I am a stage-four cancer survivor. No, that's wrong. I'm not a survivor. I beat cancer's ass into the ground, dusted myself off, and proceeded on with life. I don't consider myself, or the millions of other people who deal with life-threatening or chronic conditions, a victim. We are not. But surely, patients have enough to manage already without the idiocy rattling through Attorney General Jeff Sessions' teeth every time he opines on opiods, cannabis, and pain management.
That's right, I said it. Someone had to. Jeff Sessions is an idiot. The problem is plain for anyone who has had an experience like mine to see: Our top federal law enforcement officer has no idea what real pain is really like, or what doctors do to manage it.
Sessions recently told the surely apocryphal story about current White House Chief of Staff, and former four-star general, John Kelly refusing pain killers during hand surgery. I have no doubt that the general is one bad ass individual. But really? Did he wash the wound with tequila before the first incision, while grinding his teeth on a stick?
Watch Sessions tell the story here. It is itself quite painful. It's like your crazy great uncle's circa-1950s-liquor-fueled rants you are subjected to once every year at Thanksgiving dinner. The difference is that your crazy great uncle is kind of endearing when he's drunk, and his opinions are harmless. This crazy uncle is the Attorney General of the United States, and he has all the power to act on his feelings, and he clearly intends to do so.
"The plain fact, I believe, and I am operating on the assumption that this country prescribes too many opioids," Sessions told a gathering in Tampa a few weeks ago. "I mean, people need to take some, uh, aspirin sometimes, and tough it out a little."
"Believe." "Assumption." "Too many." Forget the fact he doesn't have the slightest notion of the difference between acute pain, like when a surgical scalpel cuts into your flesh, and chronic pain, that can last indefinitely. And I wonder what exactly "Dr." Sessions means by too many? Which patients, with what conditions, under what circumstances will be determined by the federal government to be deserving of pain relief? And who, exactly, is just going to have to "tough it out a little bit?"
The Attorney General probably doesn't have any specific patient in mind. He doesn't exactly appear to be focused on individual patients. He just wants to make sure that fewer patients are prescribed opioids to manage their pain—and he is weaponizing the federal government in order to accomplish this goal.
The Associate Press reported last month that, according to Sessions, "the Drug Enforcement Agency is now asking medical practitioners whether they have received continuing medical education on prescribing or dispensing opioids when they apply for a license or renew."
Sessions is forcing doctors to make an ugly choice: Either do best by their patients and adhere to their Hippocratic Oath—or suffer the bureaucratic harassment from the powerful Drug Enforcement Agency, and risk the loss of their license to practice medicine. If incentives matter, and they do, expect doctors to start making bad choices for their patients.
I remember a time, not too long ago, when Republicans and conservatives proclaimed loudly and often that health care choices should be between patients and doctors, and the federal government should keep its nose out. But those well-worn talking points have been shelved, replaced with a new form of medical authoritarianism.
For me, it's personal. I was diagnosed with cancer in 2001. I have been injected with aggressive chemotherapy cocktails that leave you feeling like you have the worst hangover ever, except that it goes on for months. And there's extensive nerve damage. If you are a masochist, you can read more gory details here.
I have undergone multiple surgeries that sliced me open from stem to stern, each time leaving dozens of surgical staples in my belly, making my torso look like I big zipper. Years later, I still deal with collateral damage from the battle, including scar tissue in my abdomen that can generate significant pain. With all due respect to tough guy John Kelly, I doubt he has felt real pain, the kind that makes you wish you were dead, until scar tissue from past surgeries manages to strangle your intestines closed.
And, yes, it irritates me to retell these stories. I'm not nearly old enough yet to be spending my waning days on the porch, telling my octogenarian friends about all the parts of my body that are broken. I was hoping to save the good stuff for when my wife finally sends me away to a geezer farm in the country.
Of course opioid addicition is a real problem, and opioid abuse is indeed dangerous. I have friends who have told their stories about managing pain, and addiction. They all sought other forms of treatment, settling on medical cannabis as a safer, more effective treatment for debilitating pain, and other chronic conditions.
I can recount countless stories of patients using cannabis to get off of opioids. But here comes the idiocy again. Jeff Sessions has said that "good people don't smoke marijuana," and that he believes that cannabis is the gateway drug that leads to opioid abuse. "We think a lot of this is starting with marijuana," he says at that same piece of performance art in Tampa. The research, of course, says the opposite.
