cause the financial problems of today ... and they all
> made major
> > >>> > > > > contributions to your campaign. While your relationship with
> > >>> these
> > >>> > > > > executives and your protection of them for your brief 3
> years
> > >>> in the
> > >>> > > > > Senate (along with Barney Frank, Chuch Schumer, Maxine
> Waters,
> > >>> and
> > >>> > > > > Chris Dodd) is of concern, the greater concern is that
> you are
> > >>> being
> > >>> > > > > deceitful.
> > >>> > > > > You forgot to mention that you personally represented Tony
> > >>> Rezko and
> > >>> > > > > Acorn. Tony Rezko, an Arab and close friend to you, was
> > >>> convicted of
> > >>> > > > > fraud in Chicago real estate transactions that bilked
> millions
> > >>> of tax
> > >>> > > > > dollars from the Illinois government for renovation projects
> > >>> that you
> > >>> > > > > sponsored as a state senator ... and Acorn has been
> convicted of
> > >>> > > > > voter fraud, real estate sub prime loan intimidation,
> and illegal
> > >>> > > > > campaign contributions. Tony Rezko has contributed
> hundreds of
> > >>> > > > > thousands of dollars to your political campaigns. You
> personally
> > >>> > > > > used your political positions to steer money to both Tony
> > >>> Rezko and
> > >>> > > > > Acorn and you used Acorn to register thousands of phony
> voters
> > >>> for
> > >>> > > > > Democrats and you. While your relationships with Rezko and
> > >>> Acorn are
> > >>> > > > > of concern, the greater concern is that you omitted
> important
> > >>> facts
> > >>> > > > > about your relationships with them to America.
> > >>> > > > > During your campaign, you said: "typical white person."
> "they
> > >>> cling
> > >>> > > > > to their guns and religion." "they will say that I am
> black." You
> > >>> > > > > played the race card. You tried to label any criticism about
> > >>> you as
> > >>> > > > > racist. You divide America.
> > >>> > > > > You claim that you will reduce taxes for 95% of America,
> but you
> > >>> > > > > forgot to tell America that those reductions are after you
> > >>> remove the
> > >>> > > > > Bush tax reductions. You have requested close to $1
> Billion in
> > >>> > > > > earmarks and several million for Acorn. Your social
> programs will
> > >>> > > > > cost America $1 Trillion per year and you claim that a
> > >>> reduction in
> > >>> > > > > military spending ($100 billion for Iraq) can pay for
> it. While
> > >>> > > > > your economic plan of adding 30% to the size of our federal
> > >>> > > > > government is of concern, the greater concern is that
> you are
> > >>> > > > > deceiving America.
> > >>> > > > > The drain to America's economy by foreign supplied oil
> is $700
> > >>> > > > > Billion per year (5% of GDP) while the war in Iraq is $100
> > >>> Billion
> > >>> > > > > (less than 1% of GDP). You voted against any increases
> to oil
> > >>> > > > > exploration for the last 3 years and any expansion of
> nuclear
> > >>> > > > > facilities. Yet today, you say that you have always been
> for more
> > >>> > > > > oil and more nuclear. You are lying to America.
> > >>> > > > > Mr. Obama, you claimed that you "changed" your mind
> about public
> > >>> > > > > financing for your campaign because of the money spent by
> > >>> Republican
> > >>> > > > > PACs in 2004. The truth is that the Democrat PACs in
> 2004, 2006,
> > >>> > > > > and 2008 spent twice as much as the Republican PACs
> (especially
> > >>> > > > > George Soros and MoveOn.org).. You are lying to America.
> > >>> > > > > Mr. Obama, you have done nothing to stop the actions of the
> > >>> teachers
> > >>> > > > > union and college professors in the USA. They eliminated
> religion
> > >>> > > > > from our history. They teach pro gay agendas and discuss
> sex with
> > >>> > > > > students as young as first grade. They bring their personal
> > >>> politics
> > >>> > > > > into the classrooms. They disparage conservatives. They
> brainwash
> > >>> > > > > our children. They are in it for themselves ..... not
> America.
> > >>> > > > > Are you reluctant to condemn their actions because
> > >>> > > > > teachers/professors and the NEA contribute 25% of all money
> > >>> donated
> > >>> > > > > to Democrats and none to Republicans? You are deceiving
> America.
> > >>> > > > > Oh Mr. Obama, Teddy Roosevelt said about a hundred years ago
> > >>> that we
> > >>> > > > > Americans should first look at the character of our leaders
> > >>> before
> > >>> > > > > anything else.
> > >>> > > > > Your character looks horrible. While you make good speeches,
> > >>> > > > > motivating speeches, your character does not match your
> rhetoric.
> > >>> > > > > You talk the talk but do not walk the walk.
> > >>> > > > > 1. You lied to America. You lied many times. You
> distorted facts.
> > >>> > > > > You parsed your answers like a lawyer.
> > >>> > > > > 2. You distorted the record of John McCain in your words and
> > >>> in your
> > >>> > > > > advertisements.
> > >>> > > > > 3. You had associations with some very bad people for your
> > >>> personal
> > >>> > > > > political gains and then lied about those associations.
> > >>> > > > > 4. You divide America about race and about class.
> > >>> > > > > Now let me compare your record of lies, distortions, race
> > >>> bating, and
> > >>> > > > > associations to John McCain: War hero. Annapolis graduate
> > >>> > > > > with "Country first." Operational leadership experience like
> > >>> all 43
> > >>> > > > > previously elected presidents of the USA as a Navy
> Officer for 22
> > >>> > > > > years. 26 years in the Senate. Straight talk. Maverick.
> 54% of
> > >>> > > > > the time participated on bills with Democrats. Never
> asked for an
> > >>> > > > > earmark. The only blemish on his record is his part in the
> > >>> Keating 5
> > >>> > > > > debacle about 25 years ago.
> > >>> > > > > Mr. Obama, at Harvard Law School, you learned that the end
> > >>> does not
> > >>> > > > > justify the means. You learned that perjury, false witness,
> > >>> > > > > dishonesty, distortion of truth are never tolerated.
> Yet, your
> > >>> > > > > dishonesty is overwhelming. Your dishonesty is tremendously
> > >>> greater
> > >>> > > > > than the dishonesty that caused the impeachment and
> disbarment of
> > >>> > > > > Bill Clinton. Your dishonesty is tremendously greater
> than the
> > >>> > > > > dishonesty of Scooter Libby. You should be ashamed.
> > >>> > > > > Mr. Obama, it is time for us Americans to put aside our
> > >>> differences
> > >>> > > > > on political issues and vote against you because of your
> > >>> dishonest
> > >>> > > > > character. It is time for all of us Americans to put
> aside our
> > >>> > > > > political issues and vote for America first. It is time for
> > >>> America
> > >>> > > > > to vote for honesty.
> > >>> > > > > Any people who vote for you after understanding that you are
> > >>> > > > > dishonest should be ashamed of themselves for making their
> > >>> personal
> > >>> > > > > political issues more important than character. Would
> these same
> > >>> > > > > people vote for the anti-Christ if the anti-Christ
> promised them
> > >>> > > > > riches? Would they make a golden calf while Moses was up the
> > >>> > > > > mountain? Would they hire someone for a job if that someone
> > >>> lied in
> > >>> > > > > an interview? .... of course not. So why do some of
> these people
> > >>> > > > > justify their votes for you even though they know you are
> > >>> dishonest?
> > >>> > > > > Why do they excuse your dishonesty? because some of
> these people
> > >>> > > > > are frightened about the future, the economy, and their
> financial
> > >>> > > > > security .... and you are praying on their fears with empty
> > >>> > > > > promises ... and because some (especially our young
> people) are
> > >>> > > > > consumed by your wonderful style and promises for "change"
> > >>> like the
> > >>> > > > > Germans who voted for Adolf Hitler in 1932. The
> greed/envy by
> > >>> > > > > Germans in 1932 kept them from recognizing Hitler for
> who he was.
> > >>> > > > > They loved his style. Greed and envy are keeping many
> > >>> Americans from
> > >>> > > > > recognizing you ... your style has camouflaged your
> dishonesty
> > >>> ....
> > >>> > > > > but many of us see you for who you really are .. and we
> will not
> > >>> > > > > stop exposing who you are every day, forever if it is
> necessary.
> > >>> > > > > Mr. Obama, you are dishonest. Anyone who votes for you is
> > >>> enabling
> > >>> > > > > dishonesty.
> > >>> > > > > Mr. Obama, America cannot trust that you will put
> America first
> > >>> in
> > >>> > > > > your decisions about the future.
> > >>> > > > > Mr.. Obama, you are not the "change" that America
> deserves. We
> > >>> cannot
> > >>> > > > > trust you.
> > >>> > > > > Mr. Obama, You are not ready and not fit to be commander in
> > >>> chief.
> > >>> > > > > Mr. Obama, John McCain does not have as much money as your
> > >>> campaign
> > >>> > > > > to refute all of your false statements. And for whatever
> reasons,
> > >>> > > > > the mainstream media will not give adequate coverage or
> research
> > >>> > > > > about your lies, distortions, word parsing, bad
> associations,
> > >>> race
> > >>> > > > > bating, lack of operational leadership experience, and
> general
> > >>> > > > > dishonest character. The media is diverting our
> attention to your
> > >>> > > > > relationships and ignoring the fact that you lied about
> those
> > >>> > > > > relationships. The fact that you lied is much more
> important than
> > >>> > > > > the relationships themselves ... just like with Bill
> Clinton and
> > >>> > > > > Richard Nixon ... Monica Lewinski and Watergate were not
> nearly
> > >>> as
> > >>> > > > > bad as the fact that those gentlemen lied about the
> events ...
> > >>> false
> > >>> > > > > witness ... perjury ... your relationships and bad
> judgements are
> > >>> > > > > bad on their own .... but your lies are even worse.
> > >>> > > > > Therefore, by copy of this memo, all who read this memo are
> > >>> asked to
> > >>> > > > > send it to everyone else in America before it is too
> late. We
> > >>> need
> > >>> > > > > to do the job that the media will not do. We need to
> expose your
> > >>> > > > > dishonesty so that every person in America understands
> who you
> > >>> really
> > >>> > > > > are before election day.
> > >>> > > > > Mr. Obama, in a democracy, we get what we deserve. And
> God help
> > >>> > > > > America if we deserve you.
> > >>> > > > > Michael Master
> > >>> > > > > McLean, Virginia
> > >>> > > > > If you forward just one more thing to those in your
> address book
> > >>> > > > > between now and then, I ask that you forward this
> > >>> > > > >
> > >>> > > > >
> > >>> > > > >
> > >>> > > >
> > >>> > >
> > >>> > >
> > >>> > >
> > >>> >
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >> ------------------------------
> > >>
> > >> *Yahoo! Canada Toolbar :* Search from anywhere on the web and
> bookmark
> > >> your favourite sites. Download it now! <http://ca.toolbar.yahoo.com/>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> ------------------------------
> > >>
> > >> *Yahoo! Canada Toolbar :* Search from anywhere on the web and
> bookmark
> > >> your favourite sites. Download it now! <http://ca.toolbar.yahoo.com/>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>

...

[Message clipped]

Back to top

Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
Messages in this topic (1)

3.1.

Adultery

Posted by: "Jacob Israel" ji@blackexile.com   urbini.rm

Sun Oct 26, 2008 11:24 am (PDT)

<<< Is it possible that God might have something to do with this. Every race
seems to be against the white race, and they make every attempt to destroy
the white race. This is mostly true of the Jews. Through all of the abortion
and birth control, maybe God is actually saying no to all of it. He will not
let his people be destroyed no matter what man does; whether its planned
parent hood, abortion, or birth control pills. I guess they never figured
that if they would just leave well enough alone, the population would stay
at an even level, and that it will grow at a substantial average. It isn't
good to mess with God's creation. Just like the up coming election. Obama is
so arrogant, and yet he isn't a U.S. Citizen, and he is a bisexual and a
crack cocaine smoker to boot. He is determined to be the first black (Hybrid
black) to be president of the U.S. This is a direct violation of the
scriptures as well as the Constitution. How do you think God feels about
this? I firmly believe that God is going to make his presence known, and
that God is giving a warning to the American people as I am writing this.
Obama is arrogant, but God doesn't like arrogance and hautiness. God will
cut him down.>>>

Either God will cut Obama down, or God will cut US down for allowing it.

If we don’t do everything in our power to prevent it, most likely it will be
US He cuts down.

-

jk

Ps—we should add that jew McCain, with a jew “vice president” and a WOMAN to
boot, is equally as bad and will get us into just as much trouble with God.

From: israeliteidentity@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:israeliteidentity@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Terry Gabrich
Sent: Saturday, October 25, 2008 10:32 AM
To: israeliteidentity@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [israeliteidentity] Adultery

Is it possible that God might have something to do with this. Every race
seems to be against the white race, and they make every attempt to destroy
the white race. This is mostly true of the Jews. Through all of the abortion
and birth control, maybe God is actually saying no to all of it. He will not
let his people be destroyed no matter what man does; whether its planned
parent hood, abortion, or birth control pills. I guess they never figured
that if they would just leave well enough alone, the population would stay
at an even level, and that it will grow at a substantial average. It isn't
good to mess with God's creation. Just like the up coming election. Obama is
so arrogant, and yet he isn't a U.S. Citizen, and he is a bisexual and a
crack cocaine smoker to boot. He is determined to be the first black (Hybrid
black) to be president of the U.S. This is a direct violation of the
scriptures as well as the Constitution. How do you think God feels about
this? I firmly believe that God is going to make his presence known, and
that God is giving a warning to the American people as I am writing this.
Obama is arrogant, but God doesn't like arrogance and hautiness. God will
cut him down.

-------Original Message-------

From: Jacob <mailto:ji@blackexile.com> Israel

Date: 10/25/2008 11:19:06 AM

To: TWOMIFTG@yahoogroups.com

Cc: houseisrael@yahoogroups.com; Israelites@yahoogroups.com;
israeliteidentity@yahoogroups.com; hilloftorah@yahoogroups.com;
christiandentity@yahoogroups.com; identity@yahoogroups.com;
davidicke2@yahoogroups.com; TWOMIFTG@yahoogroups.com;
thespiritofjacob@yahoogroups.com; christiandentity@yahoogroups.com;
jewsareedom@yahoogroups.com; mamzers@yahoogroups.com

Subject: [israeliteidentity] Adultery

Ahh, out of the mouths of LIARS sometimes come pearls of TRUTHS:

<<< Did it not occur to your little bird brain, JK, that as Catholics at the
time were not into birth control - in fact, the Protestant Church only
allowed its parishioners to use birth control from 1930 onwards - that
Catholics increased and multiplied themselves to replace the dead, and this
is why the graph doesn't show more than 0.5 % decrease?>>>

By attempting to JUSTIFY why the Protestant population plunged 35% while the
Catholic population dropped only 0.5%, you *ADMIT* it to be a FACT!

You essentially admit that you KNOW that what your “church” SAYS and what it
DOES are anti-podes!

Your “church” CLAIMS that it opposes abortion. How can YOU explain, then,
WHY the abortion RATE in mostly Catholic states like Massachusetts at 30.2
and New Jersey at 35.1 and New York at 43.3, is almost an order of magnitude
HIGHER (by 8.5X) than it is in less Catholic states like Wyoming at 5.1 and
South Dakota at 5.7 and Idaho at 8.2 and Mississippi at 8.4?

And as a good little feminazi propagandist, your argument [read: excuse]
about the birth control pill is EQUALLY flawed, EQUALLY unfounded, and
EQUALLY socially pathological [just as your claim about how we cannot
possibly live by God’s Law regarding HIS definition of marriage is]. To
wit, the pregnancy rate in the US BEFORE the pill was 18.9, but when the
pill was implemented, it SKYROCKTED 25% to 23.7.

http://fathersmanifesto.net/pill.htm

So IF the birth control pill had anything to do with changes in population
growth, it caused an INCREASE in the Protestant population, not a decrease,
which means the number of Protestants killed during WWII was GREATER than
the population figures posted.

jk

From: TWOMIFTG@yahoogroups.com [mailto:TWOMIFTG@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
Of Faith Full
Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2008 3:32 PM
To: TWOMIFTG@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [TWOMIFTG] Adultery

Did it not occur to your little bird brain, JK, that as Catholics at the
time were not into birth control - in fact, the Protestant Church only
allowed its parishioners to use birth control from 1930 onwards - that
Catholics increased and multiplied themselves to replace the dead, and this
is why the graph doesn't show more than 0.5 % decrease?

Graphs can be made to show anything anyone wants - to suit their own agenda.

And knowing you, you're only showing part of the big picture. There's
probably a lot of small print indicating the contents of my first sentence
that you're not showing.

But your words were that CATHOLICS WERE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL THE PROTESTANT
DEATHS. So make up your mind!

That's what my issue is with you. But you forget what you say half the
time!

FF

On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 12:46 PM, Jacob Israel <ji@blackexile.com> wrote:

<<< To show a graph, which is laughable, indicating that NO CATHOLICS were
killed in WWII is ludicrous to the extreme >>>

You don't even need to know how to read a GRAPH to know this is NOT what
they say. All you need to read is ENGLISH, and the above is additional
PROOF that you can't even do that simplest of things.

To be PRECISE, the graph simply illustrates that the 1933 World Almanac put
the worldwide Christian population at 682,400,00, which included 331.5
million Roman Catholics, 144 million Orthodox Catholics, and 206.9 million
Protestants, and that just 15 years later, AFTER WWII, the 1948 World
Almanac put the worldwide population of Christians at 592,406,542, a
REDUCTION of 13.2% or 89,993,458 Christians. BUT the population of Roman
Catholics decreased by only 0.5%, or 1,724,317 Catholics, compared to 11.4%
of or 16,370,014 Orthodox Catholics and 34.8% of or 71,962,127 Protestants.

Of COURSE you can't even read THAT. And of COURSE you will claim that your
faggot pope is RIGHT and the OFFICAL WORLD ALMANACS are wrong. And you will
LIE again about the graph which is posted again ONLY for those with eyes to
see and ears to hear:

http://fathersmanifesto.net/cathoholicism25.png

http://fathersmanifesto.net/cathoholicism.htm

jk

From: TWOMIFTG@yahoogroups.com [mailto:TWOMIFTG@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
Of Faith Full
Sent: Sunday, October 19, 2008 7:36 PM

To: TWOMIFTG@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [TWOMIFTG] Adultery

Because he, JK, makes more sense than you do?

To show a graph, which is laughable, indicating that NO CATHOLICS were
killed in WWII is ludicrous to the extreme.

You are not dealing in facts. You are dealing in propaganda and you are
swallowing it up greedily.

Somebody must be paying you for all this stupidity because even you couldn't
believe all the rubbish you post. But then you seem a bit dense - more than
dense, actually.

FF

On Sun, Oct 19, 2008 at 5:22 PM, Jacob Israel <ji@blackexile.com> wrote:

Faith BULL, why on God's green earth would you accept this post from "locus"
as "fact", and REJECT the ACTUAL FACTS found in the World Almanac and Book
of Facts, "THE AUTHORITY SINCE 1868" published by World Almanac Books?

Where is the PROOF that THEIR claim that

From: TWOMIFTG@yahoogroups.com [mailto:TWOMIFTG@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
Of Faith Full
Sent: Saturday, October 18, 2008 8:41 PM
To: TWOMIFTG@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [TWOMIFTG] Adultery

Thank you, Locus,

FF

On Sat, Oct 18, 2008 at 6:43 PM, locus clasicus <locusclasicus@yahoo.es>
wrote:

six million catholics were killed in WWII and that includes the

Spanish Civil War where 4 million were killed

--- El sáb, 18/10/08, Faith Full <alecoque33@gmail.com> escribió:

De: Faith Full <alecoque33@gmail.com>
Asunto: Re: [TWOMIFTG] Adultery
Para: TWOMIFTG@yahoogroups.com
CC: "Debunks" <Debunks@sbcglobal.net>
Fecha: sábado, 18 octubre, 2008 1:59

Under what rock did you find that graph, JK? I expect you wrote it
yourself?

A "graph" that shows that NO Catholic person was killed from 1930 onwards?

Even you, with your pea-brain, JK, can see that that makes no sense?

You're showing up your stupidity every time you write.

And as for facts - you haven't got a clue what a fact is.

The Catholic Church has NEVER, repeat NEVER - and I say it again just so you
can absorb it - THE CATHOLIC CHURCH HAS NEVER, EVER ORDAINED WOMEN TO THE
PRIESTHOOD, AND IT NEVER, REPEAT, NEVER WILL.

Am I clear?

Women can NEVER be priests in the Catholic Church! How many more times do I
have to say it for it to strike home?

You may read that a couple of renegade priests ordained some idiot women to
the "priesthood" but they were either excommunicated or dealt harshly. And
the women "priests" have no standing in Catholicism.

So get your facts right, you dreamer. You read a headline and you adopt it
as "gospel"!

Your anti-Catholicism has blinded you to the truth.

FF

On Sat, Oct 18, 2008 at 12:45 PM, Jacob Israel <ji@blackexile. com
<mailto:ji@blackexile.com> > wrote:

<<< Episcopalian? Ha, nothing to be proud of. There's an Episcopalian
"priest" writing his notion of what the Bible is all about - and he hardly
even believes in God. A right heretic he is. Now we know where you got
your "foundation", JK!>>>

"we know"? As SCRIPTURE tells us, the more you "know", the STUPIDER you
get.

There has been utterly NO "foundation" to this "church" ever since they
ordained women "priests"—and it's gone straight to HELL ever since then. As
if THAT wasn't bad enough, they now ordained FAGGOT priests, putting them in
the same pigstye as YOU. They're ALMOST as confused about the difference
between an ISRAELITE and filthy edomite kikes claiming to be "jews". Yet
as BAD as they are—they're a billion times less damaging to society than
your filthy RCC:

http://christianpar <http://fathersmanifesto.net/cathoholicism.htm>
ty.net/cathoholi cism.htm

http://fathersmanifesto.net/cathoholicism25.png

jk

From: TWOMIFTG@yahoogroup s.com <mailto:TWOMIFTG@yahoogroups.com>
[mailto:TWOMIFTG@yahoogroup <mailto:TWOMIFTG@yahoogroups.com> s.com] On
Behalf Of Faith Full

Sent: Saturday, October 18, 2008 9:26 AM

To: TWOMIFTG@yahoogroup s.com <mailto:TWOMIFTG@yahoogroups.com> ; Debunks
Subject: Re: [TWOMIFTG] Adultery

Okay, IDIOT, JK, PROVE that Catholics are responsible for the deaths of 100
million Protestants and Orthodox people during WWII.

PROVE IT!

I don't expect I will EVER get an answer to this question.

Run off now like a dog with your tail between your legs. You're great at
the accusations, but not very good at substantiating them.

Of course not one Catholic was killed in WWII, not even one? (Not even the
ones who died!)

We're all waiting.

So when my father and his two brothers were on the battlefield at Monte
Casino, and fighting the Germans at Tobruk and El Allemaine - they weren't
really there? Is that right? And all the other Irish Catholics in the
British Army (not even mentioning the millions of Catholics in other
armies).