So with traditional pharmaceuticals and cannabis off the table, I guess I really will have to "tough it out a bit."
When I sat down to write this piece, I debated using the word idiot. It's intemperate, you might say. So I Googled it. "Idiot: A stupid person. Synonyms: fool, jackass, knucklehead, numbskull, nitwit, asshat." It might as well have just said "Jeff Sessions."
#1: misterwhite To: Deckard (#0)
If someone uses marijuana to get off opioids, they didn't belong on opioids. Nor do they belong on marijuana.
misterwhite posted on 2018-03-03 18:03:00 Reply Private Reply
#2: sneakypete To: Deckard (#0)
I don't believe he likes to restrict his idiocy to merely the area of weed. I think he likes to range much further than that,like any other senile old fool.
sneakypete posted on 2018-03-03 19:17:00 Reply Private Reply
#3: sneakypete To: misterwhite (#1)
And you know this based on what,what your dog told you?
sneakypete posted on 2018-03-03 19:17:44 Reply Private Reply
#4: A K A Stone To: Deckard (#0)
No he wants people to stop abusing the pills.
A K A Stone posted on 2018-03-03 19:29:42 Reply Private Reply
#5: A K A Stone To: sneakypete (#3)
It is just common sense you bitter old geezer.
A K A Stone posted on 2018-03-03 19:30:54 Reply Private Reply
#6: Gatlin To: Deckard (#0)
Members of the Oath Keepers organization took an oath and they are fulfilling that oath:
Be it recognized that Jeff Sessions is also an “oath keeper” who took an oath and is fulfilling that oath: Why do you praise the “Oath Keepers” for keeping their oath, and at the same time side with people who want Jeff Sessions to violate his oath and ignore laws that you do not like? Is there some rational to this dilemma that you can explain to everyone?You must come to terms with the reality that you simply cannot pick and choose which laws you wish to obey….unless of course you want to do jail time. If we all arbitrarily pick and choose which laws to follow, our whole civilized society will collapse.
If you don’t like the Marijuana Laws, then work to get the laws changed. Don’t work to try and get Jeff Sessions to violate his oath and ignore the laws just for you. That will never happen.
It would be interesting to learn if you, as the professed Christian you claim to be, pick and choose which Biblical Laws to follow.
Do you pick and choose which Biblical Laws to follow?Gatlin posted on 2018-03-03 21:20:50 Reply Private Reply
#7: Hondo68 To: Gatlin, Satan, FEMA preachers, Clergy Response Team, Evil Government Not Ordained by God, Deckard (#6)
Get thee behind me, Satan Gatlin, evil doer!
You're lying about the Bible. Despicable.
Hondo68 posted on 2018-03-03 21:51:48 Reply Private Reply
#8: A K A Stone To: hondo68, gatlin (#7)
A K A Stone posted on 2018-03-03 22:19:41 Reply Private Reply
#9: rlk To: Deckard (#0)
So is Deckard.
rlk posted on 2018-03-03 22:25:45 Reply Private Reply
#10: Gatlin To: A K A Stone, hondo68 (#8)
After watching the Brother Ken Christian voice08 video, I then did about 3 hours of research for Brother Ken. Yea, one of the videos exposing Brother Ken was almost 2 hours long….I watched it all.
I find no last name for Brother Ken and no address for his ministry from google. I find no validation that he is even a minister. Strange.
While google searches turned up nothing on him, I was able so find some more Brother Ken Christian Voice09 here. I did not have the time to listen to all of Brother Ken’s sermons….but I did listen to the first part of all of them and I listened enough to determine he is no preacher I will ever go to church on Sunday to listen to. I have now seen and heard all of Brother Ken that I ever need.
Then surpassingly, I found two videos by Robert Guercia where Robert exposed Brother Ken for what Robert saw him to really be. Robert sounded very convincing and he made sense to me. I also found a video by Song Swan getting after Brother Ken for condemning Christian Music.
So, you and hondo can listen to Brother Ken Christian voice08 all you want to and believe whatever he says….as for me, I will pass on him. I am in agreement with most all of the comments posted below in response to Robert Guercia’s videos exposing Brother Ken. You of course can form your own conclusion.
Clopsy responded to Robert Guercia’s comments about Brother Ken by saying:
Wimpy Apple said about Robert Guercia’s statement: David Gr8 stated after hearing Robert Guercia’s comments: Jim Kanis commented on Brother Ken: What follows is a conversation thread between myself [Steve] and Brother Ken of ChristianVoice08 YouTube channel made on the first of his "Anti Contemporary Christian Music" videos. I pray that all who read this thread will find balance to the manner in with Ken treats nearly everyone who disagrees with him.You seem to suffer from the delusion that a "minister" or "elder" of the Church is exempt from having their teachings scrutinized , and, if appropriate, discounted.
I point you to the apostle Paul in Act 17 "10 And the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night unto Berea: who coming thither went into the synagogue of the Jews. 11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so"
The Bereans were commended for not taking everything at "face value" and researching the scriptures for themselves.
I daresay that if Paul, who was writing the scriptures at this time under the direction of the Holy Spirit, had no problem with believers questioning the veracity of what he said, you should be more gracious 2000 years later when honest questions are raised by your exegesis / eisegesis of the Bible.
Instead you resort to ad hominem attacks on those who disagree with you. You call them "illiterate", "uneducated", "liar", "sinner", etc., ultimately banning some for having the audacity to contradict you.
You may well be a "minister" and an "elder" but I suggest you study the qualifications given by Paul for such an office and begin to behave accordingly. Pay particular attention to verse 7 "not self-willed" means "arrogant", "not soon angry" means "irascible", "no striker" means "pugnacious (quarrelsome)" (all definitions taken from Strong's Concordance.)
Titus 1
5 For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee:
6 If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly.
7 For a bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God; not selfwilled, not soon angry, not given to wine, no striker, not given to filthy lucre;
8 But a lover of hospitality, a lover of good men, sober, just, holy, temperate;
9 Holding fast the faithful word as he hath been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers.
BROTHER KEN'S RESPONSE
+Steve Barhydt No delusions at all. You apparently haven't read my posts below where I point out that very fact. However, you guys are obligated to be respectful of me and any other elder and minister. We are to be given DOUBLE HONOR according to Paul or maybe you hadn't read that verse before falsely accusing an elder.
I have just finished a series of conversations with "Brother Ken" concerning, not so much his stance on music, which I totally disagree with him on, but his unChristlike manner in which he deals with those who disagree with him. Unfortunately, and not surprisingly, my comments have started disappearing. With your permission, I would like to repost that conversation here on your YouTube with the prayer that those who are researching "Brother Ken" may find some balance to his rantings here. That's how I found you :)
Several of my comments are rather long and I didn't want to post them without your okay.
In Christ,
Steve
Robert Guercia -
Robert Guercia -
Song Swan -
Read the remarks posted below the video.
I will repeat and emphasize one of the comments.
I believe it is preachers like Brother Ken that give cause to some people having the wrong attitude about Evangelicals.Gatlin posted on 2018-03-04 01:22:29 Reply Private Reply
#11: Gatlin To: hondo68 (#7)
Since I posted a verbatim verse….it is you who is saying the Bible is a lie.
Shame on you …
Gatlin posted on 2018-03-04 01:37:24 Reply Private Reply
#12: Deckard To: hondo68 (#7)
What did you expect from Parsons? After all - the State is his god.
Deckard posted on 2018-03-04 01:42:41 Reply Private Reply
#13: Deckard To: Gatlin, hondo68 (#11)
Your interpretation of the Bible is false.
Romans 13: Setting It Straight
It is more than interesting that some 95% of the 14,000 evangelical churches that graced the German landscape during Hitler’s rise to power bought into the identical misinterpretation of Romans 13 that the vast majority (probably at least 95%) of the 300,000 evangelical churches that grace America’s landscape have bought into today.
For example, one German pastor in 1933 gushed, “Christ has come to us through Hitler.” In like manner, many pastors today foolishly preach that God directs us through our President (whoever he is), or our Supreme Court, or virtually any other government agency.
And speaking of the ignominious infatuation with government by Nazi-era German clergymen, Erwin Lutzer, in his brilliant book, “Hitler’s Cross”, wrote, “The swastika meant more to some pastors than did the Cross.” And there is absolutely no question that many pastors in America today place far more value on the US flag (symbolizing to them the power and authority of the state) than they do the Cross of Christ or the teachings and authority of the Holy Scriptures.