Episcopalian? Ha, nothing to be proud of. There's an Episcopalian "priest"
writing his notion of what the Bible is all about - and he hardly even
believes in God. A right heretic he is. Now we know where you got your
"foundation", JK!

FF

On Sat, Oct 18, 2008 at 12:10 PM, Jacob Israel <ji@blackexile. com
<mailto:ji@blackexile.com> > wrote:

* <<<John, talking to a Roman Catholic is like talking to nonsense.
All of these versus prove your point, but they don't see it because of the
corruption of the Roman Catholic doctrines and the Bible that they use. >>>

Of course.

Having been raised as an Episcopalean, I always believed this BS about how
similar the Catholic and Episcopal churches are. These replies to the three
stooges and debunked PROVE just the opposite, AND that Catholics are just
jews in drag.

Without this forum, how many of us would have realized that Catholics are an
even greater threat to a CHRISTIAN nation than jews. It brings the conflict
in Ireland and Germany into focus. It was 100 million Protestants and
Orthodox Catholics who were killed in WWII, not 6 million jews--and the RCC
is ONE HUNDRED PERCENT responsible. This forum revealed the motives behind
the statistics:

http://christianpar <http://fathersmanifesto.net/cathoholicism.htm>
ty.net/cathoholi cism.htm

http://christianpar <http://fathersmanifesto.net/wwii.htm> ty.net/wwii. htm

-

jk

----- Original Message -----

From: Terry Gabrich <mailto:isaiah14@sbcglobal.net>

To: israeliteidentity@ <mailto:israeliteidentity@yahoogroups.com>
yahoogroups. com

Sent: Friday, October 17, 2008 2:10 PM

Subject: Re: [israeliteidentity] Adultery

John, talking to a Roman Catholic is like talking to nonsense. All of these
versus prove your point, but they don't see it because of the corruption of
the Roman Catholic doctrines and the Bible that they use.

-------Original Message----- --

From: Jacob Israel <mailto:ji@blackexile.com>

Date: 10/17/2008 11:00:58 AM

To: TWOMIFTG@yahoogroup <mailto:TWOMIFTG@yahoogroups.com> s.com

Cc: mamzers@yahoogroups <mailto:mamzers@yahoogroups.com> .com;
jewsareedom@ yahoogroups. com <mailto:jewsareedom@yahoogroups.com> ;
christiandentity@ <mailto:christiandentity@yahoogroups.com> yahoogroups.
com; thespiritofjacob@ <mailto:thespiritofjacob@yahoogroups.com>
yahoogroups. com; TWOMIFTG@yahoogroup s.com
<mailto:TWOMIFTG@yahoogroups.com> ; davidicke2@yahoogro
<mailto:davidicke2@yahoogroups.com> ups.com; identity@yahoogroup s.com
<mailto:identity@yahoogroups.com> ; hilloftorah@
<mailto:hilloftorah@yahoogroups.com> yahoogroups. com; israeliteidentity@
<mailto:israeliteidentity@yahoogroups.com> yahoogroups. com;
Israelites@yahoogro ups.com <mailto:Israelites@yahoogroups.com> ;
houseisrael@ <mailto:houseisrael@yahoogroups.com> yahoogroups. com

Subject: [israeliteidentity] Adultery

* <<<He probably IS an inmate of some facility. Nobody outside would
put up with him.>>>

You've threatened our lives, challenged us with fisticuffs, blasphemed the
holy spirit, engaged in malicious LIBEL and malicious SLANDER, PERVERTED the
Word of God SIMPLY because we QUOTED it, and now you think anyone,
particularly God, believes you're going to be "saved in childbearing"
BECAUSE of your "charity and holiness"?

No WONDER you continue to refuse to acknowledge that God does HATE
people--if you admitted it, you'd have to acknowledge [at least to
yourselves] that the ONLY three stooges who fit that profile to a TEE are
YOU:

* Proverbs 6:16

These six [things] doth the LORD hate: yea, seven [are] an abomination unto
him:

* Proverbs 6:17

A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood,

* Proverbs 6:18

An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to
mischief,

* Proverbs 6:19

A false witness [that] speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among
brethren.

* Proverbs 6:20

My son, keep thy father's commandment, and forsake not the law of thy
mother:

* Proverbs 6:21

Bind them continually upon thine heart, [and] tie them about thy neck.

* Proverbs 6:22

When thou goest, it shall lead thee; when thou sleepest, it shall keep thee;
and [when] thou awakest, it shall talk with thee.

* Proverbs 6:23

For the commandment [is] a lamp; and the law [is] light; and reproofs of
instruction [are] the way of life:

* Proverbs 6:24

To keep thee from the evil woman, from the flattery of the tongue of a
strange woman.

* Pro 6:24 To keep8104 thee from the evil7451 woman,4480, 802 from
the flattery4480, 2513 of the tongue3956 of a strange woman.5237

* #5237 is "nikro <http://fathersmanifesto.net/nikro.htm> " which
actually means ANY non-Israelite, male or female [other than niggers, who
are called "behemah <http://fathersmanifesto.net/behemah.htm> "]. So
non-Israelite women are called "ra ah", or evil, and are to be avoided by
Israelite men.

* Proverbs 6:25

Lust not after her beauty in thine heart; neither let her take thee with her
eyelids.

* Proverbs 6:26

For by means of a whorish woman [a man is brought] to a piece of bread: and
the adulteress will hunt for the precious life.

* Proverbs 6:27

Can a man take fire in his bosom, and his clothes not be burned?

* Proverbs 6:28

Can one go upon hot coals, and his feet not be burned?

* Proverbs 6:29

So he that goeth in to his neighbour's wife; whosoever toucheth her shall
not be innocent.

* Proverbs 6:30

[Men] do not despise a thief, if he steal to satisfy his soul when he is
hungry;

* Proverbs 6:31

But [if] he be found, he shall restore sevenfold; he shall give all the
substance of his house.

* Proverbs 6:32

[But] whoso committeth adultery with a woman lacketh understanding: he
[that] doeth it destroyeth his own soul.

* The word "adultery" here clearly relates back to "strange women", or
"nikro", proof that adultery is mixing the holy seed with other races, and
not sex outside of marriage.

* Proverbs 6:33

A wound and dishonour shall he get; and his reproach shall not be wiped
away.

* Such adultery can NEVER be forgiven, or "wiped away".

* Proverbs 6:34

For jealousy [is] the rage of a man: therefore he will not spare in the day
of vengeance.

* Proverbs 6:35

He will not regard any ransom; neither will he rest content, though thou
givest many gifts.

Not even you three stooges can produce someone ELSE who fits this better
than YOU do, can you?

jk

----- Original Message -----

From: Faith Full <mailto:alecoque33@gmail.com>

To: TWOMIFTG@yahoogroup s.com <mailto:TWOMIFTG@yahoogroups.com>

Sent: Friday, October 17, 2008 6:40 AM

Subject: Re: [TWOMIFTG] Re: Unmitigated Crap From the Purveyor of
Pusillanimosity

He probably IS an inmate of some facility. Nobody outside would put up with
him.

On Fri, Oct 17, 2008 at 1:41 AM, Gyan <nutmeg2323@yahoo.
<mailto:nutmeg2323@yahoo.com.au> com.au> wrote:

Whose wit and wisdom renders all of us literally CATATONIC.

Give the man some catnip and put him in a cage before he "sprays" all
over cyberspace.

--- In TWOMIFTG@yahoogroup <mailto:TWOMIFTG@yahoogroups.com> s.com, "Jacob
Israel" <ji@...> wrote:
>
> <<< YOU SAID IT!!!>>>
>
>
>
> To claim that you three filthy pagans have the morals of alley cats
is an
> offense to alley cats who:
>
>
>
> . Know better than to breed with dogs, something the three
of you
> will never *know*.
>
> . Have enough respect for their own breed to mate with their own
> kind (unless humans intervene and force them to).
>
> . Don't even need to learn to read to KNOW this much about God's
> LAWS.
>
> . Are NOT "Ever learning, and never able to come to the
knowledge of
> the truth".
>
> . Don't need a SINGLE day of edjoocation to know God's LAW
better
> than the three of you together EVER could, for the REST of time.
>
>
>

> http://christianpar <http://fathersmanifesto.net/fornicator.htm>
ty.net/fornicato r.htm
>
>
>
> jk
>
>
>
> From: TWOMIFTG@yahoogroup <mailto:TWOMIFTG%40yahoogroups.com> s.com
[mailto:TWOMIFTG@yahoogroup s.com <mailto:TWOMIFTG%40yahoogroups.com> ] On

Behalf
> Of Gyan
> Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2008 10:20 PM

> To: TWOMIFTG@yahoogroup <mailto:TWOMIFTG%40yahoogroups.com> s.com

> Subject: [TWOMIFTG] Re: Adultery
>
>
>
>
> YOU SAID IT!!!
>

> --- In TWOMIFTG@yahoogroup <mailto:TWOMIFTG%40yahoogroups.com> s.com
<mailto:TWOMIFTG%40yahoogro ups.com <mailto:TWOMIFTG%2540yahoogroups.com> >

, "Faith
> Full" <alecoque33@> wrote:
> >
> > YAWN!
> >
> > On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 3:37 PM, Jacob Israel <ji@> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > - <<<Your Bishop David makes a lot more sense than you do, JK. Pay
> > > heed to him. So far he's telling the truth.>>>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > 1. You wouldn't know a TRUTH if it slugged you on the side of your
> > > head.
> > > 2. We don't take instructions from silly, easily beguiled
> women, much
> > > less SLANDEROUS, LIBELOUS, foul mouthed pagan women, much less
> three stooges
> > > like youse who just put on the greatest demonstration of all of
> just what
> > > mass hysteria actually means and how it starts and propagates
> itself.
> > > 3. Your endorsement of Bishop David is his greatest stumbling
> block.
> > >
> > >
> > > WHY DID GOD CALL ESAU A FORNICATOR?
> > >
> > > Why do you filthy pagans HATE the Word of God so much that you
> DENY that
> > > God HATES Esau? Is it your persecution complex? Your guilty
> complex? Or
> > > just plain egotism?
> > >

> > > http://christianpar <http://fathersmanifesto.net/esau.htm> ty.net/esau.
htm

> > >
> > >
> > > jk
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > *From:* Faith Full <alecoque33@>

> > > *To:* TWOMIFTG@yahoogroup <mailto:TWOMIFTG%40yahoogroups.com> s.com
<mailto:TWOMIFTG%40yahoogro ups.com <mailto:TWOMIFTG%2540yahoogroups.com> >
> > > *Sent:* Wednesday, October 15, 2008 11:39 AM
> > > *Subject:* Re: [TWOMIFTG] Adultery
> > >
> > > Your Bishop David makes a lot more sense than you do, JK. Pay
> heed to
> > > him. So far he's telling the truth.
> > > FF
> > >
> > > On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 1:22 PM, Jacob Israel <ji@> wrote:
> > >
> > >> Dear Bishop David,
> > >>
> > >> Thanks for that excellent analysis.
> > >>
> > >> Jesus also said "You know the commandments: `Do not murder, do
> not commit
> > >> adultery, do not steal, do not give false testimony, do not
> defraud, honor
> > >> your father and mother.'" and "But heaven and earth will come to
> an end
> > >> before the smallest tittle of The Torah may be dropped out".
> > >>
> > >> We know Jesus quoted the "old" testament and that what was
> "translated" as
> > >> "law" was most often written in the original Word of God as
> "Torah". And we
> > >> know that this is the first five books of the Holy Bible, which
> contains
> > >> "law" but which is clearly much, much more than just that. So
> unless Jesus
> > >> was referring to the Roman "law", or the jewish "law" which later
> became the
> > >> Talmud, we know that Jesus said not a tittle of the first five
> books of the
> > >> Holy Bible can be "dropped out".
> > >>
> > >> If we knew what fornication meant when Jesus said "whosoever
> shall put
> > >> away his wife, saving for the cause of
> > >> fornication, causeth her to commit adultery", then we would know
> exactly
> > >> why He said that.
> > >>
> > >> Perhaps this forum will finally discover the real meaning of that
> word.
> > >>
> > >> -
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> jk
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> ps--When Jesus said "Moses because of the hardness of your hearts
> > >> suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it
> was not so",
> > >> did He know that the hardness of our hearts today would be worse,
> MUCH
> > >> worse, than described in Scripture?
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> ----- Original Message -----
> > >> *From:* djour8142 <djour8142@>
> > >> *To:* ChristianPatriot@ <mailto:ChristianPatriot%40yahoogroups.com>
yahoogroups. com
> <mailto:ChristianPatriot% 40yahoogroups. com
<mailto:ChristianPatriot%2540yahoogroups.com> >
> > >> *Sent:* Tuesday, October 14, 2008 4:48 PM
> > >> *Subject:* [ChristianPatriot] Re: Adultery
> > >>
> > >> I understand your confusion... Jesus cleared it all up and Paul gave
> > >> more definitive instructions. Were I yu I would first understqnd we
> > >> are not in Old Testament times. We are in the New Testament
times of
> > >> Jesus Christ.
> > >>
> > >> Rely on the words of Jesus and the Apostles.
> > >>
> > >> I will show them to you again. There is no cinflict in the Lord's
> > >> word. Remember Moses made laws dur to thehardness of the people's
> > >> hearts. You judge for yourself; who is holier, Jesus or Moses?
> > >>
> > >> If a married man looks upon any woman other than his wife he
commits
> > >> adultery already in his heart,
> > >>
> > >> Mat 5:27 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou
> > >> shalt not commit adultery: But I say unto you, That whosoever
looketh
> > >> on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her
already
> > >> in his heart.
> > >>
> > >> 5 The law of divorce, 5:31-32
> > >>
> > >> Jesus allows divorce and remarriage to another only for
fornication.
> > >> Fornication always has been sexual intercourse of a single
person. So
> > >> if one marries then later finds the other is not virgin at the
altar,
> > >> he/she may marry another without committing adultery.
> > >>
> > >> We used to have shotgun marriages if fornication took place this
> > >> prevented the fornicator from having sexual intercourse with any
> > >> other.
> > >>
> > >> Mat 5:31 It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let
> > >> him give her a writing of divorcement: But I say unto you, That
> > >> whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of
> > >> fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall
> > >> marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.
> > >>
> > >> Mat 19:8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your
> > >> hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the
beginning it
> > >> was not so.
> > >> Mat 19:9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife,
> > >> except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth
> > >> adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit
> > >> adultery.
> > >>
> > >> Mark 10:11 And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his
> > >> wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her. And if a
> > >> woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she
> > >> committeth adultery.
> > >>
> > >> Luke 16:18 Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another,
> > >> committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put
away from
> > >> her husband committeth adultery.
> > >>
> > >> Rom 7:2 For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to
> > >> her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead,
she is
> > >> loosed from the law of her husband. So then if, while her husband
> > >> liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an
> > >> adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that
law; so
> > >> that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man.
> > >>
> > >> 1 Cor 6:9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the
> > >> kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor
idolaters,
> > >> nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with
> > >> mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor
revilers, nor
> > >> extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
> > >>
> > >> Heb 13:4 Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but
> > >> whoremongers and adulterers God will judge....-
> > >>
> > >> Bishop David
> > >>
> > >> --- In
> ChristianPatriot@ <mailto:ChristianPatriot%40yahoogroups.com>
yahoogroups. com
<mailto:ChristianPatriot% 40yahoogroups. com
<mailto:ChristianPatriot%2540yahoogroups.com> >
> <ChristianPatriot%40yahoogroups. com <http://40yahoogroups.com/> >,
> > >> "Jacob Israel" <ji@>
> > >> wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> > Dear Bishop David,
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > You wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > <<< I hope you understand this...>>>
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > Yes, I do. I understand it explicitly. And I greatly appreciate
> > >> your
> > >> > taking time to explain it.
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > I also understand explicitly why the notions that "Fornication is
> > >> also
> > >> > sexual intercourse that is that of a unmarried
> > >> > person to a married person" and "A married person having sexual
> > >> intercourse
> > >> > with anyone other than the
> > >> > one he/she is married to is adultery", are in conflict with God's
> > >> > definition of marriage:
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > Exodus 22:1-7 And if a man entice a maid that is not
betrothed, and
> > >> lie with
> > >> > her, he shall surely endow her to be his wife. If her father
> > >> utterly refuse
> > >> > to give her unto him, he shall pay money according to the
dowry of
> > >> virgins.
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > -
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > jk
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > Ps-please advise if you'd like me to elaborate.
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > From:
> ChristianPatriot@ <mailto:ChristianPatriot%40yahoogroups.com>
yahoogroups. com
<mailto:ChristianPatriot% 40yahoogroups. com
<mailto:ChristianPatriot%2540yahoogroups.com> >
> <ChristianPatriot%40yahoogroups. com <http://40yahoogroups.com/> >
> > >> >
> [mailto:ChristianPatriot@ yahoogroups. com
<mailto:ChristianPatriot%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:ChristianPatriot% 40yahoogroups. com
<mailto:ChristianPatriot%2540yahoogroups.com> >
> <ChristianPatriot%40yahoogroups. com <http://40yahoogroups.com/> >]
> > >> On Behalf Of djour8142
> > >> > Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2008 10:15 AM
> > >> > To:
> ChristianPatriot@ <mailto:ChristianPatriot%40yahoogroups.com>
yahoogroups. com
<mailto:ChristianPatriot% 40yahoogroups. com
<mailto:ChristianPatriot%2540yahoogroups.com> >
> <ChristianPatriot%40yahoogroups. com <http://40yahoogroups.com/> >
> > >> > Subject: [ChristianPatriot] Re: Adultery
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > The first marriage is neither fornication nor adultery.
> > >> >
> > >> > FORNICATION. ..
> > >> > Fornication is sexual intercourse between unmarried persons.
> > >> > Fornication is also sexual intercourse that is that of a
unmarried
> > >> > person to a married person - the married person in such sexual
> > >> > intercourse is an adulterer.
> > >> >
> > >> > Adultery...
> > >> > A married person having sexual intercourse with anyone other than
> > >> the
> > >> > one he/she is married to is adultery. The divorced person having
> > >> > sexual intercourse with any other than the living estranged
spouse
> > >> is
> > >> > committing adultery. The divorced person marrying another while
> > >> > his/her first is still alive is committing adultery. I hope you
> > >> > understand this...
> > >> >
> > >> > Bishop David
> > >> >
> > >> > --- In
> ChristianPatriot@ <mailto:ChristianPatriot%40yahoogroups.com>
yahoogroups. com
<mailto:ChristianPatriot% 40yahoogroups. com
<mailto:ChristianPatriot%2540yahoogroups.com> >
> <ChristianPatriot%40yahoogroups. com <http://40yahoogroups.com/> >
> > >> >
>
<mailto:ChristianPatriot% 40yahoogroups. com
<mailto:ChristianPatriot%2540yahoogroups.com> <ChristianPatriot%
2540yahoogroups.
> com>>
> > >> , "Jacob Israel" <ji@>
> > >> > wrote:
> > >> > >
> > >> > > The only INDIVIDUAL in the entire Holy Bible who God HATES is
> > >> Esau:
> > >> > >
> > >> > > a.. As it is written: "I loved Jacob but hated Esau,"
Romans 9:13
> > >> > >
> > >> > > If fornication had nothing to do with his marrying Canaanite
> > >> women
> > >> > who Abraham and Isaac and Rebekah did NOT want him to marry, and
> > >> then
> > >> > Ishmaelite women who STILL did not abate God's HATE, then exactly
> > >> > which Word of God does?:
> > >> > >
> > >> > > a.. Then went Esau unto Ishmael, and took unto the wives
which he
> > >> > had Mahalath the daughter of Ishmael Abraham's son, the sister of
> > >> > Nebajoth, to be his wife. Genesis 28:9
> > >> > >
> > >> > > We can't ignore why it is that God HATES Esau. There are many
> > >> > other people called fornicators in Scripture and God doesn't HATE
> > >> > them. Even his own mother HATED Esau for this "And Rebekah saith
> > >> > unto Isaac, `I have been disgusted with my life because of the
> > >> > presence of the daughters of Heth; if Jacob take a wife of the
> > >> > daughters of Heth, like these--from the daughters of the
land--why
> > >> do
> > >> > I live?'":
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > > a.. "Adultery, in no way, is fornication and fornication, in no
> > >> > way, is
> > >> > > adultery. That is what I am showing you."
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Agreed. But why did you ignore that, by your own definition
> > >> > that "it is fornication on the part of the latter, though
adultery
> > >> > for the former", Esau could also not be accused of adultery,
> > >> because
> > >> > by GOD'S LAW, his act of laying with these other women is
> > >> *marriage*,
> > >> > not *adultery*:
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > > a.. Exodus 22:1-7 And if a man entice a maid that is not
> > >> > betrothed, and lie with her, he shall surely endow her to be his
> > >> > wife. If her father utterly refuse to give her unto him, he shall
> > >> pay
> > >> > money according to the dowry of virgins.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > jk
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > >> > > From: djour8142
> > >> > > To:
> ChristianPatriot@ <mailto:ChristianPatriot%40yahoogroups.com>
yahoogroups. com
<mailto:ChristianPatriot% 40yahoogroups. com
<mailto:ChristianPatriot%2540yahoogroups.com> >
> <ChristianPatriot%40yahoogroups. com <http://40yahoogroups.com/> >
> > >> >
>
<mailto:ChristianPatriot% 40yahoogroups. com
<mailto:ChristianPatriot%2540yahoogroups.com> <ChristianPatriot%
2540yahoogroups.
> com>>
> > >>
> > >> > > Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2008 1:45 AM
> > >> > > Subject: [ChristianPatriot] Re: Adultery
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > > The word is fornicator, -OR- PROFANE PERSON, AS ESAU.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Notice it does NOT say that Esau was a Fornicator. Esau was a
> > >> > profane
> > >> > > person.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > The article is -OR- not AND.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > It does not say fornicator -and- profane person. It says -or-
> > >> > profane
> > >> > > person as Esau.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Fornication is done during the betrothal period. Can one
> > >> > fornicate
> > >> > > against God? Yes. As we are betrothed to GOD and at the
same time
> > >> > we
> > >> > > can have other gods before HIM. When we have other gods Before
> > >> > GOD WE
> > >> > > FORNICATE AGAINST GOD.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Remember these words "in this understanding." There are other
> > >> > > understandings as I have shown you. The previous
understanding I
> > >> > have
> > >> > > shown you is the sexual intercourse understanding.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Adultery, in no way, is fornication and fornication, in no way,
> > >> > is
> > >> > > adultery. That is what I am showing you.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > There is spiritual fornication -which is against the holy
ghost-
> > >> > and
> > >> > > there is carnal fornication- which is against your own fleshly
> > >> > body.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > David
> > >> > >
> > >> > > --- In
> ChristianPatriot@ <mailto:ChristianPatriot%40yahoogroups.com>
yahoogroups. com
<mailto:ChristianPatriot% 40yahoogroups. com
<mailto:ChristianPatriot%2540yahoogroups.com> >
> <ChristianPatriot%40yahoogroups. com <http://40yahoogroups.com/> >
> > >> >
>
<mailto:ChristianPatriot% 40yahoogroups. com
<mailto:ChristianPatriot%2540yahoogroups.com> <ChristianPatriot%
2540yahoogroups.
> com>>
> > >> , "Jacob Israel" <ji@>
> > >> > > wrote:
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > a.. <<<Fornication. Unlawful sexual intercourse between two
> > >> > > unmarried
> > >> > > > persons. Further, if one of the persons be married and the
> > >> > other
> > >> > > not,
> > >> > > > it is fornication on the part
> > >> > > > of the latter, though adultery for the former.
> > >> > > > A divorced Person is considered married or having been
married
> > >> > in
> > >> > > > this understanding.>>>
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > HOW, then, was Esau a fornicator?
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > a.. Hebrews 12:16-17 Lest there be any fornicator, or profane
> > >> > > person, as Esau, who for one morsel of meat sold his
birthright.
> > >> > For
> > >> > > ye know how that afterward, when he would have inherited the
> > >> > > blessing, he was rejected: for he found no place of repentance,
> > >> > > though he sought it carefully with tears.
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > Esau wasn't divorced. Esau wasn't unmarried. So Esau was
not a
> > >> > > fornicator because of "sexual intercourse between two unmarried
> > >> > > persons", nor because of "fornication on the part of the latter
> > >> > > [where "latter" is the numarried person]".
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > By THIS definition, you might claim Esau was guilty
> > >> > of "adultery",
> > >> > > but by GOD'S LAW when Esau had sex "outside of marriage",
it was
> > >> > > called MARRIAGE:
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > a.. Exodus 22:1-7 And if a man entice a maid that is not
> > >> > > betrothed, and lie with her, he shall surely endow her to
be his
> > >> > > wife. If her father utterly refuse to give her unto him, he
shall
> > >> > pay
> > >> > > money according to the dowry of virgins
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > Since Esau didn't pay the "dowry of virgins" when he "took"
> > >> > > Mahalath "to be his wife", we cannot claim he was guilty of
> > >> > adultery
> > >> > > either:
> > >> > > > a.. Then went Esau unto Ishmael, and took unto the wives
which
> > >> > he
> > >> > > had Mahalath the daughter of Ishmael Abraham's son, the
sister of
> > >> > > Nebajoth, to be his wife. Genesis 28:9
> > >> > > > YOUR definition means Esau would be guilty of neither
> > >> > fornication
> > >> > > or adultery.
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > WHY, then, was Esau called a fornicator?
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > -
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > jk
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > >> > > > From: djour8142
> > >> > > > To:
> ChristianPatriot@ <mailto:ChristianPatriot%40yahoogroups.com>
yahoogroups. com
<mailto:ChristianPatriot% 40yahoogroups. com
<mailto:ChristianPatriot%2540yahoogroups.com> >
> <ChristianPatriot%40yahoogroups. com <http://40yahoogroups.com/> >
> > >> >
>
<mailto:ChristianPatriot% 40yahoogroups. com
<mailto:ChristianPatriot%2540yahoogroups.com> <ChristianPatriot%
2540yahoogroups.
> com>>
> > >>
> > >> > > > Sent: Monday, October 13, 2008 6:37 AM
> > >> > > > Subject: [ChristianPatriot] Adultery
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > Adultery
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > Mat 5:27 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time,
> > >> > Thou
> > >> > > > shalt not commit adultery:
> > >> > > > Mat 5:28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a
woman
> > >> > to
> > >> > > > lust after her hath committed adultery with her already
in his
> > >> > > heart.
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > Mat 5:32 But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put
away his
> > >> > > wife,
> > >> > > > saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit
> > >> > > adultery:
> > >> > > > and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth
> > >> > > adultery.
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > Fornication. Unlawful sexual intercourse between two
unmarried
> > >> > > > persons. Further, if one of the persons be married and the
> > >> > other
> > >> > > not,
> > >> > > > it is fornication on the part
> > >> > > > of the latter, though adultery for the former.
> > >> > > > A divorced Person is considered married or having been
married
> > >> > in
> > >> > > > this understanding.
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > Mat 19:9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his
wife,
> > >> > > > except it be for fornication, and shall marry another,
> > >> > committeth
> > >> > > > adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth
commit
> > >> > > > adultery.
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > Mark 10:11 And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put
away his
> > >> > > > wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her.
> > >> > > > Mark 10:12 And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be
> > >> > > married
> > >> > > > to another, she committeth adultery.
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > Luke 16:18 Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth
> > >> > another,
> > >> > > > committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put
> > >> > away
> > >> > > from
> > >> > > > her husband committeth adultery.
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > Rom 7:3 So then if, while her husband liveth, she be
married to
> > >> > > > another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her
> > >> > > husband be
> > >> > > > dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no
adulteress,
> > >> > > though
> > >> > > > she be married to another man.
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > 1 Cor 6:9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not
> inherit the
> > >> > > > kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor
> > >> > > idolaters,
> > >> > > > nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves
with
> > >> > > > mankind,
> > >> > > > 1 Cor 6:10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor
> > >> > revilers,
> > >> > > > nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > Heb 13:4 Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed
undefiled:
> > >> > but
> > >> > > > whoremongers and adulterers God will judge.
> > >> > > > Heb 13:5 Let your conversation be without covetousness;
and be
> > >> > > > content with such things as ye have: for he hath said, I will
> > >> > > never
> > >> > > > leave thee, nor forsake thee.
> > >> > > > Heb 13:6 So that we may boldly say, The Lord is my helper,
> and I
> > >> > > > will not fear what man shall do unto me.
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > James 4:4 Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not
that the
> > >> > > > friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever
therefore
> > >> > > will
> > >> > > > be a friend of the world is the enemy of God.
> > >> > > > James 4:5 Do ye think that the scripture saith in vain, The
> > >> > spirit
> > >> > > > that dwelleth in us lusteth to envy?
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > Fornication. Unlawful sexual intercourse between two
unmarried
> > >> > > > persons. Further, if one of the persons be married and the
> > >> > other
> > >> > > not,
> > >> > > > it is fornication on the part
> > >> > > > of the latter, though adultery for the former.
> > >> > > > A divorced Person is considered married or having been
married
> > >> > in
> > >> > > > this understanding.
> > >> > > >
> > >> > >
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> >
>