Without a doubt, tyrants of all stripes love to exploit this asinine attitude of these sheepish, slavish preachers who idolize the state! Lutzer quotes Hitler as saying, “The parsons will dig their own graves. They will betray their God to us. They will betray anything for the sake of their miserable jobs and incomes.”
And that is exactly what many pastors, deacons, elders, and churchmen are doing today: for the sake of their paychecks, insurance premiums, and retirement benefits, they are betraying the lawful authority of Christ to the tyrannical authority of the state.
And the bastardized teaching of Romans 13 is one of the major tools by which this is being done.
Deckard posted on 2018-03-04 01:52:19 Reply Private Reply
#14: Deckard To: Gatlin, . Hondo68 (#6)
Romans 13: Should Christians Obey The Government Unconditionally?
Paul is telling us we must not resist the righteous power of God - whether it is manifested in the heavenlies or in various earthly sectors - including righteous government.
When Pilate and Herod give Jesus an order to speak, Christ resists their orders and remains silent (Matthew 27:13, Luke 23:7). When Paul has been beaten illegally by evil men within the Roman government, he refuses their command to come out of the jail and defiantly says "...let them come themselves and fetch us out." (Acts 16:37). That's not resisting?
When Peter is assisted in a jail-break by an angel, how is that obeying the government? (Acts 12:7) Did the Apostle "receive damnation" because he didn't ask the evil rulers 'Can I go now?' The writer of Hebrews tells his readers "ye have not yet resisted unto blood, striving against sin." (Hebrews 12:4). That firmly implies the Christians were appropriately resisting the evil, but every instance of that resistance ending in bloodshed occurs at the hands of the authorities. Whom were they resisting? The Evil Authority.
When Stephen was murdered, it was the religious leadership of the Jews that "set up false witnesses" to justify their unlawful crime. They even brought him before the high priest who was in agreement with the heinous killing of the young Christian. (Acts 6:13, 7:1, 15). When criminal elements have a position of control and authority within the government, believers have an obligation to resist them--not to twist the scriptures into justification for compliance with an ungodly government.
Deckard posted on 2018-03-04 02:01:24 Reply Private Reply
#15: Gatlin To: A K A Stone (#8)
Hondo said to me:
And that was “despicable.”I don’t understand how I can be “lying about the Bible” when all I did was post the scrtiptue exacelty as it appears in the Bible without changing anyone thing.
To really understand the message in the scripture in Romans 13:1-7, one needs to consider a detailed study and not just grab onto something a “preacher” tells them to think it means.
. The best place to start is with a comprehensive study is by reading the Paul and Civil Obedience in Romans 13:1-7 comprehensive study.
The purpose of this study is to focus on what Paul had to say about authorities in Romans in order that we Christians might better understand how it is that God would have us relate to those whom he, in is his sovereignty, has placed over us.
The study examines Paul's teaching on the Christian's relation to the civil authorities as outlined in Romans 13:1-7 and then compare that with 1 Peter 2:13-17. First, the study surveys the problem of the textual authenticity of the passage. Second, a translation and outline will be given followed by a brief look at the historical context of the letter and the social make-up of the church in Rome. Third, the bulk of the study will be taken up with an in-depth exegesis of the passage. Fourth, and final, certain similarities and differences between Paul and Peter will be delineated.
I will present at the end of this post, that fourth section for your convenience and ease of access.
This study continues here.The final section is devoted to a brief comparison of Romans 13:1-7 and 1 Peter 2:13-17. The point of this section of the paper is to briefly overview some of the similarities and differences between the civil instructions recorded by Paul and Peter.
I will now present the following extract of that comparison for your consideration and understanding:
Romans 13:1-7 and 1 Peter 2:13-17:
A Brief Comparison
The point of this section of the paper is to briefly overview some of the similarities and differences between the civil instructions recorded by Paul and Peter in an attempt to understand the traditions employed by both writers.
SIMILARITIES
STRUCTURAL SIMILARITIES
The Asyndetic Nature of the Passages
Both Romans 13:1-7 and 1 Peter 2:13-17 stand grammatically unconnected to their immediately preceding contexts. This may indicate that they were both pulling on a well known tradition that needed no special introduction.
The Overall Structure of the Passages
First, both writers issue the command exhorting believers to a certain posture before civil authority. Second, they proceed to relate the command to God or Christ—thus they relate it to the Christians' faith. Third, most of the remainder of the material is concerned with giving the rationale in each of the two situations for the command. In this regard, while Paul is longer both argue for the retributive function of the state as well as its role in promoting the good by praising it. Fourth, both writers end with universal appeals describing the kind of posture Christians are to maintain before all people.
LINGUISTIC SIMILARITIES
The Use of uJpotassevsqw/ujpotavghte
Both authors employ the verb uJpotavssw as the controlling idea in terms of the Christian's relationship to the state. Paul uses the present imperative, while Peter uses the aorist imperative. The result however, is virtually the same. As indicated in the commentary, the undefined action inherent in the aorist is further defined as ongoing by the use of the participle ajgaqopoiou'nta". Thus both writers are setting out what they believe to be the norm in this area. The use of this term as opposed to some other suggests that they may be following a certain common tradition. Although Paul wrote some eight years earlier there does not appear to be direct literary dependence on Peter's part.
The Use of uJperecouvsai" and uJperevconti
The use of uJperevcw once again suggests a common tradition from which these writers are drawing. They both render to Caesar and his governors the highest possible human court. Their Christianity has not caused them to dismiss worldly structures as unimportant and of no consequence in the lives of believers. In fact, both Peter and Paul argue that from the foundation of their Christianity Christians are to recognize world leaders and governmental authorities.
Eij" ejkdivkhsin and e[kdiko"
Paul and Peter both lived under and witnessed the penal authority of the Roman government. That they both refer to the government and its retributive justice with the same language of "revenge" or "avenger" would seem to point to a common understanding and tradition.
The Use of ajgaqopoiw`n/poivei ajgaqovn and e[painon Once again, both Paul and Peter use similar language, albeit not identical, to refer to the Christian's behavior in the world and before the state. The Christians are to do good and the result is, under normal conditions, that they will have praise from the authorities.
The Injunctions in Romans 13:7 and 1 Peter 2:17
The injunctions in both Romans 13:7 and 1 Peter 2:17 are universal in their appeal. Both writers use the term "all" (pavnta" in Paul and pavsin in Peter) as the object of the first verb of the commands. Peter issues four commands which eventually end in the last command to honor all men. Paul states one command and then follows it up with a fourfold list of "things owed." He ends the list focusing on honor. To be sure, there are differences that will be discussed below, but the place of this verse at the end of the passages as well as its similar structure, seem to indicate a common tradition between Peter and Paul.
CONTEXTUAL SIMILARITIES
It is a matter of no little debate concerning the role of Christology in these passages. Often times in this discussion, the broader literary and historical contexts of the writers are forgotten. The point I want to make here is that both Paul and Peter, insofar as Romans and 1 Peter are concerned, demonstrate quite clearly that they have similar theologies regarding salvation and Christian living. Both of them are therefore writing from a similar soteriological context and perspective. This is important when trying to assess the relative weight to be placed upon differences in these texts. Differences do not have to be taken as incompatibilities, unless of course there is genuinely a material contradiction.
DIFFERENCES
OVERALL CONTENT
Paul saw the need to communicate almost twice as much material on the subject of the state than did Peter. This, of course, is not a serious difference, but one that raises the question as to the nature of the extra material, as well as the redaction question and the nature of the original tradition. The former question will be looked at below, but the latter will have to await further study.
THE HISTORICAL CONTEXT FOR APPLICATION It is difficult to ascertain the exact context in which Paul is applying this tradition. Perhaps it has to do with taxes, but this is in no way a certainty. The best that can be said is that his audience is in Rome and Paul had no doubts that Christians and the state would soon have dealings; especially in the capital city. For this reason he instructs the church on the relationship they must maintain with the state.
Peter on the other hand, is dealing with false accusations arising from the populace and directed at Christians (2:11, 12). He appears to take Christian tradition on church-state relations and applies it to the Christians so that the state will not entertain the accusations and decide to persecute the Church. That is, the Christians are to silence the slander by doing good and in this way the state will not be provoked to disciplinary measures (cf. 2:15).