<http://www.incredimail.com/index.asp?id=109095&rui=107196570> FREE
Animations for your email - by IncrediMail! Click Here!

__________________________________________________
Correo Yahoo!
Espacio para todos tus mensajes, antivirus y antispam ¡gratis!
Regístrate ya - http://correo.yahoo.es

<http://www.incredimail.com/index.asp?id=501344&rui=107196570> FREE! 100s
of New E-cards For Every Occasion!

Back to top

Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
Messages in this topic (43)

3.2.

Adultery

Posted by: "Jacob Israel" ji@blackexile.com   urbini.rm

Sun Oct 26, 2008 1:35 pm (PDT)

<<< True, but what can the American people do? They are so dumb downed. >>>

WE THE PEOPLE have a lot more power through the internet than the jewsmedia
will ever admit. It was WE THE PEOPLE of California and only ONE “public
servant” who terminated affirmative action with Proposition 209. When
nigger “judge” Henderson held it up for a year with the LIE that we the
people didn’t know what we were voting for, he got bitch slapped by appeals
courts, and it’s now the law of the land and this nigger will go down in
history as an IDIOT NIGGER [though I repeat myself]. The ONE “public
servant” who dared utter several words of support, and nothing else, was
Governor Pete Wilson whose political career ended that day, proving WE THE
PEOPLE don’t need the support of one SINGLE politician, judge, bureaucrat,
jury, court, or the jewsmedia for God’s Will to be done.

99% of the solution is UNDERSTANDING the problem. We *understand* that
mamzers like obama banana nigger, jew McCain and his jewess trophy wife, and
his “vice president” jew, ARE the problem, not the solution.

Ron Paul is the only qualified candidate. If he doesn’t win, we are
HISTORY. It’s as simple as that. Letting jews, particularly FOREIGN alien
enemy jews who arne’t even on our shores and who we don’t even know the
names of, pick our presidential candidates is NOT what the US Constitution
calls for:

http://fathersmanifesto.net/ronpaul.htm

-

jk

From: israeliteidentity@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:israeliteidentity@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Terry Gabrich
Sent: Sunday, October 26, 2008 11:44 AM
To: israeliteidentity@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [israeliteidentity] Adultery

True, but what can the American people do? They are so dumb downed.

-------Original Message-------

From: Jacob <mailto:ji@blackexile.com> Israel

Date: 10/26/2008 1:24:24 PM

To: israeliteidentity@yahoogroups.com

Cc: houseisrael@yahoogroups.com; Israelites@yahoogroups.com;
israeliteidentity@yahoogroups.com; hilloftorah@yahoogroups.com;
christiandentity@yahoogroups.com; identity@yahoogroups.com;
davidicke2@yahoogroups.com; TWOMIFTG@yahoogroups.com;
thespiritofjacob@yahoogroups.com; christiandentity@yahoogroups.com;
jewsareedom@yahoogroups.com; mamzers@yahoogroups.com

Subject: [israeliteidentity] Adultery

<<< Is it possible that God might have something to do with this. Every race
seems to be against the white race, and they make every attempt to destroy
the white race. This is mostly true of the Jews. Through all of the abortion
and birth control, maybe God is actually saying no to all of it. He will not
let his people be destroyed no matter what man does; whether its planned
parent hood, abortion, or birth control pills. I guess they never figured
that if they would just leave well enough alone, the population would stay
at an even level, and that it will grow at a substantial average. It isn't
good to mess with God's creation. Just like the up coming election. Obama is
so arrogant, and yet he isn't a U.S. Citizen, and he is a bisexual and a
crack cocaine smoker to boot. He is determined to be the first black (Hybrid
black) to be president of the U.S. This is a direct violation of the
scriptures as well as the Constitution. How do you think God feels about
this? I firmly believe that God is going to make his presence known, and
that God is giving a warning to the American people as I am writing this.
Obama is arrogant, but God doesn't like arrogance and hautiness. God will
cut him down.>>>

Either God will cut Obama down, or God will cut US down for allowing it.

If we don’t do everything in our power to prevent it, most likely it will be
US He cuts down.

-

jk

Ps—we should add that jew McCain, with a jew “vice president” and a WOMAN to
boot, is equally as bad and will get us into just as much trouble with God.

From: israeliteidentity@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:israeliteidentity@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Terry Gabrich
Sent: Saturday, October 25, 2008 10:32 AM
To: israeliteidentity@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [israeliteidentity] Adultery

Is it possible that God might have something to do with this. Every race
seems to be against the white race, and they make every attempt to destroy
the white race. This is mostly true of the Jews. Through all of the abortion
and birth control, maybe God is actually saying no to all of it. He will not
let his people be destroyed no matter what man does; whether its planned
parent hood, abortion, or birth control pills. I guess they never figured
that if they would just leave well enough alone, the population would stay
at an even level, and that it will grow at a substantial average. It isn't
good to mess with God's creation. Just like the up coming election. Obama is
so arrogant, and yet he isn't a U.S. Citizen, and he is a bisexual and a
crack cocaine smoker to boot. He is determined to be the first black (Hybrid
black) to be president of the U.S. This is a direct violation of the
scriptures as well as the Constitution. How do you think God feels about
this? I firmly believe that God is going to make his presence known, and
that God is giving a warning to the American people as I am writing this.
Obama is arrogant, but God doesn't like arrogance and hautiness. God will
cut him down.

-------Original Message-------

From: Jacob <mailto:ji@blackexile.com> Israel

Date: 10/25/2008 11:19:06 AM

To: TWOMIFTG@yahoogroups.com

Cc: houseisrael@yahoogroups.com; Israelites@yahoogroups.com;
israeliteidentity@yahoogroups.com; hilloftorah@yahoogroups.com;
christiandentity@yahoogroups.com; identity@yahoogroups.com;
davidicke2@yahoogroups.com; TWOMIFTG@yahoogroups.com;
thespiritofjacob@yahoogroups.com; christiandentity@yahoogroups.com;
jewsareedom@yahoogroups.com; mamzers@yahoogroups.com

Subject: [israeliteidentity] Adultery

Ahh, out of the mouths of LIARS sometimes come pearls of TRUTHS:

<<< Did it not occur to your little bird brain, JK, that as Catholics at the
time were not into birth control - in fact, the Protestant Church only
allowed its parishioners to use birth control from 1930 onwards - that
Catholics increased and multiplied themselves to replace the dead, and this
is why the graph doesn't show more than 0.5 % decrease?>>>

By attempting to JUSTIFY why the Protestant population plunged 35% while the
Catholic population dropped only 0.5%, you *ADMIT* it to be a FACT!

You essentially admit that you KNOW that what your “church” SAYS and what it
DOES are anti-podes!

Your “church” CLAIMS that it opposes abortion. How can YOU explain, then,
WHY the abortion RATE in mostly Catholic states like Massachusetts at 30.2
and New Jersey at 35.1 and New York at 43.3, is almost an order of magnitude
HIGHER (by 8.5X) than it is in less Catholic states like Wyoming at 5.1 and
South Dakota at 5.7 and Idaho at 8.2 and Mississippi at 8.4?

And as a good little feminazi propagandist, your argument [read: excuse]
about the birth control pill is EQUALLY flawed, EQUALLY unfounded, and
EQUALLY socially pathological [just as your claim about how we cannot
possibly live by God’s Law regarding HIS definition of marriage is]. To
wit, the pregnancy rate in the US BEFORE the pill was 18.9, but when the
pill was implemented, it SKYROCKTED 25% to 23.7.

http://fathersmanifesto.net/pill.htm

So IF the birth control pill had anything to do with changes in population
growth, it caused an INCREASE in the Protestant population, not a decrease,
which means the number of Protestants killed during WWII was GREATER than
the population figures posted.

jk

From: TWOMIFTG@yahoogroups.com [mailto:TWOMIFTG@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
Of Faith Full
Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2008 3:32 PM
To: TWOMIFTG@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [TWOMIFTG] Adultery

Did it not occur to your little bird brain, JK, that as Catholics at the
time were not into birth control - in fact, the Protestant Church only
allowed its parishioners to use birth control from 1930 onwards - that
Catholics increased and multiplied themselves to replace the dead, and this
is why the graph doesn't show more than 0.5 % decrease?

Graphs can be made to show anything anyone wants - to suit their own agenda.

And knowing you, you're only showing part of the big picture. There's
probably a lot of small print indicating the contents of my first sentence
that you're not showing.

But your words were that CATHOLICS WERE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL THE PROTESTANT
DEATHS. So make up your mind!

That's what my issue is with you. But you forget what you say half the
time!

FF

On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 12:46 PM, Jacob Israel <ji@blackexile.com> wrote:

<<< To show a graph, which is laughable, indicating that NO CATHOLICS were
killed in WWII is ludicrous to the extreme >>>

You don't even need to know how to read a GRAPH to know this is NOT what
they say. All you need to read is ENGLISH, and the above is additional
PROOF that you can't even do that simplest of things.

To be PRECISE, the graph simply illustrates that the 1933 World Almanac put
the worldwide Christian population at 682,400,00, which included 331.5
million Roman Catholics, 144 million Orthodox Catholics, and 206.9 million
Protestants, and that just 15 years later, AFTER WWII, the 1948 World
Almanac put the worldwide population of Christians at 592,406,542, a
REDUCTION of 13.2% or 89,993,458 Christians. BUT the population of Roman
Catholics decreased by only 0.5%, or 1,724,317 Catholics, compared to 11.4%
of or 16,370,014 Orthodox Catholics and 34.8% of or 71,962,127 Protestants.

Of COURSE you can't even read THAT. And of COURSE you will claim that your
faggot pope is RIGHT and the OFFICAL WORLD ALMANACS are wrong. And you will
LIE again about the graph which is posted again ONLY for those with eyes to
see and ears to hear:

http://fathersmanifesto.net/cathoholicism25.png

http://fathersmanifesto.net/cathoholicism.htm

jk

From: TWOMIFTG@yahoogroups.com [mailto:TWOMIFTG@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
Of Faith Full
Sent: Sunday, October 19, 2008 7:36 PM

To: TWOMIFTG@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [TWOMIFTG] Adultery

Because he, JK, makes more sense than you do?

To show a graph, which is laughable, indicating that NO CATHOLICS were
killed in WWII is ludicrous to the extreme.

You are not dealing in facts. You are dealing in propaganda and you are
swallowing it up greedily.

Somebody must be paying you for all this stupidity because even you couldn't
believe all the rubbish you post. But then you seem a bit dense - more than
dense, actually.

FF

On Sun, Oct 19, 2008 at 5:22 PM, Jacob Israel <ji@blackexile.com> wrote:

Faith BULL, why on God's green earth would you accept this post from "locus"
as "fact", and REJECT the ACTUAL FACTS found in the World Almanac and Book
of Facts, "THE AUTHORITY SINCE 1868" published by World Almanac Books?

Where is the PROOF that THEIR claim that

From: TWOMIFTG@yahoogroups.com [mailto:TWOMIFTG@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
Of Faith Full
Sent: Saturday, October 18, 2008 8:41 PM
To: TWOMIFTG@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [TWOMIFTG] Adultery

Thank you, Locus,

FF

On Sat, Oct 18, 2008 at 6:43 PM, locus clasicus <locusclasicus@yahoo.es>
wrote:

six million catholics were killed in WWII and that includes the

Spanish Civil War where 4 million were killed

--- El sáb, 18/10/08, Faith Full <alecoque33@gmail.com> escribió:

De: Faith Full <alecoque33@gmail.com>
Asunto: Re: [TWOMIFTG] Adultery
Para: TWOMIFTG@yahoogroups.com
CC: "Debunks" <Debunks@sbcglobal.net>
Fecha: sábado, 18 octubre, 2008 1:59

Under what rock did you find that graph, JK? I expect you wrote it
yourself?

A "graph" that shows that NO Catholic person was killed from 1930 onwards?

Even you, with your pea-brain, JK, can see that that makes no sense?

You're showing up your stupidity every time you write.

And as for facts - you haven't got a clue what a fact is.

The Catholic Church has NEVER, repeat NEVER - and I say it again just so you
can absorb it - THE CATHOLIC CHURCH HAS NEVER, EVER ORDAINED WOMEN TO THE
PRIESTHOOD, AND IT NEVER, REPEAT, NEVER WILL.

Am I clear?

Women can NEVER be priests in the Catholic Church! How many more times do I
have to say it for it to strike home?

You may read that a couple of renegade priests ordained some idiot women to
the "priesthood" but they were either excommunicated or dealt harshly. And
the women "priests" have no standing in Catholicism.

So get your facts right, you dreamer. You read a headline and you adopt it
as "gospel"!

Your anti-Catholicism has blinded you to the truth.

FF

On Sat, Oct 18, 2008 at 12:45 PM, Jacob Israel <ji@blackexile. com
<mailto:ji@blackexile.com> > wrote:

<<< Episcopalian? Ha, nothing to be proud of. There's an Episcopalian
"priest" writing his notion of what the Bible is all about - and he hardly
even believes in God. A right heretic he is. Now we know where you got
your "foundation", JK!>>>

"we know"? As SCRIPTURE tells us, the more you "know", the STUPIDER you
get.

There has been utterly NO "foundation" to this "church" ever since they
ordained women "priests"—and it's gone straight to HELL ever since then. As
if THAT wasn't bad enough, they now ordained FAGGOT priests, putting them in
the same pigstye as YOU. They're ALMOST as confused about the difference
between an ISRAELITE and filthy edomite kikes claiming to be "jews". Yet
as BAD as they are—they're a billion times less damaging to society than
your filthy RCC:

http://christianpar <http://fathersmanifesto.net/cathoholicism.htm>
ty.net/cathoholi cism.htm

http://fathersmanifesto.net/cathoholicism25.png

jk

From: TWOMIFTG@yahoogroup s.com <mailto:TWOMIFTG@yahoogroups.com>
[mailto:TWOMIFTG@yahoogroup <mailto:TWOMIFTG@yahoogroups.com> s.com] On
Behalf Of Faith Full

Sent: Saturday, October 18, 2008 9:26 AM

To: TWOMIFTG@yahoogroup s.com <mailto:TWOMIFTG@yahoogroups.com> ; Debunks
Subject: Re: [TWOMIFTG] Adultery

Okay, IDIOT, JK, PROVE that Catholics are responsible for the deaths of 100
million Protestants and Orthodox people during WWII.

PROVE IT!

I don't expect I will EVER get an answer to this question.

Run off now like a dog with your tail between your legs. You're great at
the accusations, but not very good at substantiating them.

Of course not one Catholic was killed in WWII, not even one? (Not even the
ones who died!)

We're all waiting.

So when my father and his two brothers were on the battlefield at Monte
Casino, and fighting the Germans at Tobruk and El Allemaine - they weren't
really there? Is that right? And all the other Irish Catholics in the
British Army (not even mentioning the millions of Catholics in other
armies).

Episcopalian? Ha, nothing to be proud of. There's an Episcopalian "priest"
writing his notion of what the Bible is all about - and he hardly even
believes in God. A right heretic he is. Now we know where you got your
"foundation", JK!

FF

On Sat, Oct 18, 2008 at 12:10 PM, Jacob Israel <ji@blackexile.
<mailto:ji@blackexile.com> com> wrote:

* <<<John, talking to a Roman Catholic is like talking to nonsense.
All of these versus prove your point, but they don't see it because of the
corruption of the Roman Catholic doctrines and the Bible that they use. >>>

Of course.

Having been raised as an Episcopalean, I always believed this BS about how
similar the Catholic and Episcopal churches are. These replies to the three
stooges and debunked PROVE just the opposite, AND that Catholics are just
jews in drag.

Without this forum, how many of us would have realized that Catholics are an
even greater threat to a CHRISTIAN nation than jews. It brings the conflict
in Ireland and Germany into focus. It was 100 million Protestants and
Orthodox Catholics who were killed in WWII, not 6 million jews--and the RCC
is ONE HUNDRED PERCENT responsible. This forum revealed the motives behind
the statistics:

http://christianpar <http://fathersmanifesto.net/cathoholicism.htm>
ty.net/cathoholi cism.htm

http://christianpar <http://fathersmanifesto.net/wwii.htm> ty.net/wwii. htm

-

jk

----- Original Message -----

From: Terry Gabrich <mailto:isaiah14@sbcglobal.net>

To: israeliteidentity@ yahoogroups.
<mailto:israeliteidentity@yahoogroups.com> com

Sent: Friday, October 17, 2008 2:10 PM

Subject: Re: [israeliteidentity] Adultery

John, talking to a Roman Catholic is like talking to nonsense. All of these
versus prove your point, but they don't see it because of the corruption of
the Roman Catholic doctrines and the Bible that they use.

-------Original Message----- --

From: Jacob Israel <mailto:ji@blackexile.com>

Date: 10/17/2008 11:00:58 AM

To: TWOMIFTG@yahoogroup <mailto:TWOMIFTG@yahoogroups.com> s.com

Cc: mamzers@yahoogroups <mailto:mamzers@yahoogroups.com> .com;
jewsareedom@ yahoogroups. com <mailto:jewsareedom@yahoogroups.com> ;
christiandentity@ <mailto:christiandentity@yahoogroups.com> yahoogroups.
com; thespiritofjacob@ <mailto:thespiritofjacob@yahoogroups.com>
yahoogroups. com; TWOMIFTG@yahoogroup s.com
<mailto:TWOMIFTG@yahoogroups.com> ; davidicke2@yahoogro
<mailto:davidicke2@yahoogroups.com> ups.com; identity@yahoogroup s.com
<mailto:identity@yahoogroups.com> ; hilloftorah@
<mailto:hilloftorah@yahoogroups.com> yahoogroups. com; israeliteidentity@
<mailto:israeliteidentity@yahoogroups.com> yahoogroups. com;
Israelites@yahoogro ups.com <mailto:Israelites@yahoogroups.com> ;
houseisrael@ <mailto:houseisrael@yahoogroups.com> yahoogroups. com

Subject: [israeliteidentity] Adultery

* <<<He probably IS an inmate of some facility. Nobody outside would
put up with him.>>>

You've threatened our lives, challenged us with fisticuffs, blasphemed the
holy spirit, engaged in malicious LIBEL and malicious SLANDER, PERVERTED the
Word of God SIMPLY because we QUOTED it, and now you think anyone,
particularly God, believes you're going to be "saved in childbearing"
BECAUSE of your "charity and holiness"?

No WONDER you continue to refuse to acknowledge that God does HATE
people--if you admitted it, you'd have to acknowledge [at least to
yourselves] that the ONLY three stooges who fit that profile to a TEE are
YOU:

* Proverbs 6:16

These six [things] doth the LORD hate: yea, seven [are] an abomination unto
him:

* Proverbs 6:17

A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood,

* Proverbs 6:18

An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to
mischief,

* Proverbs 6:19

A false witness [that] speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among
brethren.

* Proverbs 6:20

My son, keep thy father's commandment, and forsake not the law of thy
mother:

* Proverbs 6:21

Bind them continually upon thine heart, [and] tie them about thy neck.

* Proverbs 6:22

When thou goest, it shall lead thee; when thou sleepest, it shall keep thee;
and [when] thou awakest, it shall talk with thee.

* Proverbs 6:23

For the commandment [is] a lamp; and the law [is] light; and reproofs of
instruction [are] the way of life:

* Proverbs 6:24

To keep thee from the evil woman, from the flattery of the tongue of a
strange woman.

* Pro 6:24 To keep8104 thee from the evil7451 woman,4480, 802 from
the flattery4480, 2513 of the tongue3956 of a strange woman.5237

* #5237 is "nikro <http://fathersmanifesto.net/nikro.htm> " which
actually means ANY non-Israelite, male or female [other than niggers, who
are called "behemah <http://fathersmanifesto.net/behemah.htm> "]. So
non-Israelite women are called "ra ah", or evil, and are to be avoided by
Israelite men.

* Proverbs 6:25

Lust not after her beauty in thine heart; neither let her take thee with her
eyelids.

* Proverbs 6:26

For by means of a whorish woman [a man is brought] to a piece of bread: and
the adulteress will hunt for the precious life.

* Proverbs 6:27

Can a man take fire in his bosom, and his clothes not be burned?

* Proverbs 6:28

Can one go upon hot coals, and his feet not be burned?

* Proverbs 6:29

So he that goeth in to his neighbour's wife; whosoever toucheth her shall
not be innocent.

* Proverbs 6:30

[Men] do not despise a thief, if he steal to satisfy his soul when he is
hungry;

* Proverbs 6:31

But [if] he be found, he shall restore sevenfold; he shall give all the
substance of his house.

* Proverbs 6:32

[But] whoso committeth adultery with a woman lacketh understanding: he
[that] doeth it destroyeth his own soul.

* The word "adultery" here clearly relates back to "strange women", or
"nikro", proof that adultery is mixing the holy seed with other races, and
not sex outside of marriage.

* Proverbs 6:33

A wound and dishonour shall he get; and his reproach shall not be wiped
away.

* Such adultery can NEVER be forgiven, or "wiped away".

* Proverbs 6:34

For jealousy [is] the rage of a man: therefore he will not spare in the day
of vengeance.

* Proverbs 6:35

He will not regard any ransom; neither will he rest content, though thou
givest many gifts.

Not even you three stooges can produce someone ELSE who fits this better
than YOU do, can you?

jk

----- Original Message -----

From: Faith Full <mailto:alecoque33@gmail.com>

To: TWOMIFTG@yahoogroup s.com <mailto:TWOMIFTG@yahoogroups.com>

Sent: Friday, October 17, 2008 6:40 AM

Subject: Re: [TWOMIFTG] Re: Unmitigated Crap From the Purveyor of
Pusillanimosity

He probably IS an inmate of some facility. Nobody outside would put up with
him.

On Fri, Oct 17, 2008 at 1:41 AM, Gyan <nutmeg2323@yahoo.
<mailto:nutmeg2323@yahoo.com.au> com.au> wrote:

Whose wit and wisdom renders all of us literally CATATONIC.

Give the man some catnip and put him in a cage before he "sprays" all
over cyberspace.

--- In TWOMIFTG@yahoogroup <mailto:TWOMIFTG@yahoogroups.com> s.com, "Jacob
Israel" <ji@...> wrote:
>
> <<< YOU SAID IT!!!>>>
>
>
>
> To claim that you three filthy pagans have the morals of alley cats
is an
> offense to alley cats who:
>
>
>
> . Know better than to breed with dogs, something the three
of you
> will never *know*.
>
> . Have enough respect for their own breed to mate with their own
> kind (unless humans intervene and force them to).
>
> . Don't even need to learn to read to KNOW this much about God's
> LAWS.
>
> . Are NOT "Ever learning, and never able to come to the
knowledge of
> the truth".
>
> . Don't need a SINGLE day of edjoocation to know God's LAW
better
> than the three of you together EVER could, for the REST of time.
>
>
>

> http://christianpar <http://fathersmanifesto.net/fornicator.htm>
ty.net/fornicato r.htm
>
>
>
> jk
>
>
>
> From: TWOMIFTG@yahoogroup <mailto:TWOMIFTG%40yahoogroups.com> s.com
[mailto:TWOMIFTG@yahoogroup s.com <mailto:TWOMIFTG%40yahoogroups.com> ] On

Behalf
> Of Gyan
> Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2008 10:20 PM

> To: TWOMIFTG@yahoogroup <mailto:TWOMIFTG%40yahoogroups.com> s.com

> Subject: [TWOMIFTG] Re: Adultery
>
>
>
>
> YOU SAID IT!!!
>

> --- In TWOMIFTG@yahoogroup <mailto:TWOMIFTG%40yahoogroups.com> s.com
<mailto:TWOMIFTG%40yahoogro ups.com <mailto:TWOMIFTG%2540yahoogroups.com> >

, "Faith
> Full" <alecoque33@> wrote:
> >
> > YAWN!
> >
> > On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 3:37 PM, Jacob Israel <ji@> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > - <<<Your Bishop David makes a lot more sense than you do, JK. Pay
> > > heed to him. So far he's telling the truth.>>>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > 1. You wouldn't know a TRUTH if it slugged you on the side of your
> > > head.
> > > 2. We don't take instructions from silly, easily beguiled
> women, much
> > > less SLANDEROUS, LIBELOUS, foul mouthed pagan women, much less
> three stooges
> > > like youse who just put on the greatest demonstration of all of
> just what
> > > mass hysteria actually means and how it starts and propagates
> itself.
> > > 3. Your endorsement of Bishop David is his greatest stumbling
> block.
> > >
> > >
> > > WHY DID GOD CALL ESAU A FORNICATOR?
> > >
> > > Why do you filthy pagans HATE the Word of God so much that you
> DENY that
> > > God HATES Esau? Is it your persecution complex? Your guilty
> complex? Or
> > > just plain egotism?
> > >

> > > http://christianpar <http://fathersmanifesto.net/esau.htm> ty.net/esau.
htm

> > >
> > >
> > > jk
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > *From:* Faith Full <alecoque33@>

> > > *To:* TWOMIFTG@yahoogroup <mailto:TWOMIFTG%40yahoogroups.com> s.com
<mailto:TWOMIFTG%40yahoogro ups.com <mailto:TWOMIFTG%2540yahoogroups.com> >
> > > *Sent:* Wednesday, October 15, 2008 11:39 AM
> > > *Subject:* Re: [TWOMIFTG] Adultery
> > >
> > > Your Bishop David makes a lot more sense than you do, JK. Pay
> heed to
> > > him. So far he's telling the truth.
> > > FF
> > >
> > > On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 1:22 PM, Jacob Israel <ji@> wrote:
> > >
> > >> Dear Bishop David,
> > >>
> > >> Thanks for that excellent analysis.
> > >>
> > >> Jesus also said "You know the commandments: `Do not murder, do
> not commit
> > >> adultery, do not steal, do not give false testimony, do not
> defraud, honor
> > >> your father and mother.'" and "But heaven and earth will come to
> an end
> > >> before the smallest tittle of The Torah may be dropped out".
> > >>
> > >> We know Jesus quoted the "old" testament and that what was
> "translated" as
> > >> "law" was most often written in the original Word of God as
> "Torah". And we
> > >> know that this is the first five books of the Holy Bible, which
> contains
> > >> "law" but which is clearly much, much more than just that. So
> unless Jesus
> > >> was referring to the Roman "law", or the jewish "law" which later
> became the
> > >> Talmud, we know that Jesus said not a tittle of the first five
> books of the
> > >> Holy Bible can be "dropped out".
> > >>
> > >> If we knew what fornication meant when Jesus said "whosoever
> shall put
> > >> away his wife, saving for the cause of
> > >> fornication, causeth her to commit adultery", then we would know
> exactly
> > >> why He said that.
> > >>
> > >> Perhaps this forum will finally discover the real meaning of that
> word.
> > >>
> > >> -
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> jk
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> ps--When Jesus said "Moses because of the hardness of your hearts
> > >> suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it
> was not so",
> > >> did He know that the hardness of our hearts today would be worse,
> MUCH
> > >> worse, than described in Scripture?
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> ----- Original Message -----
> > >> *From:* djour8142 <djour8142@>
> > >> *To:* ChristianPatriot@ <mailto:ChristianPatriot%40yahoogroups.com>
yahoogroups. com
> <mailto:ChristianPatriot% 40yahoogroups. com
<mailto:ChristianPatriot%2540yahoogroups.com> >
> > >> *Sent:* Tuesday, October 14, 2008 4:48 PM
> > >> *Subject:* [ChristianPatriot] Re: Adultery
> > >>
> > >> I understand your confusion... Jesus cleared it all up and Paul gave
> > >> more definitive instructions. Were I yu I would first understqnd we
> > >> are not in Old Testament times. We are in the New Testament
times of
> > >> Jesus Christ.
> > >>
> > >> Rely on the words of Jesus and the Apostles.
> > >>
> > >> I will show them to you again. There is no cinflict in the Lord's
> > >> word. Remember Moses made laws dur to thehardness of the people's
> > >> hearts. You judge for yourself; who is holier, Jesus or Moses?
> > >>
> > >> If a married man looks upon any woman other than his wife he
commits
> > >> adultery already in his heart,
> > >>
> > >> Mat 5:27 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou
> > >> shalt not commit adultery: But I say unto you, That whosoever
looketh
> > >> on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her
already
> > >> in his heart.
> > >>
> > >> 5 The law of divorce, 5:31-32
> > >>
> > >> Jesus allows divorce and remarriage to another only for
fornication.
> > >> Fornication always has been sexual intercourse of a single
person. So
> > >> if one marries then later finds the other is not virgin at the
altar,
> > >> he/she may marry another without committing adultery.
> > >>
> > >> We used to have shotgun marriages if fornication took place this
> > >> prevented the fornicator from having sexual intercourse with any
> > >> other.
> > >>
> > >> Mat 5:31 It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let
> > >> him give her a writing of divorcement: But I say unto you, That
> > >> whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of
> > >> fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall
> > >> marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.
> > >>
> > >> Mat 19:8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your
> > >> hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the
beginning it
> > >> was not so.
> > >> Mat 19:9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife,
> > >> except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth
> > >> adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit
> > >> adultery.
> > >>
> > >> Mark 10:11 And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his
> > >> wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her. And if a
> > >> woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she
> > >> committeth adultery.
> > >>
> > >> Luke 16:18 Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another,
> > >> committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put
away from
> > >> her husband committeth adultery.
> > >>
> > >> Rom 7:2 For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to
> > >> her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead,
she is
> > >> loosed from the law of her husband. So then if, while her husband
> > >> liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an
> > >> adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that
law; so
> > >> that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man.
> > >>
> > >> 1 Cor 6:9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the
> > >> kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor
idolaters,
> > >> nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with
> > >> mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor
revilers, nor
> > >> extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
> > >>
> > >> Heb 13:4 Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but
> > >> whoremongers and adulterers God will judge....-
> > >>
> > >> Bishop David
> > >>
> > >> --- In
> ChristianPatriot@ <mailto:ChristianPatriot%40yahoogroups.com>
yahoogroups. com
<mailto:ChristianPatriot% 40yahoogroups. com
<mailto:ChristianPatriot%2540yahoogroups.com> >
> <ChristianPatriot%40yahoogroups. com <http://40yahoogroups.com/> >,
> > >> "Jacob Israel" <ji@>
> > >> wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> > Dear Bishop David,
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > You wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > <<< I hope you understand this...>>>
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > Yes, I do. I understand it explicitly. And I greatly appreciate
> > >> your
> > >> > taking time to explain it.
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > I also understand explicitly why the notions that "Fornication is
> > >> also
> > >> > sexual intercourse that is that of a unmarried
> > >> > person to a married person" and "A married person having sexual
> > >> intercourse
> > >> > with anyone other than the
> > >> > one he/she is married to is adultery", are in conflict with God's
> > >> > definition of marriage:
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > Exodus 22:1-7 And if a man entice a maid that is not
betrothed, and
> > >> lie with
> > >> > her, he shall surely endow her to be his wife. If her father
> > >> utterly refuse
> > >> > to give her unto him, he shall pay money according to the
dowry of
> > >> virgins.
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > -
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > jk
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > Ps-please advise if you'd like me to elaborate.
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > From:
> ChristianPatriot@ <mailto:ChristianPatriot%40yahoogroups.com>
yahoogroups. com
<mailto:ChristianPatriot% 40yahoogroups. com
<mailto:ChristianPatriot%2540yahoogroups.com> >
> <ChristianPatriot%40yahoogroups. com <http://40yahoogroups.com/> >
> > >> >
> [mailto:ChristianPatriot@ yahoogroups. com
<mailto:ChristianPatriot%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:ChristianPatriot% 40yahoogroups. com
<mailto:ChristianPatriot%2540yahoogroups.com> >
> <ChristianPatriot%40yahoogroups. com <http://40yahoogroups.com/> >]
> > >> On Behalf Of djour8142
> > >> > Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2008 10:15 AM
> > >> > To:
> ChristianPatriot@ <mailto:ChristianPatriot%40yahoogroups.com>
yahoogroups. com
<mailto:ChristianPatriot% 40yahoogroups. com
<mailto:ChristianPatriot%2540yahoogroups.com> >
> <ChristianPatriot%40yahoogroups. com <http://40yahoogroups.com/> >
> > >> > Subject: [ChristianPatriot] Re: Adultery
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > The first marriage is neither fornication nor adultery.
> > >> >
> > >> > FORNICATION. ..
> > >> > Fornication is sexual intercourse between unmarried persons.
> > >> > Fornication is also sexual intercourse that is that of a
unmarried
> > >> > person to a married person - the married person in such sexual
> > >> > intercourse is an adulterer.
> > >> >
> > >> > Adultery...
> > >> > A married person having sexual intercourse with anyone other than
> > >> the
> > >> > one he/she is married to is adultery. The divorced person having
> > >> > sexual intercourse with any other than the living estranged
spouse
> > >> is
> > >> > committing adultery. The divorced person marrying another while
> > >> > his/her first is still alive is committing adultery. I hope you
> > >> > understand this...
> > >> >
> > >> > Bishop David
> > >> >
> > >> > --- In
> ChristianPatriot@ <mailto:ChristianPatriot%40yahoogroups.com>
yahoogroups. com
<mailto:ChristianPatriot% 40yahoogroups. com
<mailto:ChristianPatriot%2540yahoogroups.com> >
> <ChristianPatriot%40yahoogroups. com <http://40yahoogroups.com/> >
> > >> >
>
<mailto:ChristianPatriot% 40yahoogroups. com
<mailto:ChristianPatriot%2540yahoogroups.com> <ChristianPatriot%
2540yahoogroups.
> com>>
> > >> , "Jacob Israel" <ji@>
> > >> > wrote:
> > >> > >
> > >> > > The only INDIVIDUAL in the entire Holy Bible who God HATES is
> > >> Esau:
> > >> > >
> > >> > > a.. As it is written: "I loved Jacob but hated Esau,"
Romans 9:13
> > >> > >
> > >> > > If fornication had nothing to do with his marrying Canaanite
> > >> women
> > >> > who Abraham and Isaac and Rebekah did NOT want him to marry, and
> > >> then
> > >> > Ishmaelite women who STILL did not abate God's HATE, then exactly
> > >> > which Word of God does?:
> > >> > >
> > >> > > a.. Then went Esau unto Ishmael, and took unto the wives
which he
> > >> > had Mahalath the daughter of Ishmael Abraham's son, the sister of
> > >> > Nebajoth, to be his wife. Genesis 28:9
> > >> > >
> > >> > > We can't ignore why it is that God HATES Esau. There are many
> > >> > other people called fornicators in Scripture and God doesn't HATE
> > >> > them. Even his own mother HATED Esau for this "And Rebekah saith
> > >> > unto Isaac, `I have been disgusted with my life because of the
> > >> > presence of the daughters of Heth; if Jacob take a wife of the
> > >> > daughters of Heth, like these--from the daughters of the
land--why
> > >> do
> > >> > I live?'":
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > > a.. "Adultery, in no way, is fornication and fornication, in no
> > >> > way, is
> > >> > > adultery. That is what I am showing you."
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Agreed. But why did you ignore that, by your own definition
> > >> > that "it is fornication on the part of the latter, though
adultery
> > >> > for the former", Esau could also not be accused of adultery,
> > >> because
> > >> > by GOD'S LAW, his act of laying with these other women is
> > >> *marriage*,
> > >> > not *adultery*:
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > > a.. Exodus 22:1-7 And if a man entice a maid that is not
> > >> > betrothed, and lie with her, he shall surely endow her to be his
> > >> > wife. If her father utterly refuse to give her unto him, he shall
> > >> pay
> > >> > money according to the dowry of virgins.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > jk
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > >> > > From: djour8142
> > >> > > To:
> ChristianPatriot@ <mailto:ChristianPatriot%40yahoogroups.com>
yahoogroups. com
<mailto:ChristianPatriot% 40yahoogroups. com
<mailto:ChristianPatriot%2540yahoogroups.com> >
> <ChristianPatriot%40yahoogroups. com <http://40yahoogroups.com/> >
> > >> >
>
<mailto:ChristianPatriot% 40yahoogroups. com
<mailto:ChristianPatriot%2540yahoogroups.com> <ChristianPatriot%
2540yahoogroups.
> com>>
> > >>
> > >> > > Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2008 1:45 AM
> > >> > > Subject: [ChristianPatriot] Re: Adultery
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > > The word is fornicator, -OR- PROFANE PERSON, AS ESAU.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Notice it does NOT say that Esau was a Fornicator. Esau was a
> > >> > profane
> > >> > > person.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > The article is -OR- not AND.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > It does not say fornicator -and- profane person. It says -or-
> > >> > profane
> > >> > > person as Esau.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Fornication is done during the betrothal period. Can one
> > >> > fornicate
> > >> > > against God? Yes. As we are betrothed to GOD and at the
same time
> > >> > we
> > >> > > can have other gods before HIM. When we have other gods Before
> > >> > GOD WE
> > >> > > FORNICATE AGAINST GOD.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Remember these words "in this understanding." There are other
> > >> > > understandings as I have shown you. The previous
understanding I
> > >> > have
> > >> > > shown you is the sexual intercourse understanding.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Adultery, in no way, is fornication and fornication, in no way,
> > >> > is
> > >> > > adultery. That is what I am showing you.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > There is spiritual fornication -which is against the holy
ghost-
> > >> > and
> > >> > > there is carnal fornication- which is against your own fleshly
> > >> > body.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > David
> > >> > >
> > >> > > --- In
> ChristianPatriot@ <mailto:ChristianPatriot%40yahoogroups.com>
yahoogroups. com
<mailto:ChristianPatriot% 40yahoogroups. com
<mailto:ChristianPatriot%2540yahoogroups.com> >
> <ChristianPatriot%40yahoogroups. com <http://40yahoogroups.com/> >
> > >> >
>
<mailto:ChristianPatriot% 40yahoogroups. com
<mailto:ChristianPatriot%2540yahoogroups.com> <ChristianPatriot%
2540yahoogroups.
> com>>
> > >> , "Jacob Israel" <ji@>
> > >> > > wrote:
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > a.. <<<Fornication. Unlawful sexual intercourse between two
> > >> > > unmarried
> > >> > > > persons. Further, if one of the persons be married and the
> > >> > other
> > >> > > not,
> > >> > > > it is fornication on the part
> > >> > > > of the latter, though adultery for the former.
> > >> > > > A divorced Person is considered married or having been
married
> > >> > in
> > >> > > > this understanding.>>>
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > HOW, then, was Esau a fornicator?
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > a.. Hebrews 12:16-17 Lest there be any fornicator, or profane
> > >> > > person, as Esau, who for one morsel of meat sold his
birthright.
> > >> > For
> > >> > > ye know how that afterward, when he would have inherited the
> > >> > > blessing, he was rejected: for he found no place of repentance,
> > >> > > though he sought it carefully with tears.
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > Esau wasn't divorced. Esau wasn't unmarried. So Esau was
not a
> > >> > > fornicator because of "sexual intercourse between two unmarried
> > >> > > persons", nor because of "fornication on the part of the latter
> > >> > > [where "latter" is the numarried person]".
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > By THIS definition, you might claim Esau was guilty
> > >> > of "adultery",
> > >> > > but by GOD'S LAW when Esau had sex "outside of marriage",
it was
> > >> > > called MARRIAGE:
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > a.. Exodus 22:1-7 And if a man entice a maid that is not
> > >> > > betrothed, and lie with her, he shall surely endow her to
be his
> > >> > > wife. If her father utterly refuse to give her unto him, he
shall
> > >> > pay
> > >> > > money according to the dowry of virgins
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > Since Esau didn't pay the "dowry of virgins" when he "took"
> > >> > > Mahalath "to be his wife", we cannot claim he was guilty of
> > >> > adultery
> > >> > > either:
> > >> > > > a.. Then went Esau unto Ishmael, and took unto the wives
which
> > >> > he
> > >> > > had Mahalath the daughter of Ishmael Abraham's son, the
sister of
> > >> > > Nebajoth, to be his wife. Genesis 28:9
> > >> > > > YOUR definition means Esau would be guilty of neither
> > >> > fornication
> > >> > > or adultery.
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > WHY, then, was Esau called a fornicator?
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > -
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > jk
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > >> > > > From: djour8142
> > >> > > > To:
> ChristianPatriot@ <mailto:ChristianPatriot%40yahoogroups.com>
yahoogroups. com
<mailto:ChristianPatriot% 40yahoogroups. com
<mailto:ChristianPatriot%2540yahoogroups.com> >
> <ChristianPatriot%40yahoogroups. com <http://40yahoogroups.com/> >
> > >> >
>
<mailto:ChristianPatriot% 40yahoogroups. com
<mailto:ChristianPatriot%2540yahoogroups.com> <ChristianPatriot%
2540yahoogroups.
> com>>
> > >>
> > >> > > > Sent: Monday, October 13, 2008 6:37 AM
> > >> > > > Subject: [ChristianPatriot] Adultery
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > Adultery
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > Mat 5:27 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time,
> > >> > Thou
> > >> > > > shalt not commit adultery:
> > >> > > > Mat 5:28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a
woman
> > >> > to
> > >> > > > lust after her hath committed adultery with her already
in his
> > >> > > heart.
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > Mat 5:32 But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put
away his
> > >> > > wife,
> > >> > > > saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit
> > >> > > adultery:
> > >> > > > and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth
> > >> > > adultery.
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > Fornication. Unlawful sexual intercourse between two
unmarried
> > >> > > > persons. Further, if one of the persons be married and the
> > >> > other
> > >> > > not,
> > >> > > > it is fornication on the part
> > >> > > > of the latter, though adultery for the former.
> > >> > > > A divorced Person is considered married or having been
married
> > >> > in
> > >> > > > this understanding.
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > Mat 19:9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his
wife,
> > >> > > > except it be for fornication, and shall marry another,
> > >> > committeth
> > >> > > > adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth
commit
> > >> > > > adultery.
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > Mark 10:11 And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put
away his
> > >> > > > wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her.
> > >> > > > Mark 10:12 And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be
> > >> > > married
> > >> > > > to another, she committeth adultery.
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > Luke 16:18 Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth
> > >> > another,
> > >> > > > committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put
> > >> > away
> > >> > > from
> > >> > > > her husband committeth adultery.
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > Rom 7:3 So then if, while her husband liveth, she be
married to
> > >> > > > another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her
> > >> > > husband be
> > >> > > > dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no
adulteress,
> > >> > > though
> > >> > > > she be married to another man.
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > 1 Cor 6:9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not
> inherit the
> > >> > > > kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor
> > >> > > idolaters,
> > >> > > > nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves
with
> > >> > > > mankind,
> > >> > > > 1 Cor 6:10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor
> > >> > revilers,
> > >> > > > nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > Heb 13:4 Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed
undefiled:
> > >> > but
> > >> > > > whoremongers and adulterers God will judge.
> > >> > > > Heb 13:5 Let your conversation be without covetousness;
and be
> > >> > > > content with such things as ye have: for he hath said, I will
> > >> > > never
> > >> > > > leave thee, nor forsake thee.
> > >> > > > Heb 13:6 So that we may boldly say, The Lord is my helper,
> and I
> > >> > > > will not fear what man shall do unto me.
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > James 4:4 Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not
that the
> > >> > > > friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever
therefore
> > >> > > will
> > >> > > > be a friend of the world is the enemy of God.
> > >> > > > James 4:5 Do ye think that the scripture saith in vain, The
> > >> > spirit
> > >> > > > that dwelleth in us lusteth to envy?
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > Fornication. Unlawful sexual intercourse between two
unmarried
> > >> > > > persons. Further, if one of the persons be married and the
> > >> > other
> > >> > > not,
> > >> > > > it is fornication on the part
> > >> > > > of the latter, though adultery for the former.
> > >> > > > A divorced Person is considered married or having been
married
> > >> > in
> > >> > > > this understanding.
> > >> > > >
> > >> > >
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> >
>