PAUL'S THEOLOGY OF THE DIVINE ORIGIN OF THE STATE
Paul maintains a solid commitment to originating all civil authority in God's appointment (13:1-2). Peter does not explicate such ideas as clearly. But, with the presence of ktivsei (1 Pet 2:13), it is possible to see traces of this idea. For Peter, because the authorities are created human beings, they owe their origin to the Creator God . Paul goes much further than Peter does in expanding on these ideas. He refers to the state as the diavkono" and leitourgoiv of God. This is absent in Peter. On the other hand, Peter urges submission to the state, based in part on the theology of the Christian's freedom (cf. 1:18; 2:16).
THE ULTIMATE JURISDICTION OF THE STATE
Both Paul and Peter materially agree on this as pointed out above. But Paul goes much further than Peter does. He talks about the power of the state to legitimately determine life and death. For Paul the state does not bear the sword for nothing, and, as such, acts as God's avenger for the meting out of punishment. Perhaps such an idea is inherent in ejkdivkhsin in 1 Peter 2:14, but it is not spelled out as clearly as in Paul.
PRELIMINARY CONCLUSIONS
There are a fair number of further similarities and differences that were not mentioned as they seem to be relatively minor to the task at hand. The similarities that are mentioned, however, are enough to demonstrate that while there does not appear to be literary dependence (though such a possibility is open on chronological/historical considerations), both Paul and Peter appear to be drawing on a similar Christian tradition. The differences in emphases concerning the rationale for the command to submit can probably be accounted for on the basis of the different historical situations to which each was writing. The overall structure of the passages is similar and both emphatically maintain that the Christian's relation to the state is to be one of submission. This is an important fact. Thus, both Paul and Peter agree in large measure on the origin (i.e., in God), nature (i.e. rulers invested with authority) and function (i.e. to punish and to praise) of the state and certainly on the Christian's relationship to it (i.e., submission).
Given the strength of the similarities it would seem that Paul and Peter are drawing on a common stock of paraenetic material for their instruction, but the differences appear to rule out any direct literary dependence, i.e., Peter using Romans as a direct source. The origin of this material appears to be found in the LXX and Jesus' teaching in the Synoptic tradition (cf. Mark 13:13-17). Questions concerning the Christians' relationship to the authorities was addressed in the early church (cf. Acts 4, 7, 19:23ff, 25, 26, 28) and ultimately the traditional material we find in Peter and Paul seems to have been molded as catechetical material in the Hellenistic context of the mission to the Gentiles.
I truly believe I know what the passage means, but that of course would be only my interpretation and expressed as an opinion.
Gatlin posted on 2018-03-04 03:27:51 Reply Private Reply
#16: Gatlin To: Deckard (#13)
I gave NO interpretation.
I was very careful to post the scripture verbatim from the Bible.
I will post it again here exactly as I first posted it:
I sourced it from HERE.
Now, show me exactly where and why anything there is FALSE?
Are you saying the Bible is FALSE?
Gatlin posted on 2018-03-04 03:47:55 Reply Private Reply
#17: Gatlin To: Deckard (#14)
Then you posted your own interpretation, or one that you copied and pasted from the Web. That’s fine with me. As I said before, opinions are like assholes….everyone has one.
But you can’t tell me me interpretation was false when I never gave an interpretation.
I posted ONLY scripture and NO interpretations.
How in the world did you get to be so stupid?
Gatlin posted on 2018-03-04 03:57:44 Reply Private Reply
#18: Hondo68 To: Deckard (#13)
Gatlin is a Subverted Nation neo-Nazi.
Hondo68 posted on 2018-03-04 03:58:14 Reply Private Reply
#19: Gatlin To: Deckard (#14)
I cannot find anywhere in the scripture in you link that Paul says anything about a righteous government.
Can you please point out to me where that word is appears in the scripture?
It’s not there and you KNOW damned well it isn’t there.
STOP MAKING SHIT UP.
Gatlin posted on 2018-03-04 04:13:27 Reply Private Reply
#20: Gatlin To: hondo68 (#18)
Show me where I was lying when all I did was post the scripture exactly as it appears in the Bible without changing one thing.
Show me …
Gatlin posted on 2018-03-04 04:18:51 Reply Private Reply
#21: Gatlin To: Deckard (#12)
Show me where I was lying when all I did was post the scripture exactly as it appears in the Bible without changing one thing.
Show me …
Gatlin posted on 2018-03-04 04:21:05 Reply Private Reply
#22: A K A Stone To: Deckard (#12)
You may disagree with Gatlin. That is fine. Question is why do you dishonor yourself by saying he worships the government. We both know that isn't true. Making you a liar. Come on deckard have some honor.