<http://www.incredimail.com/index.asp?id=109095&rui=107196570> FREE
Animations for your email - by IncrediMail! Click Here!

__________________________________________________
Correo Yahoo!
Espacio para todos tus mensajes, antivirus y antispam ¡gratis!
Regístrate ya - http://correo.yahoo.es

<http://www.incredimail.com/index.asp?id=501344&rui=107196570> FREE! 100s
of New E-cards For Every Occasion!

<http://www.incredimail.com/index.asp?id=501344&rui=107196570> FREE! 100s
of New E-cards For Every Occasion!

Back to top

Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
Messages in this topic (43)

3.3.

Re: Adultery

Posted by: "Jacob Israel" ji@blackexile.com   urbini.rm

Sun Oct 26, 2008 6:53 pm (PDT)

<<< It is hilarious to watch you contradict yourself from e-mail to
e-mail....you might want to check the religous history of Ron Paul and his
family, if you actually believe the garbage that you post. Keep 'em
coming.....I love to laugh!>>>

Gee, greg, should we “trust” a half nigger from Russia like you who HATES
our Founding Fathers and calls Mr. Jefferson a “racist”, or Ron Paul and his
family who we just had the honor to meet and know *exactly* who he is and
what he believes?

http://fathersmanifesto.net/ronpaul.htm

You shouldn’t even BE in this country, you filthy kike—much less do we need
to hear any more of your filthy LIES.

jk

From: Greg Pulenskey [mailto:pulnski@hotmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, October 26, 2008 1:47 PM
To: Jacob Israel
Subject: RE: Adultery

It is hilarious to watch you contradict yourself from e-mail to
e-mail....you might want to check the religous history of Ron Paul and his
family, if you actually believe the garbage that you post. Keep 'em
coming.....I love to laugh!

_____

From: ji@blackexile.com
To: israeliteidentity@yahoogroups.com
CC: houseisrael@yahoogroups.com; Israelites@yahoogroups.com;
israeliteidentity@yahoogroups.com; hilloftorah@yahoogroups.com;
christiandentity@yahoogroups.com; identity@yahoogroups.com;
davidicke2@yahoogroups.com; TWOMIFTG@yahoogroups.com;
thespiritofjacob@yahoogroups.com; christiandentity@yahoogroups.com;
jewsareedom@yahoogroups.com; mamzers@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Adultery
Date: Sun, 26 Oct 2008 13:34:06 -0700

<<< True, but what can the American people do? They are so dumb downed. >>>

WE THE PEOPLE have a lot more power through the internet than the jewsmedia
will ever admit. It was WE THE PEOPLE of California and only ONE “public
servant” who terminated affirmative action with Proposition 209. When
nigger “judge” Henderson held it up for a year with the LIE that we the
people didn’t know what we were voting for, he got bitch slapped by appeals
courts, and it’s now the law of the land and this nigger will go down in
history as an IDIOT NIGGER [though I repeat myself]. The ONE “public
servant” who dared utter several words of support, and nothing else, was
Governor Pete Wilson whose political career ended that day, proving WE THE
PEOPLE don’t need the support of one SINGLE politician, judge, bureaucrat,
jury, court, or the jewsmedia for God’s Will to be done.

99% of the solution is UNDERSTANDING the problem. We *understand* that
mamzers like obama banana nigger, jew McCain and his jewess trophy wife, and
his “vice president” jew, ARE the problem, not the solution.

Ron Paul is the only qualified candidate. If he doesn’t win, we are
HISTORY. It’s as simple as that. Letting jews, particularly FOREIGN alien
enemy jews who arne’t even on our shores and who we don’t even know the
names of, pick our presidential candidates is NOT what the US Constitution
calls for:

http://fathersmanifesto.net/ronpaul.htm

-

jk

From: israeliteidentity@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:israeliteidentity@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Terry Gabrich
Sent: Sunday, October 26, 2008 11:44 AM
To: israeliteidentity@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [israeliteidentity] Adultery

True, but what can the American people do? They are so dumb downed.

-------Original Message-------

From: Jacob <mailto:ji@blackexile.com> Israel

Date: 10/26/2008 1:24:24 PM

To: israeliteidentity@yahoogroups.com

Cc: houseisrael@yahoogroups.com; Israelites@yahoogroups.com;
israeliteidentity@yahoogroups.com; hilloftorah@yahoogroups.com;
christiandentity@yahoogroups.com; identity@yahoogroups.com;
davidicke2@yahoogroups.com; TWOMIFTG@yahoogroups.com;
thespiritofjacob@yahoogroups.com; christiandentity@yahoogroups.com;
jewsareedom@yahoogroups.com; mamzers@yahoogroups.com

Subject: [israeliteidentity] Adultery

<<< Is it possible that God might have something to do with this. Every race
seems to be against the white race, and they make every attempt to destroy
the white race. This is mostly true of the Jews. Through all of the abortion
and birth control, maybe God is actually saying no to all of it. He will not
let his people be destroyed no matter what man does; whether its planned
parent hood, abortion, or birth control pills. I guess they never figured
that if they would just leave well enough alone, the population would stay
at an even level, and that it will grow at a substantial average. It isn't
good to mess with God's creation. Just like the up coming election. Obama is
so arrogant, and yet he isn't a U.S. Citizen, and he is a bisexual and a
crack cocaine smoker to boot. He is determined to be the first black (Hybrid
black) to be president of the U.S. This is a direct violation of the
scriptures as well as the Constitution. How do you think God feels about
this? I firmly believe that God is going to make his presence known, and
that God is giving a warning to the American people as I am writing this.
Obama is arrogant, but God doesn't like arrogance and hautiness. God will
cut him down.>>>

Either God will cut Obama down, or God will cut US down for allowing it.

If we don’t do everything in our power to prevent it, most likely it will be
US He cuts down.

-

jk

Ps—we should add that jew McCain, with a jew “vice president” and a WOMAN to
boot, is equally as bad and will get us into just as much trouble with God.

From: israeliteidentity@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:israeliteidentity@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Terry Gabrich
Sent: Saturday, October 25, 2008 10:32 AM
To: israeliteidentity@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [israeliteidentity] Adultery

Is it possible that God might have something to do with this. Every race
seems to be against the white race, and they make every attempt to destroy
the white race. This is mostly true of the Jews. Through all of the abortion
and birth control, maybe God is actually saying no to all of it. He will not
let his people be destroyed no matter what man does; whether its planned
parent hood, abortion, or birth control pills. I guess they never figured
that if they would just leave well enough alone, the population would stay
at an even level, and that it will grow at a substantial average. It isn't
good to mess with God's creation. Just like the up coming election. Obama is
so arrogant, and yet he isn't a U.S. Citizen, and he is a bisexual and a
crack cocaine smoker to boot. He is determined to be the first black (Hybrid
black) to be president of the U.S. This is a direct violation of the
scriptures as well as the Constitution. How do you think God feels about
this? I firmly believe that God is going to make his presence known, and
that God is giving a warning to the American people as I am writing this.
Obama is arrogant, but God doesn't like arrogance and hautiness. God will
cut him down.

-------Original Message-------

From: Jacob <mailto:ji@blackexile.com> Israel

Date: 10/25/2008 11:19:06 AM

To: TWOMIFTG@yahoogroups.com

Cc: houseisrael@yahoogroups.com; Israelites@yahoogroups.com;
israeliteidentity@yahoogroups.com; hilloftorah@yahoogroups.com;
christiandentity@yahoogroups.com; identity@yahoogroups.com;
davidicke2@yahoogroups.com; TWOMIFTG@yahoogroups.com;
thespiritofjacob@yahoogroups.com; christiandentity@yahoogroups.com;
jewsareedom@yahoogroups.com; mamzers@yahoogroups.com

Subject: [israeliteidentity] Adultery

Ahh, out of the mouths of LIARS sometimes come pearls of TRUTHS:

<<< Did it not occur to your little bird brain, JK, that as Catholics at the
time were not into birth control - in fact, the Protestant Church only
allowed its parishioners to use birth control from 1930 onwards - that
Catholics increased and multiplied themselves to replace the dead, and this
is why the graph doesn't show more than 0.5 % decrease?>>>

By attempting to JUSTIFY why the Protestant population plunged 35% while the
Catholic population dropped only 0.5%, you *ADMIT* it to be a FACT!

You essentially admit that you KNOW that what your “church” SAYS and what it
DOES are anti-podes!

Your “church” CLAIMS that it opposes abortion. How can YOU explain, then,
WHY the abortion RATE in mostly Catholic states like Massachusetts at 30.2
and New Jersey at 35.1 and New York at 43.3, is almost an order of magnitude
HIGHER (by 8.5X) than it is in less Catholic states like Wyoming at 5.1 and
South Dakota at 5.7 and Idaho at 8.2 and Mississippi at 8.4?

And as a good little feminazi propagandist, your argument [read: excuse]
about the birth control pill is EQUALLY flawed, EQUALLY unfounded, and
EQUALLY socially pathological [just as your claim about how we cannot
possibly live by God’s Law regarding HIS definition of marriage is]. To
wit, the pregnancy rate in the US BEFORE the pill was 18.9, but when the
pill was implemented, it SKYROCKTED 25% to 23.7.

http://fathersmanifesto.net/pill.htm

So IF the birth control pill had anything to do with changes in population
growth, it caused an INCREASE in the Protestant population, not a decrease,
which means the number of Protestants killed during WWII was GREATER than
the population figures posted.

jk

From: TWOMIFTG@yahoogroups.com [mailto:TWOMIFTG@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
Of Faith Full
Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2008 3:32 PM
To: TWOMIFTG@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [TWOMIFTG] Adultery

Did it not occur to your little bird brain, JK, that as Catholics at the
time were not into birth control - in fact, the Protestant Church only
allowed its parishioners to use birth control from 1930 onwards - that
Catholics increased and multiplied themselves to replace the dead, and this
is why the graph doesn't show more than 0.5 % decrease?

Graphs can be made to show anything anyone wants - to suit their own agenda.

And knowing you, you're only showing part of the big picture. There's
probably a lot of small print indicating the contents of my first sentence
that you're not showing.

But your words were that CATHOLICS WERE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL THE PROTESTANT
DEATHS. So make up your mind!

That's what my issue is with you. But you forget what you say half the
time!

FF

On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 12:46 PM, Jacob Israel <ji@blackexile.com> wrote:

<<< To show a graph, which is laughable, indicating that NO CATHOLICS were
killed in WWII is ludicrous to the extreme >>>

You don't even need to know how to read a GRAPH to know this is NOT what
they say. All you need to read is ENGLISH, and the above is additional
PROOF that you can't even do that simplest of things.

To be PRECISE, the graph simply illustrates that the 1933 World Almanac put
the worldwide Christian population at 682,400,00, which included 331.5
million Roman Catholics, 144 million Orthodox Catholics, and 206.9 million
Protestants, and that just 15 years later, AFTER WWII, the 1948 World
Almanac put the worldwide population of Christians at 592,406,542, a
REDUCTION of 13.2% or 89,993,458 Christians. BUT the population of Roman
Catholics decreased by only 0.5%, or 1,724,317 Catholics, compared to 11.4%
of or 16,370,014 Orthodox Catholics and 34.8% of or 71,962,127 Protestants.

Of COURSE you can't even read THAT. And of COURSE you will claim that your
faggot pope is RIGHT and the OFFICAL WORLD ALMANACS are wrong. And you will
LIE again about the graph which is posted again ONLY for those with eyes to
see and ears to hear:

http://fathersmanifesto.net/cathoholicism25.png

http://fathersmanifesto.net/cathoholicism.htm

jk

From: TWOMIFTG@yahoogroups.com [mailto:TWOMIFTG@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
Of Faith Full
Sent: Sunday, October 19, 2008 7:36 PM

To: TWOMIFTG@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [TWOMIFTG] Adultery

Because he, JK, makes more sense than you do?

To show a graph, which is laughable, indicating that NO CATHOLICS were
killed in WWII is ludicrous to the extreme.

You are not dealing in facts. You are dealing in propaganda and you are
swallowing it up greedily.

Somebody must be paying you for all this stupidity because even you couldn't
believe all the rubbish you post. But then you seem a bit dense - more than
dense, actually.

FF

On Sun, Oct 19, 2008 at 5:22 PM, Jacob Israel <ji@blackexile.com> wrote:

Faith BULL, why on God's green earth would you accept this post from "locus"
as "fact", and REJECT the ACTUAL FACTS found in the World Almanac and Book
of Facts, "THE AUTHORITY SINCE 1868" published by World Almanac Books?

Where is the PROOF that THEIR claim that

From: TWOMIFTG@yahoogroups.com [mailto:TWOMIFTG@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
Of Faith Full
Sent: Saturday, October 18, 2008 8:41 PM
To: TWOMIFTG@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [TWOMIFTG] Adultery

Thank you, Locus,

FF

On Sat, Oct 18, 2008 at 6:43 PM, locus clasicus <locusclasicus@yahoo.es>
wrote:

six million catholics were killed in WWII and that includes the

Spanish Civil War where 4 million were killed

--- El sáb, 18/10/08, Faith Full <alecoque33@gmail.com> escribió:

De: Faith Full <alecoque33@gmail.com>
Asunto: Re: [TWOMIFTG] Adultery
Para: TWOMIFTG@yahoogroups.com
CC: "Debunks" <Debunks@sbcglobal.net>
Fecha: sábado, 18 octubre, 2008 1:59

Under what rock did you find that graph, JK? I expect you wrote it
yourself?

A "graph" that shows that NO Catholic person was killed from 1930 onwards?

Even you, with your pea-brain, JK, can see that that makes no sense?

You're showing up your stupidity every time you write.

And as for facts - you haven't got a clue what a fact is.

The Catholic Church has NEVER, repeat NEVER - and I say it again just so you
can absorb it - THE CATHOLIC CHURCH HAS NEVER, EVER ORDAINED WOMEN TO THE
PRIESTHOOD, AND IT NEVER, REPEAT, NEVER WILL.

Am I clear?

Women can NEVER be priests in the Catholic Church! How many more times do I
have to say it for it to strike home?

You may read that a couple of renegade priests ordained some idiot women to
the "priesthood" but they were either excommunicated or dealt harshly. And
the women "priests" have no standing in Catholicism.

So get your facts right, you dreamer. You read a headline and you adopt it
as "gospel"!

Your anti-Catholicism has blinded you to the truth.

FF

On Sat, Oct 18, 2008 at 12:45 PM, Jacob Israel <ji@blackexile. com
<mailto:ji@blackexile.com> > wrote:

<<< Episcopalian? Ha, nothing to be proud of. There's an Episcopalian
"priest" writing his notion of what the Bible is all about - and he hardly
even believes in God. A right heretic he is. Now we know where you got
your "foundation", JK!>>>

"we know"? As SCRIPTURE tells us, the more you "know", the STUPIDER you
get.

There has been utterly NO "foundation" to this "church" ever since they
ordained women "priests"—and it's gone straight to HELL ever since then. As
if THAT wasn't bad enough, they now ordained FAGGOT priests, putting them in
the same pigstye as YOU. They're ALMOST as confused about the difference
between an ISRAELITE and filthy edomite kikes claiming to be "jews". Yet
as BAD as they are—they're a billion times less damaging to society than
your filthy RCC:

http://christianpar ty.net/cathoholi cism.htm
<http://fathersmanifesto.net/cathoholicism.htm>

http://fathersmanifesto.net/cathoholicism25.png

jk

From: TWOMIFTG@yahoogroup s.com <mailto:TWOMIFTG@yahoogroups.com>
[mailto:TWOMIFTG@yahoogroup <mailto:TWOMIFTG@yahoogroups.com> s.com] On
Behalf Of Faith Full

Sent: Saturday, October 18, 2008 9:26 AM

To: TWOMIFTG@yahoogroup s.com <mailto:TWOMIFTG@yahoogroups.com> ; Debunks
Subject: Re: [TWOMIFTG] Adultery

Okay, IDIOT, JK, PROVE that Catholics are responsible for the deaths of 100
million Protestants and Orthodox people during WWII.

PROVE IT!

I don't expect I will EVER get an answer to this question.

Run off now like a dog with your tail between your legs. You're great at
the accusations, but not very good at substantiating them.

Of course not one Catholic was killed in WWII, not even one? (Not even the
ones who died!)

We're all waiting.

So when my father and his two brothers were on the battlefield at Monte
Casino, and fighting the Germans at Tobruk and El Allemaine - they weren't
really there? Is that right? And all the other Irish Catholics in the
British Army (not even mentioning the millions of Catholics in other
armies).

Episcopalian? Ha, nothing to be proud of. There's an Episcopalian "priest"
writing his notion of what the Bible is all about - and he hardly even
believes in God. A right heretic he is. Now we know where you got your
"foundation", JK!

FF

On Sat, Oct 18, 2008 at 12:10 PM, Jacob Israel <ji@blackexile.
<mailto:ji@blackexile.com> com> wrote:

* <<<John, talking to a Roman Catholic is like talking to nonsense.
All of these versus prove your point, but they don't see it because of the
corruption of the Roman Catholic doctrines and the Bible that they use. >>>

Of course.

Having been raised as an Episcopalean, I always believed this BS about how
similar the Catholic and Episcopal churches are. These replies to the three
stooges and debunked PROVE just the opposite, AND that Catholics are just
jews in drag.

Without this forum, how many of us would have realized that Catholics are an
even greater threat to a CHRISTIAN nation than jews. It brings the conflict
in Ireland and Germany into focus. It was 100 million Protestants and
Orthodox Catholics who were killed in WWII, not 6 million jews--and the RCC
is ONE HUNDRED PERCENT responsible. This forum revealed the motives behind
the statistics:

http://christianpar <http://fathersmanifesto.net/cathoholicism.htm>
ty.net/cathoholi cism.htm

http://christianpar <http://fathersmanifesto.net/wwii.htm> ty.net/wwii. htm

-

jk

----- Original Message -----

From: Terry <mailto:isaiah14@sbcglobal.net> Gabrich

To: israeliteidentity@ yahoogroups.
<mailto:israeliteidentity@yahoogroups.com> com

Sent: Friday, October 17, 2008 2:10 PM

Subject: Re: [israeliteidentity] Adultery

John, talking to a Roman Catholic is like talking to nonsense. All of these
versus prove your point, but they don't see it because of the corruption of
the Roman Catholic doctrines and the Bible that they use.

-------Original Message----- --

From: Jacob Israel <mailto:ji@blackexile.com>

Date: 10/17/2008 11:00:58 AM

To: TWOMIFTG@yahoogroup s.com <mailto:TWOMIFTG@yahoogroups.com>

Cc: mamzers@yahoogroups .com <mailto:mamzers@yahoogroups.com> ;
jewsareedom@ <mailto:jewsareedom@yahoogroups.com> yahoogroups. com;
christiandentity@ <mailto:christiandentity@yahoogroups.com> yahoogroups.
com; thespiritofjacob@ <mailto:thespiritofjacob@yahoogroups.com>
yahoogroups. com; TWOMIFTG@yahoogroup <mailto:TWOMIFTG@yahoogroups.com>
s.com; davidicke2@yahoogro <mailto:davidicke2@yahoogroups.com> ups.com;
identity@yahoogroup <mailto:identity@yahoogroups.com> s.com; hilloftorah@
<mailto:hilloftorah@yahoogroups.com> yahoogroups. com; israeliteidentity@
<mailto:israeliteidentity@yahoogroups.com> yahoogroups. com;
Israelites@yahoogro <mailto:Israelites@yahoogroups.com> ups.com;
houseisrael@ <mailto:houseisrael@yahoogroups.com> yahoogroups. com

Subject: [israeliteidentity] Adultery

* <<<He probably IS an inmate of some facility. Nobody outside would
put up with him.>>>

You've threatened our lives, challenged us with fisticuffs, blasphemed the
holy spirit, engaged in malicious LIBEL and malicious SLANDER, PERVERTED the
Word of God SIMPLY because we QUOTED it, and now you think anyone,
particularly God, believes you're going to be "saved in childbearing"
BECAUSE of your "charity and holiness"?

No WONDER you continue to refuse to acknowledge that God does HATE
people--if you admitted it, you'd have to acknowledge [at least to
yourselves] that the ONLY three stooges who fit that profile to a TEE are
YOU:

* Proverbs 6:16

These six [things] doth the LORD hate: yea, seven [are] an abomination unto
him:

* Proverbs 6:17

A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood,

* Proverbs 6:18

An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to
mischief,

* Proverbs 6:19

A false witness [that] speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among
brethren.

* Proverbs 6:20

My son, keep thy father's commandment, and forsake not the law of thy
mother:

* Proverbs 6:21

Bind them continually upon thine heart, [and] tie them about thy neck.

* Proverbs 6:22

When thou goest, it shall lead thee; when thou sleepest, it shall keep thee;
and [when] thou awakest, it shall talk with thee.

* Proverbs 6:23

For the commandment [is] a lamp; and the law [is] light; and reproofs of
instruction [are] the way of life:

* Proverbs 6:24

To keep thee from the evil woman, from the flattery of the tongue of a
strange woman.

* Pro 6:24 To keep8104 thee from the evil7451 woman,4480, 802 from
the flattery4480, 2513 of the tongue3956 of a strange woman.5237

* #5237 is "nikro <http://fathersmanifesto.net/nikro.htm> " which
actually means ANY non-Israelite, male or female [other than niggers, who
are called "behemah <http://fathersmanifesto.net/behemah.htm> "]. So
non-Israelite women are called "ra ah", or evil, and are to be avoided by
Israelite men.

* Proverbs 6:25

Lust not after her beauty in thine heart; neither let her take thee with her
eyelids.

* Proverbs 6:26

For by means of a whorish woman [a man is brought] to a piece of bread: and
the adulteress will hunt for the precious life.

* Proverbs 6:27

Can a man take fire in his bosom, and his clothes not be burned?

* Proverbs 6:28

Can one go upon hot coals, and his feet not be burned?

* Proverbs 6:29

So he that goeth in to his neighbour's wife; whosoever toucheth her shall
not be innocent.

* Proverbs 6:30

[Men] do not despise a thief, if he steal to satisfy his soul when he is
hungry;

* Proverbs 6:31

But [if] he be found, he shall restore sevenfold; he shall give all the
substance of his house.

* Proverbs 6:32

[But] whoso committeth adultery with a woman lacketh understanding: he
[that] doeth it destroyeth his own soul.

* The word "adultery" here clearly relates back to "strange women", or
"nikro", proof that adultery is mixing the holy seed with other races, and
not sex outside of marriage.

* Proverbs 6:33

A wound and dishonour shall he get; and his reproach shall not be wiped
away.

* Such adultery can NEVER be forgiven, or "wiped away".

* Proverbs 6:34

For jealousy [is] the rage of a man: therefore he will not spare in the day
of vengeance.

* Proverbs 6:35

He will not regard any ransom; neither will he rest content, though thou
givest many gifts.

Not even you three stooges can produce someone ELSE who fits this better
than YOU do, can you?

jk

----- Original Message -----

From: Faith <mailto:alecoque33@gmail.com> Full

To: TWOMIFTG@yahoogroup <mailto:TWOMIFTG@yahoogroups.com> s.com

Sent: Friday, October 17, 2008 6:40 AM

Subject: Re: [TWOMIFTG] Re: Unmitigated Crap From the Purveyor of
Pusillanimosity

He probably IS an inmate of some facility. Nobody outside would put up with
him.

On Fri, Oct 17, 2008 at 1:41 AM, Gyan <nutmeg2323@yahoo.
<mailto:nutmeg2323@yahoo.com.au> com.au> wrote:

Whose wit and wisdom renders all of us literally CATATONIC.

Give the man some catnip and put him in a cage before he "sprays" all
over cyberspace.

--- In TWOMIFTG@yahoogroup s.com <mailto:TWOMIFTG@yahoogroups.com> , "Jacob
Israel" <ji@...> wrote:
>
> <<< YOU SAID IT!!!>>>
>
>
>
> To claim that you three filthy pagans have the morals of alley cats
is an
> offense to alley cats who:
>
>
>
> . Know better than to breed with dogs, something the three
of you
> will never *know*.
>
> . Have enough respect for their own breed to mate with their own
> kind (unless humans intervene and force them to).
>
> . Don't even need to learn to read to KNOW this much about God's
> LAWS.
>
> . Are NOT "Ever learning, and never able to come to the
knowledge of
> the truth".
>
> . Don't need a SINGLE day of edjoocation to know God's LAW
better
> than the three of you together EVER could, for the REST of time.
>
>
>

> http://christianpar <http://fathersmanifesto.net/fornicator.htm>
ty.net/fornicato r.htm
>
>
>
> jk
>
>
>
> From: TWOMIFTG@yahoogroup <mailto:TWOMIFTG@yahoogroups.com> s.com
[mailto:TWOMIFTG@yahoogroup <mailto:TWOMIFTG@yahoogroups.com> s.com] On

Behalf
> Of Gyan
> Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2008 10:20 PM

> To: TWOMIFTG@yahoogroup s.com <mailto:TWOMIFTG@yahoogroups.com>

> Subject: [TWOMIFTG] Re: Adultery
>
>
>
>
> YOU SAID IT!!!
>

> --- In TWOMIFTG@yahoogroup s.com <mailto:TWOMIFTG@yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:TWOMIFTG%40yahoogro <mailto:TWOMIFTG%2540yahoogroups.com> ups.com>

, "Faith
> Full" <alecoque33@> wrote:
> >
> > YAWN!
> >
> > On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 3:37 PM, Jacob Israel <ji@> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > - <<<Your Bishop David makes a lot more sense than you do, JK. Pay
> > > heed to him. So far he's telling the truth.>>>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > 1. You wouldn't know a TRUTH if it slugged you on the side of your
> > > head.
> > > 2. We don't take instructions from silly, easily beguiled
> women, much
> > > less SLANDEROUS, LIBELOUS, foul mouthed pagan women, much less
> three stooges
> > > like youse who just put on the greatest demonstration of all of
> just what
> > > mass hysteria actually means and how it starts and propagates
> itself.
> > > 3. Your endorsement of Bishop David is his greatest stumbling
> block.
> > >
> > >
> > > WHY DID GOD CALL ESAU A FORNICATOR?
> > >
> > > Why do you filthy pagans HATE the Word of God so much that you
> DENY that
> > > God HATES Esau? Is it your persecution complex? Your guilty
> complex? Or
> > > just plain egotism?
> > >

> > > http://christianpar <http://fathersmanifesto.net/esau.htm> ty.net/esau.
htm

> > >
> > >
> > > jk
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > *From:* Faith Full <alecoque33@>

> > > *To:* TWOMIFTG@yahoogroup s.com <mailto:TWOMIFTG@yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:TWOMIFTG%40yahoogro <mailto:TWOMIFTG%2540yahoogroups.com> ups.com>
> > > *Sent:* Wednesday, October 15, 2008 11:39 AM
> > > *Subject:* Re: [TWOMIFTG] Adultery
> > >
> > > Your Bishop David makes a lot more sense than you do, JK. Pay
> heed to
> > > him. So far he's telling the truth.
> > > FF
> > >
> > > On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 1:22 PM, Jacob Israel <ji@> wrote:
> > >
> > >> Dear Bishop David,
> > >>
> > >> Thanks for that excellent analysis.
> > >>
> > >> Jesus also said "You know the commandments: `Do not murder, do
> not commit
> > >> adultery, do not steal, do not give false testimony, do not
> defraud, honor
> > >> your father and mother.'" and "But heaven and earth will come to
> an end
> > >> before the smallest tittle of The Torah may be dropped out".
> > >>
> > >> We know Jesus quoted the "old" testament and that what was
> "translated" as
> > >> "law" was most often written in the original Word of God as
> "Torah". And we
> > >> know that this is the first five books of the Holy Bible, which
> contains
> > >> "law" but which is clearly much, much more than just that. So
> unless Jesus
> > >> was referring to the Roman "law", or the jewish "law" which later
> became the
> > >> Talmud, we know that Jesus said not a tittle of the first five
> books of the
> > >> Holy Bible can be "dropped out".
> > >>
> > >> If we knew what fornication meant when Jesus said "whosoever
> shall put
> > >> away his wife, saving for the cause of
> > >> fornication, causeth her to commit adultery", then we would know
> exactly
> > >> why He said that.
> > >>
> > >> Perhaps this forum will finally discover the real meaning of that
> word.
> > >>
> > >> -
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> jk
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> ps--When Jesus said "Moses because of the hardness of your hearts
> > >> suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it
> was not so",
> > >> did He know that the hardness of our hearts today would be worse,
> MUCH
> > >> worse, than described in Scripture?
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> ----- Original Message -----
> > >> *From:* djour8142 <djour8142@>
> > >> *To:* ChristianPatriot@ <mailto:ChristianPatriot@yahoogroups.com>
yahoogroups. com
> <mailto:ChristianPatriot% <mailto:ChristianPatriot%2540yahoogroups.com>
40yahoogroups. com>
> > >> *Sent:* Tuesday, October 14, 2008 4:48 PM
> > >> *Subject:* [ChristianPatriot] Re: Adultery
> > >>
> > >> I understand your confusion... Jesus cleared it all up and Paul gave
> > >> more definitive instructions. Were I yu I would first understqnd we
> > >> are not in Old Testament times. We are in the New Testament
times of
> > >> Jesus Christ.
> > >>
> > >> Rely on the words of Jesus and the Apostles.
> > >>
> > >> I will show them to you again. There is no cinflict in the Lord's
> > >> word. Remember Moses made laws dur to thehardness of the people's
> > >> hearts. You judge for yourself; who is holier, Jesus or Moses?
> > >>
> > >> If a married man looks upon any woman other than his wife he
commits
> > >> adultery already in his heart,
> > >>
> > >> Mat 5:27 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou
> > >> shalt not commit adultery: But I say unto you, That whosoever
looketh
> > >> on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her
already
> > >> in his heart.
> > >>
> > >> 5 The law of divorce, 5:31-32
> > >>
> > >> Jesus allows divorce and remarriage to another only for
fornication.
> > >> Fornication always has been sexual intercourse of a single
person. So
> > >> if one marries then later finds the other is not virgin at the
altar,
> > >> he/she may marry another without committing adultery.
> > >>
> > >> We used to have shotgun marriages if fornication took place this
> > >> prevented the fornicator from having sexual intercourse with any
> > >> other.
> > >>
> > >> Mat 5:31 It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let
> > >> him give her a writing of divorcement: But I say unto you, That
> > >> whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of
> > >> fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall
> > >> marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.
> > >>
> > >> Mat 19:8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your
> > >> hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the
beginning it
> > >> was not so.
> > >> Mat 19:9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife,
> > >> except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth
> > >> adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit
> > >> adultery.
> > >>
> > >> Mark 10:11 And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his
> > >> wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her. And if a
> > >> woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she
> > >> committeth adultery.
> > >>
> > >> Luke 16:18 Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another,
> > >> committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put
away from
> > >> her husband committeth adultery.
> > >>
> > >> Rom 7:2 For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to
> > >> her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead,
she is
> > >> loosed from the law of her husband. So then if, while her husband
> > >> liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an
> > >> adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that
law; so
> > >> that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man.
> > >>
> > >> 1 Cor 6:9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the
> > >> kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor
idolaters,
> > >> nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with
> > >> mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor
revilers, nor
> > >> extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
> > >>
> > >> Heb 13:4 Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but
> > >> whoremongers and adulterers God will judge....-
> > >>
> > >> Bishop David
> > >>
> > >> --- In
> ChristianPatriot@ <mailto:ChristianPatriot@yahoogroups.com> yahoogroups.
com
<mailto:ChristianPatriot% <mailto:ChristianPatriot%2540yahoogroups.com>
40yahoogroups. com>
> <ChristianPatriot%40yahoogroups. com <http://40yahoogroups.com/> >,
> > >> "Jacob Israel" <ji@>
> > >> wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> > Dear Bishop David,
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > You wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > <<< I hope you understand this...>>>
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > Yes, I do. I understand it explicitly. And I greatly appreciate
> > >> your
> > >> > taking time to explain it.
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > I also understand explicitly why the notions that "Fornication is
> > >> also
> > >> > sexual intercourse that is that of a unmarried
> > >> > person to a married person" and "A married person having sexual
> > >> intercourse
> > >> > with anyone other than the
> > >> > one he/she is married to is adultery", are in conflict with God's
> > >> > definition of marriage:
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > Exodus 22:1-7 And if a man entice a maid that is not
betrothed, and
> > >> lie with
> > >> > her, he shall surely endow her to be his wife. If her father
> > >> utterly refuse
> > >> > to give her unto him, he shall pay money according to the
dowry of
> > >> virgins.
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > -
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > jk
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > Ps-please advise if you'd like me to elaborate.
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > From:
> ChristianPatriot@ <mailto:ChristianPatriot@yahoogroups.com> yahoogroups.
com
<mailto:ChristianPatriot% <mailto:ChristianPatriot%2540yahoogroups.com>
40yahoogroups. com>
> <ChristianPatriot%40yahoogroups. com <http://40yahoogroups.com/> >
> > >> >
> [mailto:ChristianPatriot@ <mailto:ChristianPatriot@yahoogroups.com>
yahoogroups. com
> <mailto:ChristianPatriot% <mailto:ChristianPatriot%2540yahoogroups.com>
40yahoogroups. com>
> <ChristianPatriot%40yahoogroups. com <http://40yahoogroups.com/> >]
> > >> On Behalf Of djour8142
> > >> > Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2008 10:15 AM
> > >> > To:
> ChristianPatriot@ <mailto:ChristianPatriot@yahoogroups.com> yahoogroups.
com
<mailto:ChristianPatriot% <mailto:ChristianPatriot%2540yahoogroups.com>
40yahoogroups. com>
> <ChristianPatriot%40yahoogroups. com <http://40yahoogroups.com/> >
> > >> > Subject: [ChristianPatriot] Re: Adultery
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > The first marriage is neither fornication nor adultery.
> > >> >
> > >> > FORNICATION. ..
> > >> > Fornication is sexual intercourse between unmarried persons.
> > >> > Fornication is also sexual intercourse that is that of a
unmarried
> > >> > person to a married person - the married person in such sexual
> > >> > intercourse is an adulterer.
> > >> >
> > >> > Adultery...
> > >> > A married person having sexual intercourse with anyone other than
> > >> the
> > >> > one he/she is married to is adultery. The divorced person having
> > >> > sexual intercourse with any other than the living estranged
spouse
> > >> is
> > >> > committing adultery. The divorced person marrying another while
> > >> > his/her first is still alive is committing adultery. I hope you
> > >> > understand this...
> > >> >
> > >> > Bishop David
> > >> >
> > >> > --- In
> ChristianPatriot@ <mailto:ChristianPatriot@yahoogroups.com> yahoogroups.
com
<mailto:ChristianPatriot% <mailto:ChristianPatriot%2540yahoogroups.com>
40yahoogroups. com>
> <ChristianPatriot%40yahoogroups. com <http://40yahoogroups.com/> >
> > >> >
>
<mailto:ChristianPatriot% <mailto:ChristianPatriot%2540yahoogroups.com>
40yahoogroups. com<ChristianPatriot% 2540yahoogroups.
> com>>
> > >> , "Jacob Israel" <ji@>
> > >> > wrote:
> > >> > >
> > >> > > The only INDIVIDUAL in the entire Holy Bible who God HATES is
> > >> Esau:
> > >> > >
> > >> > > a.. As it is written: "I loved Jacob but hated Esau,"
Romans 9:13
> > >> > >
> > >> > > If fornication had nothing to do with his marrying Canaanite
> > >> women
> > >> > who Abraham and Isaac and Rebekah did NOT want him to marry, and
> > >> then
> > >> > Ishmaelite women who STILL did not abate God's HATE, then exactly
> > >> > which Word of God does?:
> > >> > >
> > >> > > a.. Then went Esau unto Ishmael, and took unto the wives
which he
> > >> > had Mahalath the daughter of Ishmael Abraham's son, the sister of
> > >> > Nebajoth, to be his wife. Genesis 28:9
> > >> > >
> > >> > > We can't ignore why it is that God HATES Esau. There are many
> > >> > other people called fornicators in Scripture and God doesn't HATE
> > >> > them. Even his own mother HATED Esau for this "And Rebekah saith
> > >> > unto Isaac, `I have been disgusted with my life because of the
> > >> > presence of the daughters of Heth; if Jacob take a wife of the
> > >> > daughters of Heth, like these--from the daughters of the
land--why
> > >> do
> > >> > I live?'":
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > > a.. "Adultery, in no way, is fornication and fornication, in no
> > >> > way, is
> > >> > > adultery. That is what I am showing you."
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Agreed. But why did you ignore that, by your own definition
> > >> > that "it is fornication on the part of the latter, though
adultery
> > >> > for the former", Esau could also not be accused of adultery,
> > >> because
> > >> > by GOD'S LAW, his act of laying with these other women is
> > >> *marriage*,
> > >> > not *adultery*:
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > > a.. Exodus 22:1-7 And if a man entice a maid that is not
> > >> > betrothed, and lie with her, he shall surely endow her to be his
> > >> > wife. If her father utterly refuse to give her unto him, he shall
> > >> pay
> > >> > money according to the dowry of virgins.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > jk
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > >> > > From: djour8142
> > >> > > To:
> ChristianPatriot@ <mailto:ChristianPatriot@yahoogroups.com> yahoogroups.
com
<mailto:ChristianPatriot% <mailto:ChristianPatriot%2540yahoogroups.com>
40yahoogroups. com>
> <ChristianPatriot%40yahoogroups. com <http://40yahoogroups.com/> >
> > >> >
>
<mailto:ChristianPatriot% <mailto:ChristianPatriot%2540yahoogroups.com>
40yahoogroups. com<ChristianPatriot% 2540yahoogroups.
> com>>
> > >>
> > >> > > Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2008 1:45 AM
> > >> > > Subject: [ChristianPatriot] Re: Adultery
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > > The word is fornicator, -OR- PROFANE PERSON, AS ESAU.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Notice it does NOT say that Esau was a Fornicator. Esau was a
> > >> > profane
> > >> > > person.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > The article is -OR- not AND.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > It does not say fornicator -and- profane person. It says -or-
> > >> > profane
> > >> > > person as Esau.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Fornication is done during the betrothal period. Can one
> > >> > fornicate
> > >> > > against God? Yes. As we are betrothed to GOD and at the
same time
> > >> > we
> > >> > > can have other gods before HIM. When we have other gods Before
> > >> > GOD WE
> > >> > > FORNICATE AGAINST GOD.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Remember these words "in this understanding." There are other
> > >> > > understandings as I have shown you. The previous
understanding I
> > >> > have
> > >> > > shown you is the sexual intercourse understanding.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Adultery, in no way, is fornication and fornication, in no way,
> > >> > is
> > >> > > adultery. That is what I am showing you.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > There is spiritual fornication -which is against the holy
ghost-
> > >> > and
> > >> > > there is carnal fornication- which is against your own fleshly
> > >> > body.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > David
> > >> > >
> > >> > > --- In
> ChristianPatriot@ <mailto:ChristianPatriot@yahoogroups.com> yahoogroups.
com
<mailto:ChristianPatriot% <mailto:ChristianPatriot%2540yahoogroups.com>
40yahoogroups. com>
> <ChristianPatriot%40yahoogroups. com <http://40yahoogroups.com/> >
> > >> >
>
<mailto:ChristianPatriot% <mailto:ChristianPatriot%2540yahoogroups.com>
40yahoogroups. com<ChristianPatriot% 2540yahoogroups.
> com>>
> > >> , "Jacob Israel" <ji@>
> > >> > > wrote:
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > a.. <<<Fornication. Unlawful sexual intercourse between two
> > >> > > unmarried
> > >> > > > persons. Further, if one of the persons be married and the
> > >> > other
> > >> > > not,
> > >> > > > it is fornication on the part
> > >> > > > of the latter, though adultery for the former.
> > >> > > > A divorced Person is considered married or having been
married
> > >> > in
> > >> > > > this understanding.>>>
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > HOW, then, was Esau a fornicator?
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > a.. Hebrews 12:16-17 Lest there be any fornicator, or profane
> > >> > > person, as Esau, who for one morsel of meat sold his
birthright.
> > >> > For
> > >> > > ye know how that afterward, when he would have inherited the
> > >> > > blessing, he was rejected: for he found no place of repentance,
> > >> > > though he sought it carefully with tears.
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > Esau wasn't divorced. Esau wasn't unmarried. So Esau was
not a
> > >> > > fornicator because of "sexual intercourse between two unmarried
> > >> > > persons", nor because of "fornication on the part of the latter
> > >> > > [where "latter" is the numarried person]".
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > By THIS definition, you might claim Esau was guilty
> > >> > of "adultery",
> > >> > > but by GOD'S LAW when Esau had sex "outside of marriage",
it was
> > >> > > called MARRIAGE:
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > a.. Exodus 22:1-7 And if a man entice a maid that is not
> > >> > > betrothed, and lie with her, he shall surely endow her to
be his
> > >> > > wife. If her father utterly refuse to give her unto him, he
shall
> > >> > pay
> > >> > > money according to the dowry of virgins
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > Since Esau didn't pay the "dowry of virgins" when he "took"
> > >> > > Mahalath "to be his wife", we cannot claim he was guilty of
> > >> > adultery
> > >> > > either:
> > >> > > > a.. Then went Esau unto Ishmael, and took unto the wives
which
> > >> > he
> > >> > > had Mahalath the daughter of Ishmael Abraham's son, the
sister of
> > >> > > Nebajoth, to be his wife. Genesis 28:9
> > >> > > > YOUR definition means Esau would be guilty of neither
> > >> > fornication
> > >> > > or adultery.
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > WHY, then, was Esau called a fornicator?
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > -
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > jk
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > >> > > > From: djour8142
> > >> > > > To:
> ChristianPatriot@ <mailto:ChristianPatriot@yahoogroups.com> yahoogroups.
com
<mailto:ChristianPatriot% <mailto:ChristianPatriot%2540yahoogroups.com>
40yahoogroups. com>
> <ChristianPatriot%40yahoogroups. com <http://40yahoogroups.com/> >
> > >> >
>
<mailto:ChristianPatriot% <mailto:ChristianPatriot%2540yahoogroups.com>
40yahoogroups. com<ChristianPatriot% 2540yahoogroups.
> com>>
> > >>
> > >> > > > Sent: Monday, October 13, 2008 6:37 AM
> > >> > > > Subject: [ChristianPatriot] Adultery
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > Adultery
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > Mat 5:27 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time,
> > >> > Thou
> > >> > > > shalt not commit adultery:
> > >> > > > Mat 5:28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a
woman
> > >> > to
> > >> > > > lust after her hath committed adultery with her already
in his
> > >> > > heart.
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > Mat 5:32 But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put
away his
> > >> > > wife,
> > >> > > > saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit
> > >> > > adultery:
> > >> > > > and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth
> > >> > > adultery.
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > Fornication. Unlawful sexual intercourse between two
unmarried
> > >> > > > persons. Further, if one of the persons be married and the
> > >> > other
> > >> > > not,
> > >> > > > it is fornication on the part
> > >> > > > of the latter, though adultery for the former.
> > >> > > > A divorced Person is considered married or having been
married
> > >> > in
> > >> > > > this understanding.
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > Mat 19:9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his
wife,
> > >> > > > except it be for fornication, and shall marry another,
> > >> > committeth
> > >> > > > adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth
commit
> > >> > > > adultery.
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > Mark 10:11 And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put
away his
> > >> > > > wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her.
> > >> > > > Mark 10:12 And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be
> > >> > > married
> > >> > > > to another, she committeth adultery.
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > Luke 16:18 Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth
> > >> > another,
> > >> > > > committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put
> > >> > away
> > >> > > from
> > >> > > > her husband committeth adultery.
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > Rom 7:3 So then if, while her husband liveth, she be
married to
> > >> > > > another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her
> > >> > > husband be
> > >> > > > dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no
adulteress,
> > >> > > though
> > >> > > > she be married to another man.
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > 1 Cor 6:9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not
> inherit the
> > >> > > > kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor
> > >> > > idolaters,
> > >> > > > nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves
with
> > >> > > > mankind,
> > >> > > > 1 Cor 6:10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor
> > >> > revilers,
> > >> > > > nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > Heb 13:4 Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed
undefiled:
> > >> > but
> > >> > > > whoremongers and adulterers God will judge.
> > >> > > > Heb 13:5 Let your conversation be without covetousness;
and be
> > >> > > > content with such things as ye have: for he hath said, I will
> > >> > > never
> > >> > > > leave thee, nor forsake thee.
> > >> > > > Heb 13:6 So that we may boldly say, The Lord is my helper,
> and I
> > >> > > > will not fear what man shall do unto me.
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > James 4:4 Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not
that the
> > >> > > > friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever
therefore
> > >> > > will
> > >> > > > be a friend of the world is the enemy of God.
> > >> > > > James 4:5 Do ye think that the scripture saith in vain, The
> > >> > spirit
> > >> > > > that dwelleth in us lusteth to envy?
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > Fornication. Unlawful sexual intercourse between two
unmarried
> > >> > > > persons. Further, if one of the persons be married and the
> > >> > other
> > >> > > not,
> > >> > > > it is fornication on the part
> > >> > > > of the latter, though adultery for the former.
> > >> > > > A divorced Person is considered married or having been
married
> > >> > in
> > >> > > > this understanding.
> > >> > > >
> > >> > >
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> >
>

<http://www.incredimail.com/index.asp?id=109095&rui=107196570> FREE
Animations for your email - by IncrediMail! Click Here!

__________________________________________________
Correo Yahoo!
Espacio para todos tus mensajes, antivirus y antispam ¡gratis!
Regístrate ya - http://correo.yahoo.es <http://correo.yahoo.es/>

<http://www.incredimail.com/index.asp?id=501344&rui=107196570> FREE! 100s
of New E-cards For Every Occasion!

<http://www.incredimail.com/index.asp?id=501344&rui=107196570> FREE! 100s
of New E-cards For Every Occasion!

_____

Want to read Hotmail messages in Outlook? The Wordsmiths show you how. Learn
Now
<http://windowslive.com/connect/post/wedowindowslive.spaces.live.com-Blog-cn
s!20EE04FBC541789!167.entry?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_hotmail_092008>

Back to top

Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
Messages in this topic (43)

4.

Suicide bombing attacks coming to US within months

Posted by: "Jacob Israel" ji@blackexile.com   urbini.rm

Sun Oct 26, 2008 2:31 pm (PDT)

<<< I agree with the Israeli comment, but not with that saying the US is a
terrorist nation...>>>

One man’s infantryman is another man’s terrorist.

Nobody else has dropped TWO, not just one, nuclear bombs on another country.

Nobody else has used depleted uranium on the battlefield so frequently that
it affects their OWN troops more than it affects the “enemy”.

Nobody else invaded a sovereign foreign nation and assassinated their duly
elected leader on the PROVEN FALSE pretense of weapons of mass destruction
and 9/11.

No other nations besides the US and Israel have been condemned by the UN as:
1) terrorist, 2) racist, and 3) apartheid states.

No other nation managed to turn two centuries of diplomacy with its [former]
allies into white hot rage in less than a decade—and that was even before
mindless, embarrassing, saber-rattling with Iran.

No other nation has 94% of its populace blaming jews for 9/11 and 96%
demanding their own “president” be impeached over it:

http://fathersmanifesto.net/wtc.htm

http://fathersmanifesto.net/bush.htm

What other nation do you know about whose own government stages so many
false flag operations like this supposed “terrorist attack”?

jk

From: Israelites@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Israelites@yahoogroups.com] On
Behalf Of E.A. Richards
Sent: Sunday, October 26, 2008 9:47 AM
To: Fokke Dijkstra
Cc: jdtmorris@yahoo.com; manycook@rgv.rr.com; Mik; TWOMIFTG@yahoogroups.com;
holohoax2@yahoogroups.com; JPB; evedemian@verizon.net; Virginia F. Raines;
maximus; Donald Jones; Richard Dangler; Anthony Tersch; ALI JAFARI; David
O'Keefe; Jane stillwater; John Hibbs; Judge Philip Brown; Maysoon Dakhiel;
Mik; Skeeter Gallagher; Vince Aggeler; yunussidira@yahoo.com;
drshabbir@comcast.net; kesava pillai; Nooruddin Malilakath; S Turkman;
tahirakhan@comcast.net; francisco.soto@altgbs.com; drjosegq@gmail.com;
Victor Abraham Jr; kirk.victoria@gmail.com; Vile - J. Enrique Vilella
Canino; promanco@bellsouth.net; indemand1832@yahoo.com;
mamzers@yahoogroups.com; jewsareedom@yahoogroups.com;
thespiritofjacob@yahoogroups.com; davidicke2@yahoogroups.com;
identity@yahoogroups.com; christiandentity@yahoogroups.com;
hilloftorah@yahoogroups.com; israeliteidentity@yahoogroups.com;
Israelites@yahoogroups.com; houseisrael@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Israelites] Re: Suicide bombing attacks coming to US within months

I agree with the Israeli comment, but not with that saying the US is a
terrorist nation...

Dr. E.A. Richards, P.E.

http://my.execpc.com/~drer/ear1.htm

----- Original Message -----

From: Fokke Dijkstra <mailto:fokke.dijkstra60@gmail.com>

To: E.A. Richards <mailto:drer@execpc.com>

Cc: jdtmorris@yahoo.com ; manycook@rgv.rr.com ; Mik
<mailto:ravenhawk083@gmail.com> ; TWOMIFTG@yahoogroups.com ;
holohoax2@yahoogroups.com ; JPB <mailto:debunks@sbcglobal.net> ;
evedemian@verizon.net ; Virginia <mailto:virginiaf.raines@gmail.com> F.
Raines ; maximus <mailto:maximus475@cox.net> ; Donald
<mailto:royal1941@starpower.net> Jones ; Richard
<mailto:rdangler@hotmail.com> Dangler ; Anthony <mailto:tersch@gmail.com>
Tersch ; ALI JAFARI <mailto:aliajafari369@yahoo.com> ; David
<mailto:dtokeefe@lampadacrm.com.br> O'Keefe ; Jane stillwater
<mailto:jpstillwater@yahoo.com> ; John Hibbs <mailto:skipper@bfranklin.edu>
; Judge Philip <mailto:sphillipb@gmail.com> Brown ; Maysoon
<mailto:maydakhiel@gmail.com> Dakhiel ; Mik <mailto:ravenhawk083@yahoo.com>
; Skeeter Gallagher <mailto:skeeter@ksc.th.com> ; Vince Aggeler
<mailto:vaggeler@yahoo.com> ; yunussidira@yahoo.com ; drshabbir@comcast.net
; kesava <mailto:kesava.pillai@gmail.com> pillai ; Nooruddin
<mailto:nooruddin@sspipe.com> Malilakath ; S Turkman
<mailto:turkman@sbcglobal.net> ; tahirakhan@comcast.net ;
francisco.soto@altgbs.com ; drjosegq@gmail.com ; Victor
<mailto:vabraham@charter.net> Abraham Jr ; kirk.victoria@gmail.com ; Vile -
J. Enrique <mailto:evilella@bellsouth.net> Vilella Canino ;
promanco@bellsouth.net ; indemand1832@yahoo.com ; mamzers@yahoogroups.com ;
jewsareedom@yahoogroups.com ; thespiritofjacob@yahoogroups.com ;
davidicke2@yahoogroups.com ; identity@yahoogroups.com ;
christiandentity@yahoogroups.com ; hilloftorah@yahoogroups.com ;
israeliteidentity@yahoogroups.com ; Israelites@yahoogroups.com ;
houseisrael@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Sunday, October 26, 2008 2:37 AM

Subject: Re: Suicide bombing attacks coming to US within months

the only terrorists in the world are the USA and Israel

2008/10/25 E.A. Richards <drer@execpc.com>

From the CIA with propaganda, from the terrorists with bombs, from the
Netherlands with talk...

EA :-)

Dr. E.A. Richards, P.E.

http://my.execpc.com/~drer/ear1.htm

----- Original Message -----

From: Fokke Dijkstra <mailto:fokke.dijkstra60@gmail.com>

To: jdtmorris@yahoo.com

Cc: manycook@rgv.rr.com ; Mik <mailto:ravenhawk083@gmail.com> ;
TWOMIFTG@yahoogroups.com ; holohoax2@yahoogroups.com ; JPB
<mailto:debunks@sbcglobal.net> ; evedemian@verizon.net ; Virginia F. Raines
<mailto:virginiaf.raines@gmail.com> ; maximus <mailto:maximus475@cox.net>
; E.A. <mailto:drer@execpc.com> Richards ; Donald Jones
<mailto:royal1941@starpower.net> ; Richard <mailto:rdangler@hotmail.com>
Dangler ; Anthony Tersch <mailto:tersch@gmail.com> ; ALI JAFARI
<mailto:aliajafari369@yahoo.com> ; David O'Keefe
<mailto:dtokeefe@lampadacrm.com.br> ; Jane stillwater
<mailto:jpstillwater@yahoo.com> ; John Hibbs <mailto:skipper@bfranklin.edu>
; Judge <mailto:sphillipb@gmail.com> Philip Brown ; Maysoon Dakhiel
<mailto:maydakhiel@gmail.com> ; Mik <mailto:ravenhawk083@yahoo.com> ;
Skeeter Gallagher <mailto:skeeter@ksc.th.com> ; Vince
<mailto:vaggeler@yahoo.com> Aggeler ; yunussidira@yahoo.com ;
drshabbir@comcast.net ; kesava pillai <mailto:kesava.pillai@gmail.com> ;
Nooruddin <mailto:nooruddin@sspipe.com> Malilakath ; S Turkman
<mailto:turkman@sbcglobal.net> ; tahirakhan@comcast.net ;
francisco.soto@altgbs.com ; drjosegq@gmail.com ; Victor Abraham Jr
<mailto:vabraham@charter.net> ; kirk.victoria@gmail.com ; Vile - J. Enrique
Vilella Canino <mailto:evilella@bellsouth.net> ; promanco@bellsouth.net ;
indemand1832@yahoo.com ; mamzers@yahoogroups.com ;
jewsareedom@yahoogroups.com ; thespiritofjacob@yahoogroups.com ;
davidicke2@yahoogroups.com ; identity@yahoogroups.com ;
christiandentity@yahoogroups.com ; hilloftorah@yahoogroups.com ;
israeliteidentity@yahoogroups.com ; Israelites@yahoogroups.com ;
houseisrael@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Saturday, October 25, 2008 12:46 PM

Subject: Re: Suicide bombing attacks coming to US within months

By CIA or by Mossad ?

2008/10/25 James Morris <jdtmorris@yahoo.com>

Suicide bombing attacks coming to US within months

http://www.itszone.co.uk/zone0/viewtopic.php?t=98068

Top Obama Adviser Signs on to Roadmap to War with Iran:

http://www.itszone.co.uk/zone0/viewtopic.php?p=506081#506081

---------------------------------------------------

http://NEOCONZIONISTTHREAT.COM

http://NOMOREWARFORISRAEL.BLOGSPOT.COM

--- On Thu, 10/23/08, James Morris <jdtmorris@yahoo.com> wrote:

From: James Morris <jdtmorris@yahoo.com>
Subject: Presidential Debate TONIGHT on C-SPAN2 9PM (6 PM PT)
To: "Fokke Dijkstra" <fokke.dijkstra60@gmail.com>
Cc: manycook@rgv.rr.com, "Mik" <ravenhawk083@gmail.com>,
TWOMIFTG@yahoogroups.com, holohoax2@yahoogroups.com, "JPB"
<debunks@sbcglobal.net>, evedemian@verizon.net, "Virginia F. Raines"
<virginiaf.raines@gmail.com>, "maximus" <maximus475@cox.net>, "E.A.
Richards" <drer@execpc.com>, "Donald Jones" <royal1941@starpower.net>,
"Richard Dangler" <rdangler@hotmail.com>, "Anthony Tersch"
<tersch@gmail.com>, "ALI JAFARI" <aliajafari369@yahoo.com>, "David O'Keefe"
<dtokeefe@lampadacrm.com.br>, "Jane stillwater" <jpstillwater@yahoo.com>,
"John Hibbs" <skipper@bfranklin.edu>, "Judge Philip Brown"
<sphillipb@gmail.com>, "Maysoon Dakhiel" <maydakhiel@gmail.com>, "Mik"
<ravenhawk083@yahoo.com>, "Skeeter Gallagher" <skeeter@ksc.th.com>, "Vince
Aggeler" <vaggeler@yahoo.com>, yunussidira@yahoo.com, drshabbir@comcast.net,
"kesava pillai" <kesava.pillai@gmail.com>, "Nooruddin Malilakath"
<nooruddin@sspipe.com>, "S Turkman" <turkman@sbcglobal.net>,
tahirakhan@comcast.net, francisco.soto@altgbs.com, drjosegq@gmail.com,
"Victor Abraham Jr" <vabraham@charter.net>, kirk.victoria@gmail.com, "Vile -
J. Enrique Vilella Canino" <evilella@bellsouth.net>, promanco@bellsouth.net,
indemand1832@yahoo.com, mamzers@yahoogroups.com,
jewsareedom@yahoogroups.com, thespiritofjacob@yahoogroups.com,
davidicke2@yahoogroups.com, identity@yahoogroups.com,
christiandentity@yahoogroups.com, hilloftorah@yahoogroups.com,
israeliteidentity@yahoogroups.com, Israelites@yahoogroups.com,
houseisrael@yahoogroups.com
Date: Thursday, October 23, 2008, 2:20 PM

Presidential Debate TONIGHT on C-SPAN2 9PM (6 PM PT)

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x_x7KZCUh3Y>
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x_x7KZCUh3Y

--- On Wed, 10/22/08, James Morris <jdtmorris@yahoo.com> wrote:

From: James Morris <jdtmorris@yahoo.com>
Subject: The War Party Embraces Obama
To: "Fokke Dijkstra" <fokke.dijkstra60@gmail.com>
Cc: manycook@rgv.rr.com, "Mik" <ravenhawk083@gmail.com>,
TWOMIFTG@yahoogroups.com, holohoax2@yahoogroups.com, "JPB"
<debunks@sbcglobal.net>, evedemian@verizon.net, "Virginia F. Raines"
<virginiaf.raines@gmail.com>, "maximus" <maximus475@cox.net>, "E.A.
Richards" <drer@execpc.com>, "Donald Jones" <royal1941@starpower.net>,
"Richard Dangler" <rdangler@hotmail.com>, "Anthony Tersch"
<tersch@gmail.com>, "ALI JAFARI" <aliajafari369@yahoo.com>, "David O'Keefe"
<dtokeefe@lampadacrm.com.br>, "Jane stillwater" <jpstillwater@yahoo.com>,
"John Hibbs" <skipper@bfranklin.edu>, "Judge Philip Brown"
<sphillipb@gmail.com>, "Maysoon Dakhiel" <maydakhiel@gmail.com>, "Mik"
<ravenhawk083@yahoo.com>, "Skeeter Gallagher" <skeeter@ksc.th.com>, "Vince
Aggeler" <vaggeler@yahoo.com>, yunussidira@yahoo.com, drshabbir@comcast.net,
"kesava pillai" <kesava.pillai@gmail.com>, "Nooruddin Malilakath"
<nooruddin@sspipe.com>, "S Turkman" <turkman@sbcglobal.net>,
tahirakhan@comcast.net, francisco.soto@altgbs.com, drjosegq@gmail.com,
"Victor Abraham Jr" <vabraham@charter.net>, kirk.victoria@gmail.com, "Vile -
J. Enrique Vilella Canino" <evilella@bellsouth.net>, promanco@bellsouth.net,
indemand1832@yahoo.com, mamzers@yahoogroups.com,
jewsareedom@yahoogroups.com, thespiritofjacob@yahoogroups.com,
davidicke2@yahoogroups.com, identity@yahoogroups.com,
christiandentity@yahoogroups.com, hilloftorah@yahoogroups.com,
israeliteidentity@yahoogroups.com, Israelites@yahoogroups.com,
houseisrael@yahoogroups.com
Date: Wednesday, October 22, 2008, 3:46 AM

The War Party Embraces Obama
Just remember: you've been warned…

<http://antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=13623>
http://antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=13623

by Justin Raimondo

In the midst of a softball interview with Georgian President Mikheil
Saakashvili, New York Times reporter Deborah Solomon hurls this zinger:

"For all your lofty talk about democracy, last November you shut down the
opposition television station in Tbilisi."

To the oily Saakashvili, however, this is water off a duck's back:

"The interference with Imedi TV was an exception, not a rule. This action
was taken during mass riots when Imedi TV started to incite overthrow of the
democratically elected government. It should be noted that the government
did pay damages."

Do you suppose it would be okay if the FBI barged into the offices of, say,
MSNBC, wrecked the place, hauled Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow out of
the studio bodily, and shut down the station – as long as "damages" were
paid?

The station, by the way, which was the only televised platform for the
Georgian opposition, has since been handed over to a regime-friendly front
man, who just happens to be an American citizen. Damages were paid, indeed…

This is the regime defended by Barack Obama, as Solomon points out, as well
as (unsurprisingly) John McCain, and that's hardly the only case of
bipartisan fealty to a U.S.-supported dictatorship.

There's Afghanistan, for example, where a young aspiring journalist has just
been spared the death penalty for circulating an article about women's
rights, and given 20 years in prison instead. This is the government Obama
wants to strengthen and sacrifice more American lives for. From the Los
Angeles Times piece on the trial and conviction by Laura King:

"In a case that has illustrated this country's drift toward a more radically
conservative brand of Islam as well as the fragility of its legal system, an
appeals court today overturned a death sentence for a student convicted of
blasphemy but sentenced him instead to 20 years in prison."

So at a time when the U.S.-supported government is moving rapidly toward a
Taliban-type theocracy – even as that government moves toward some type of
accommodation with the radical Islamic former rulers of the country – Obama
is telling us we must pour more troops, more money, and more of our hopes
into the Afghan front, which has supposedly been "neglected" by the Bushies.

No wonder he's been endorsed by none other than Ken "Cakewalk" Adelman, and
given support (albeit indirectly) by any number of neocons, such as Charles
Krauthammer – who, after pummeling Obama for weeks, has suddenly discovered
the Democratic candidate is possessed of a "first-class intellect and a
first-class temperament," which "will likely be enough to make him
president." And what more proof does anyone need that Obama is a disaster in
the making other than that Andrew Sullivan, the former warlord of the
blogosphere, has not only endorsed him, but fallen head over heels?

Ken Silverstein – Harper's columnist and author of a new book that looks to
be hilariously informative – is scared:

"McCain's foreign policy crew has quite a few cranks (William Kristol, to
state the most obvious) and his policies are generally scarier than Obama's.
Agreed. But having Powell and Adelman sign up with the Obama movement is
about as uplifting as when Obama endorsed ballistic missile defense (the
scaled down version of Star Wars) during the second debate. It's
conservatives who should be cheering."

To which Sullivan adds: "Yes. And we are."

(((Shudder)))

These "conservatives," you'll note, are all of the neo- variety, including
Christopher Hitchens, who has also jumped on the Obama bandwagon, because,
as he quite accurately writes:

"On 'the issues' in these closing weeks, there really isn't a very sharp or
highly noticeable distinction to be made between the two nominees, and their
'debates' have been cramped and boring affairs as a result."

Hitchens happily notes, also, that "the Obama-Biden ticket is not a
capitulationist one," by which he means our foreign policy of trigger-happy
aggression will carry on, as before, albeit fronted by someone with a more
pleasing personality than the Great Decider.

And if you're wondering what motivated a good many of these dyed-in-the-wool
warmongers to suddenly turn on a dime and come out for the supposed
"antiwar" candidate, you'll be on the right track if you consider who else
is rooting for him:

"Defendants in the classified-information case involving two former
pro-Israel lobbyists are hoping a change in administrations next year will
bring a fresh review of their prosecution, according to sources on the
defense team. The next attorney general, who will be nominated by Barack
Obama or John McCain, is expected to reconsider the case of former American
Israel Public Affairs Committee staffers Steve Rosen and Keith Weissman, as
part of general review of high-profile legal issues decided by the Bush
administration.

"Sources on the defense team have speculated that a possible Obama nominee
to head the justice system could be more receptive to pleas to dismiss the
case."

Obama wants to invade Pakistan and flood Afghanistan with yet more U.S.
troops, and he will likely let two spies who funneled top secret
intelligence to Israel off scot-free. Why wouldn't the War Party be
perfectly satisfied with the election? After all, they're done with Iraq,
anyway. We're about to be invited to leave. And he's good – from their
perspective – on the Russian question, which promises to be the key area of
future neocon mischief-making.

Our war-birds are naturally migratory creatures, effortlessly moving from
branch to branch, and party to party, with no compunction whatsoever about
changing either their nesting habits or the color of their feathers, so long
as their ultimate goal – promoting conflict, in whatever form – is achieved.
Republicans, Democrats, independents, or whatever: it's the same program,
with the same result – an America perpetually at war, defending and
extending the frontiers of its empire, without regard for the costs, either
financial or purely human.

Preoccupied as we are with the spectacle of "democracy" unfolding on the
American stage, we fail to notice the contours of a new world conflict
taking shape far from the media spotlight. From the steppes of Central Asia
to the jungles of South America, the American colossus is being challenged
by rising forces of nationalism, religious zeal, and sheer resentment of the
heedless exercise of hegemonic power that is often mistranslated as
"anti-Americanism." It will take more than the calm reassurances of Barack
Obama to still these tides of discontent and rancor. If he defies the odds
and actually makes it to the White House, Obama will merely put another face
on the same old policies, albeit more friendly and less offensive to our own
elites, who would rather not be so rudely confronted with the ruthlessness
of their rulers.

As some of my readers may know, I recently moved to a small town in northern
California, where antiwar feeling is high – and so is support for Obama.
Everywhere I go I see Obama posters, bumper-stickers, etc. Why, just the
other day, a gaggle of peace demonstrators gathered in the middle of the
town's main street, holding up banners proclaiming their opposition to our
government's foreign policy and their support for Obama. "Honk if you're for
peace and Obama!" – and the resulting cacophony was audible for miles. I
live next door to a couple that has festooned their home with peace signs,
and their backyard is a veritable "peace garden," with peace signs sprouting
up all over – and, yes, their car sports an Obama-Biden bumper-sticker. A
house sign supporting the Democratic ticket has sprung up in their front
yard, alongside the rhododendrons. I wonder how long it will take these
well-meaning folks to become thoroughly disillusioned with their messiah. In
the case of the more honest and intelligent, I give it a few weeks, a month
or so at the outside. The rest, I'm afraid, will follow the Dear Leader to
perdition…

--- On Tue, 10/21/08, James Morris <justicequest2002@yahoo.com> wrote:

From: James Morris
Subject: Obama, McCain to face 'imminent Iran threat'

Date: Tuesday, October 21, 2008, 11:07 AM

The Bushehr nuclear reactor might even be attacked (by the US and/or Israel)
before it becomes operational (which is supposedly scheduled to occur by the
end of this year).

Obama, McCain to face 'imminent Iran threat'
Tue, 21 Oct 2008 17:10:28 GMT

<http://www.presstv.com/detail.aspx?id=72818&sectionid=351020104>
http://www.presstv.com/detail.aspx?id=72818&sectionid=351020104

US presidential candidates are reportedly preparing to ward off an imminent
threat allegedly being generated from Iran's nuclear program.

Israel's Debkafile reported on Tuesday that Senators Barack Obama and John
McCain, the Democratic and Republican nominees, have been provided with a
guideline to prepare for an international crisis early after either of them
takes Office.

Debkafile, which has close ties to the Israeli intelligence service, Mossad,
claimed that US intelligence has made a new assessment about Iran's nuclear
program, estimating that the country would be ready to build its first
nuclear bomb in February 2009.

The report comes contrary to the collective findings of sixteen US
intelligence agencies made public on Dec 3, 2007. The National Intelligence
Estimate (NIE) found that Iran had abandoned 'its nuclear weapons program'
in fall 2003.

Iran, a signatory to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), says it has
never sought a nuclear weapon, stressing that weapons of mass destruction
have no place in its defensive doctrine.

Since the release of the NIE report, the White House and its close allies in
Tel Aviv have endeavored to make the findings of the assessment appear
inaccurate.

The Debkafile report, meanwhile, comes shortly after Democratic vice
presidential nominee Joseph Biden said on Sunday that if elected, Barack
Obama would face an international crisis early in his presidency.

"It will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did
John Kennedy," said Biden.

"Watch, we're going to have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to
test the mettle of this guy," the Delaware senator added.

Israel and its staunch ally, the US, allege that Iran seeks nuclear weaponry
and, under this pretext, have threatened to strike the country's nuclear
installations.

The Tuesday report quoted Israeli sources as saying that by February Iran
would have the necessary enriched nuclear material to start building a
nuclear bomb.

This is while UN nuclear watchdog chief Mohamed ElBaradei said Monday that
Iran does not have the required material to build an atomic bomb, if the
country 'decide to do so'.

"They [Iranians] as I just recently mentioned still don't even have the
nuclear material, the low-enriched uranium, to develop one nuclear weapon,
if they decide to do so," ElBaradei said.

Earlier in September, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) said in
its latest report on Iran's nuclear activities that the agency had not
discovered any 'components of a nuclear weapon' or 'related nuclear physics
studies' in the country.

The IAEA report also confirmed that the agency had conducted 'seventeen
unannounced inspections' at the country's nuclear plants, where Iran has
managed to enrich uranium-235 to a level 'less than 5 percent'.

The rate is consistent with the construction of a nuclear power plant.
Nuclear arms production requires an enrichment level of above 90 percent.

The UN nuclear watchdog, however, has pressed Iran to disclose details of
its conventional weapons programs after Washington raised new allegations
against Tehran.

Before the invasion of Iraq in 2003, the Bush administration sought to
justify the war and win international support by providing intelligence on
possible weapons of mass destruction in the country.

Colin Powell, the then US Secretary of State, later stated that his pre-war
testimony before the Security Council was based on intelligence, which was
'flawed'.

-----------------------------------------------------

<http://neoconzionistthreat.com/> http://NEOCONZIONISTTHREAT.COM

--- On Mon, 10/20/08, James Morris

From: James Morris <justicequest2002@yahoo.com>
Subject: Attack on Iran Off the Table?

Date: Monday, October 20, 2008, 6:07 PM

Attack on Iran Off the Table?

by Ray McGovern (source: ConsortiumNews.com)
Monday, October 20, 2008

On Sept. 23, the neoconservative chiefs of the Washington Post's editorial
page mourned, in a tone much like what one hears on the death of a close
friend, that "a military strike by the United States or Israel [on Iran is
not] likely in the coming months." One could almost hear a wistful sigh, as
they complained that efforts to stop Iran's nuclear program has "slipped
down Washington's list of priorities … as Iran races toward accumulating
enough uranium for a bomb."

We are spared, this go-round, from "mushroom clouds." But racing to a bomb?
Never mind that the 16 agencies of the U.S. intelligence community concluded
in a formal National Intelligence Estimate last November that work on the
nuclear weapons-related part of Iran's nuclear program was halted in
mid-2003. And never mind that Thomas Fingar, National Intelligence Director
Mike McConnell's deputy for national estimates, reiterated that judgment as
recently as Sept. 4. Never mind that the Post's own Walter Pincus reported
on Sept. 10 that Fingar added that Iran has not restarted its nuclear
weapons work. Hey, the editorial fellows know best.

The good news is that the bottom line of the Sept. 23 editorial marks one of
those rare occasions when the Post's opinion editors have managed to reach a
correct conclusion on the Middle East. It is true that the likelihood of an
Israeli or U.S.-Israeli attack on Iran has receded in recent months. The
more interesting questions are (1) why? And (2) under what circumstances
might such an attack become likely again?

The Post attributes the stepping back by Israel and the U.S. to "the
financial crisis and the worsening violence in Afghanistan and Pakistan."
These are two contributing factors but, in my judgment, not the most
important ones. Not surprisingly, the Post and other charter members of the
Fawning Corporate Media (FCM) omit or play down factors they would prefer
not to address.

Russia and Deterrence

More important than the bear market is the Russian bear that, after a
17-year hibernation, has awakened with loud growls commensurate with
Russia's growing strength and assertiveness. The catalyst was the fiasco in
Georgia, in which the Russians saw the hands of the neocons in Washington
and their doppelgänger, the extreme Right in Israel.

You would hardly know it from FCM coverage, but the fiasco began when
Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili ordered his American- and
Israeli-trained Georgian armed forces to launch an attack on the city of
Tskhinvali, capital of South Ossetia, on the night of Aug. 6-7, killing not
only many civilians but a number of Russian observers as well.

It may be true that our State Department officials had counseled Saakashvili
against baiting the Russian bear, but it is abundantly clear to anyone
paying attention to such things that State is regularly undercut/overruled
by White House functionaries like arch-neocon Elliott F. Abrams (F. for
Fiasco). His encomia include those earned for his key role in other major
fiascoes like the one that brought about the unconscionable situation today
in Gaza. (Would that the president's father had let Abrams sit in jail,
rather than pardoning him after he was convicted for perjuring himself in
testimony to Congress on the Iran-Contra fiasco.)

In any event, it is almost certainly true that Russian Prime Minister
Vladimir Putin saw folks like Abrams, Vice President Dick Cheney, and their
Israeli counterparts as being behind the attack on South Ossetia. For
centuries the Russians have been concerned – call it paranoid – over threats
coming from their soft southern underbelly, and their reaction could have
come as no surprise to anyone familiar with Russian history – or, by
analogy, those familiar with American history and the Monroe Doctrine, for
example.

Even neocon Randy Scheunemann, foreign policy adviser to Sen. John McCain
and former lobbyist for Georgia's Saakashvili, would have known that. And
this lends credence to speculation that that is precisely why Scheunemann is
said to have egged on the Georgian president. Russia's reaction was totally
predictable, and it enabled McCain to "stand up to Russia" with very strong
rhetoric and not-so-subtle suggestions that his foreign policy experience
provides an important advantage over his opponent in meeting the growing
danger of a resurgent Russia.

Russia's leaders are likely to have seen in Saakashvili's provocation, in
the attempt to get NATO membership for Georgia and Ukraine, in the
deployment of anti-missile defenses in Poland and the Czech Republic, and in
hasty U.S. recognition of an independent Kosovo indignities that Russia
should no longer tolerate.

I can visualize Russian generals telling Putin:

Enough! Look at the weakened Americans. They have destroyed what's left of
their Army and Marine Corps, spreading them out and demoralizing them in two
unwinnable wars. We know how bad it is with just one unwinnable war. It has
not been that long since Afghanistan. But, Vladimir Vladimirovich, before we
indulge ourselves with schadenfreude, consider what such actions betoken –
total recklessness of a kind we have seen only rarely in Washington.

Who can assure us that "the crazies" – the Cheney-Abrams-Bush cabal – will
not encourage the Israelis to precipitate the kind of armed provocation
vis-à-vis Iran that would "justify" America's springing to the defense of
its "ally" to bomb and missile-attack Iran? You are aware of the importance
of the Israel lobby, and how American politicians vie with one another to
prove themselves the most passionately in love with Israel.

Periodic attempts by Congress to require President Bush to seek
congressional approval before ordering a strike on Iran have failed
miserably. So his hands are free for another "preemptive war" before he
leaves office. After all, Bush has publicly promised the Israelis he will
deal with the "Iranian threat" before then. Besides, our political analysts
suggest that Bush and Cheney might think that wider war would help the
Republicans in the November election

No big bear likes to have its nose tweaked. But the Russian reaction to
Georgia was not merely one of pique. It became a well-planned strategic move
to disabuse Israel and the United States of the notion that Russia would sit
still for an attack on Iran, a very important country in Russia's general
neighborhood. After Georgia, the Russians were bent on sweeping such plans
"off the table," so to speak, and seem to have succeeded.

The signs of new Russian assertiveness are in the public domain, although
the FCM has not given them much prominence. What is more telling is the
effect on Israel and the United States. Since early August there has been a
sharp decline in the formulaic rhetoric against Iran's "path toward nuclear
weapons," especially among U.S. policymakers and in American media following
the conflict in Georgia and the expiration of the latest "ultimatum" served
on Iran to stop its nuclear program.

The change in official Israeli statements was the most pronounced. After a
consistently hawkish stance toward Iran, Israel's president, Shimon Peres
told London's Sunday Times in early September:

"There are two ways [to deal with Iran's nuclear threat]; a military and a
civilian way. I don't believe in the military option – any kind of military
option … an attack can trigger a bigger war."

And then came the bombshell from Ehud Olmert in his valedictory interview
appearing in the Israeli daily Yediot Ahronot on Sept. 29. Olmert argued
that Israel had lost its "sense of proportion" in believing it could deal
with Iran militarily.

Not Russia Alone

It is a curious twist, but to their great credit, senior military officers
Adm. William Fallon, who quit rather than let himself be on the receiving
end of an order to attack Iran, and Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff, fought and continue to fight a rearguard action against the
dreams and plans of "the crazies" in the White House to attack Iran. Fallon
famously declared that the U.S. military was not going to "do Iran on my
watch" as commander of Centcom.

In addition to his outspoken opposition to opening a "third front" in the
area of Iraq and Afghanistan, Mullen has done much behind the scenes to talk
sense into the Israelis. From the Israeli press we know that Mullen went so
far as to warn his Israeli counterparts not to even think about another
incident like the one on June 8, 1967, when Israeli jets and torpedo boats
deliberately did their utmost to sink the intelligence collector USS Liberty
off the Sinai coast.

A gutsy move. The Israelis know that Mullen knows that that attack was
deliberate – not some sort of unfortunate mistake. Mullen could have raised
no more neuralgic an issue in taking a shot across any Israeli bow that
might be thinking of a provocation of some sort in the Persian Gulf.

Hats off to the new admirals… who outshine predecessor admirals who bowed to
pressure from President Lyndon Johnson to portray the Israeli air and
torpedo strikes on the USS Liberty, which took the lives of 34 U.S. sailors
and wounded more than 170 others, as a mistake in the fog of war – despite
unimpeachable evidence it was deliberate.

Hats off, too, to the grassroots movements that succeeded in quashing
resolutions in both houses of Congress calling for the equivalent of a
blockade of Iran. Several members actually withdrew their earlier
sponsorship of the resolution in the wake of public pressure. Many of them
came to realize that facilitating a new war might make them vulnerable to
charges of poor judgment – the kind of charges that sabotaged Sen. Hillary
Clinton, who, ironically, thought she had done the politically smart thing
in voting to give the president authority to attack Iraq.

Not Completely Out of the Woods

There remain as many "crazies" among the Israeli leadership as there are
here in Washington – crazies who continue to believe that Iran must be
attacked while the going is good. And it will never be as good as it is with
Bush and Cheney in the White House. If the Randy Scheunemanns of this world
are capable of goading the likes of Saakashvili into irresponsible action,
they can try to do the same with a wink and a nod to the crazies in Tel
Aviv.

The fact that the McCain/Palin campaign seems to be in serious jeopardy
provides still more incentive for recklessness. If, as all seem to agree, a
terrorist event of some kind might give the edge to McCain, many could argue
that the same result could be achieved by a wider war including Iran,
requiring the senior, seasoned leadership of one who has "worn the uniform."

And there is still more incentive for Bush and Cheney to look with favor on
an attack on Iran… very personal incentive. It is a safe bet that if John
McCain loses, Bush and Cheney and others will be plagued by various legal
actions against them for the war crimes for which they are clearly
responsible. Such would also be possible under a President McCain or Palin –
but much less likely.

But attacking Iran would be crazy, you say. Not for nothing have many of the
folks around Bush and Cheney been referred to as "the crazies" since the
early Eighties. Some are still there; and they do things.

In April 2006, one of my Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity
(VIPS) colleagues, in a conversation with Marine Gen. Anthony Zinni, asked
the general if he thought the U.S. or the U.S.-cum-Israel would attack Iran.
Zinni shook his head vigorously, saying, "That would be crazy." Then he
stopped and quickly added that we are dealing with "the crazies."

This article first appeared on ConsortiumNews.com.

<http://neoconzionistthreat.com/> http://NEOCONZIONISTTHREAT.COM

--- On Mon, 10/20/08, James Morris <jdtmorris@yahoo.com> wrote:

From: James Morris <jdtmorris@yahoo.com>
Subject: Thom Hartmann asked about AIPAC/Mearsheimer & Walt book
To: "Fokke Dijkstra" <fokke.dijkstra60@gmail.com>
Cc: manycook@rgv.rr.com, "Mik" <ravenhawk083@gmail.com>,
TWOMIFTG@yahoogroups.com, holohoax2@yahoogroups.com, "JPB"
<debunks@sbcglobal.net>, evedemian@verizon.net, "Virginia F. Raines"
<virginiaf.raines@gmail.com>, "maximus" <maximus475@cox.net>, "E.A.
Richards" <drer@execpc.com>, "Donald Jones" <royal1941@starpower.net>,
"Richard Dangler" <rdangler@hotmail.com>, "Anthony Tersch"
<tersch@gmail.com>, "ALI JAFARI" <aliajafari369@yahoo.com>, "David O'Keefe"
<dtokeefe@lampadacrm.com.br>, "Jane stillwater" <jpstillwater@yahoo.com>,
"John Hibbs" <skipper@bfranklin.edu>, "Judge Philip Brown"
<sphillipb@gmail.com>, "Maysoon Dakhiel" <maydakhiel@gmail.com>, "Mik"
<ravenhawk083@yahoo.com>, "Skeeter Gallagher" <skeeter@ksc.th.com>, "Vince
Aggeler" <vaggeler@yahoo.com>, yunussidira@yahoo.com, drshabbir@comcast.net,
"kesava pillai" <kesava.pillai@gmail.com>, "Nooruddin Malilakath"
<nooruddin@sspipe.com>, "S Turkman" <turkman@sbcglobal.net>,
tahirakhan@comcast.net, francisco.soto@altgbs.com, drjosegq@gmail.com,
"Victor Abraham Jr" <vabraham@charter.net>, kirk.victoria@gmail.com, "Vile -
J. Enrique Vilella Canino" <evilella@bellsouth.net>, promanco@bellsouth.net,
indemand1832@yahoo.com, mamzers@yahoogroups.com,
jewsareedom@yahoogroups.com, thespiritofjacob@yahoogroups.com,
davidicke2@yahoogroups.com, identity@yahoogroups.com,
christiandentity@yahoogroups.com, hilloftorah@yahoogroups.com,
israeliteidentity@yahoogroups.com, Israelites@yahoogroups.com,
houseisrael@yahoogroups.com
Date: Monday, October 20, 2008, 12:52 PM

Thom Hartmann asked about AIPAC/Mearsheimer & Walt book

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t2_GRPg4MDI

----------------------------------------------------------

Bill and Kathy Christison mention the call which Thom Hartmann cut off in
the 'Teflon Alliance with Israel' article linked at the top of the comments
section at the following URL:

http://neoconzionistthreat.blogspot.com/2007/10/kathleen-and-bill-christison
-on-phone.html

http://neoconzionistthreat.blogspot.com/2007/10/thom-hartmanns-hypocrisy-for
-israel_21.html

http://neoconzionistthreat.blogspot.com/2007/10/thom-hartmanns-hypocrisy-for
-israel.html

Hartmann used that Gareth Porter article (Press TV host Tina Richards who is
Jewish as well and is very anti-Zionist too set the record straight with
Gareth Porter in the following 'Outside the Box' interview):

http://www.presstv.com/Programs/player/?id=56426

Access the following URL if any of the above links are broken:

http://www.itszone.co.uk/zone0/viewtopic.php?t=97843

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com <http://mail.yahoo.com/>

Back to top

Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
Messages in this topic (1)

5.

Berg Appeals Obama Ruling

Posted by: "Jacob Israel" ji@blackexile.com   urbini.rm

Sun Oct 26, 2008 6:47 pm (PDT)

Man, Ray, you sure have more confidence in the "honor" of our courts to
think we'll ever see them "discriminating against" a nigger.

I pray you're right!

-

jk

From: Ray Earmest [mailto:ray266@centurytel.net]
Sent: Sunday, October 26, 2008 6:37 PM
To: AA Henri the Celt
Subject: Re: Berg Appeals Obama Ruling

I just have this nagging inkling, Henri, that the lower court

wants the U.S. Supreme Court to rule on this matter. I

don't think they will refuse to hear it.

The lower court wants the top court to give a ruling, so no

other lower court (probably manned with democrats)

can go in there and screw things up.

If the U.S. Supreme Court refuses to hear this case we

then will know that everything is rigged, from the top to

the bottom, or vice versa.

With the Martial Law thing bugging the hell out of people of

this nation, the wrong ruling by the Court may well start

the revolution that we need so bad. I had rather have the

court stick to the Constitution, but...I will accept, and

support any action taken by the "intelligent" people of

this nation. I guess all we can do now is wait and see,

and use that time to clean our weapons. I have had

enough of this shit from the courts.

Ray

----- Original Message -----

From: Henri Ayre <mailto:henrithecelt@gci.net>

To: AA Henri the <mailto:henrithecelt@gci.net> Celt

Sent: Sunday, October 26, 2008 11:51 AM

Subject: Berg Appeals Obama Ruling

<http://rense.com/general83/bergg.htm> Berg Appeals Obama Ruling To Supreme
Court

Berg Appeals Obama Ruling

To Supreme Court

Obama is "NOT" qualified to be President of the United States.

Lawsuit Against Obama Dismissed from Philadelphia Federal Court.

10-25-8 From: Don Stacey <mailto:don.stacey@comcast.net>

UPDATE - The Ruling is attached at end. It's a really poor copy, but it is
all we have for the moment. Willl put up a better copy when we get one.

(b) -- Philip J. Berg, Esquire, the Attorney who filed suit against Barack
H. Obama challenging Senator Obama's lack of "qualifications" to serve as
President of the United States, announced today that he is immediately
appealing the dismissal of his case to the United States Supreme Court. The
case is Berg v. Obama, No. 08-cv-04083.

Berg said, "I am totally disappointed by Judge Surrick's decision and, for
all citizens of the United States, I am immediately appealing to the U.S.
Supreme Court.

This is a question of who has standing to uphold our Constitution. If I
don't have standing, if you don't have standing, if your neighbor doesn't
have standing to question the eligibility of an individual to be President
of the United States - the Commander-in-Chief, the most powerful person in
the world - then who does?

So, anyone can just claim to be eligible for congress or the presidency
without having their legal status, age or citizenship questioned.

According to Judge Surrick, we the people have no right to police the
eligibility requirements under the U.S. Constitution.

What happened to '...Government of the people, by the people, for the
people,...' Abraham Lincoln in his Gettysburg Address 1863.

We must legally prevent Obama, the unqualified candidate, from taking the
Office of the Presidency of the United States," Berg said.

Our website obamacrimes.com now has 71.8 + million hits. We are urging all
to spread the word of our website - and forward to your local newspapers and
radio and TV stations.

Berg again stressed his position regarding the urgency of this case as, "we"
the people, are heading to a "Constitutional Crisis" if this case is not
resolved forthwith.

* * For copies of all Court Pleadings, go to obamacrimes.com

# # #

Philip J. Berg, Esquire

555 Andorra Glen Court, Suite 12

Lafayette Hill, PA 19444-2531

Cell (610) 662-3005

(610) 825-3134

(800) 993-PHIL [7445]

Fax (610) 834-7659

philjberg@obamacrimes.com

_____

 


 

Search for:

 

Hit Counter

 

TRAITOR McCain

jewn McCain

ASSASSIN of JFK, Patton, many other Whites

killed 264 MILLION Christians in WWII

killed 64 million Christians in Russia

left 350 firemen behind to die in WTC

 

 

holocaust denier extraordinaire--denying the Armenian holocaust

millions dead in the Middle East

tens of millions of dead Christians

LOST $1.2 TRILLION in Pentagon
spearheaded torture & sodomy of all non-jews
millions dead in Iraq

42 dead, mass murderer Goldman LOVED by jews

serial killer of 13 Christians

the REAL terrorists--not a single one is an Arab

serial killers are all jews

framed Christians for anti-semitism, got caught

legally insane debarred lawyer CENSORED free speech

mother of all fnazis, certified mentally ill

10,000 Whites DEAD from one jew LIE

moser HATED by jews: he followed the law

f.ck Jesus--from a "news" person!!

1000 fold the child of perdition

 

Modified Friday, November 05, 2010

Copyright @ 2007 by Fathers' Manifesto & Christian Party