A K A Stone posted on 2018-03-04 08:09:06 Reply Private Reply
#23: A K A Stone To: Deckard (#13)
A K A Stone posted on 2018-03-04 08:11:45 Reply Private Reply
#24: A K A Stone To: Gatlin (#11)
A K A Stone posted on 2018-03-04 08:22:42 Reply Private Reply
#25: GrandIsland To: A K A Stone (#22)
Unfortunately for Dickard, he can't just buy that on a shelf. One must be born with those qualities... and keep honor at the top of his priorities. The unfortunate part is, legal drugs are at the top of his priority list. They outweigh "honor". So this is why, with a big fat smile, Dickard will post yella propaganda to sell his priorities.
In my line of work, once you've been proven dishonorable, you can never come back from the dark side.
GrandIsland posted on 2018-03-04 11:04:31 Reply Private Reply
#26: Gatlin To: A K A Stone (#23)
All I did in the beginning was to simply post the sacred writings of Christianity contained in the English Standard Version of the Bible. I never made any comment to say that I either agreed with the scripture I posted or disagreed with the scripture I posted. I simply posted it verbatim.
I was then attacked by the two of the three “forum pit bulls.” One said I was “lying about the Bible” and the other said my “interpretation of the Bible is false.” In reality, the truth be known, I was neither lying nor misinterpreting ....I only posted scripture verbatim for consideration to be given to it. I never said what I believe the scripture meant and I was never asked.
The fallacy oftentimes, more often than not, is that some posters already know what they are going to say in response to my posts before they even read my posts. They continually overuse the same trite remarks that consequently have little import and lack any originality or freshness. It would be far easier if they just assigned numbers to their personal attack statements. Then when I post something for consideration, their simple response could be: “#13, #5, #6, #1 (and the best one of all) #666.
Continuing on point which was:
I never set out with the intention to prove Brother Ken to be “incorrect.” I merely posted a study. I never said it would prove Brother Ken wrong and neither did I say I believed the study was correct. I simply said: Of course, there are other places to start, I just happened on that one in my first google. Remember, I emphasize, I specifically said that was “a place to start.” I never said it was a place to end and form a conclusion....and I definitelky never said, or even suggested, it would prove Brother Ken to be wrong. Again: That was never my intent. I have no desire to prove Brother Ken wrong and I could not even attempted to do so. Brother Ken MERELY stated his opinion. You said it made sense and I posted to you: I considered that sage advice. It was never meant to offend you, if it did…I apologize.Gatlin posted on 2018-03-04 11:25:41 Reply Private Reply
#27: Gatlin To: A K A Stone (#24)
Gatlin posted on 2018-03-04 11:31:08 Reply Private Reply
#28: A K A Stone To: Gatlin (#26)
A K A Stone posted on 2018-03-04 11:31:28 Reply Private Reply
#29: A K A Stone To: Gatlin (#27)
Anyway this is a good topic. Do we have to obey the government according to Roman's chapter 13?
A K A Stone posted on 2018-03-04 11:34:22 Reply Private Reply
#30: Gatlin To: A K A Stone (#28)
You must excuse me, I am an old man with extremely bad eyesight.
Thanks for putting up with me …
Gatlin posted on 2018-03-04 11:36:09 Reply Private Reply
#31: A K A Stone To: Gatlin (#30)
A K A Stone posted on 2018-03-04 11:41:17 Reply Private Reply
#32: Gatlin To: A K A Stone (#29)
I think what you really want ot know is my understanding of Chapter 13. I can prepare a “short” [wink-wink] dissertation on that when I have time and get back to you. I promise to do so.
But as a prelude, I will give a teaser and say that I personally believe the intent of Chapter 13 was never to instruct people to become obedient slaves to the government. I find too many people foolishly get raised bristles and defensively believe that was the intent. If you have ever been around a sow with raised bristles, you can truly understand the danger in that.
So sayeth the son born unto an Evangelical preacher-man in an Assembly of God Church.
Gatlin posted on 2018-03-04 11:54:26 Reply Private Reply
#33: Gatlin To: A K A Stone (#29)
I only posted them to show both sides, as I always try to do….and not to prove Brother Ken wrong.
Gatlin posted on 2018-03-04 12:02:25 Reply Private Reply
#34: Hondo68 To: Gatlin (#20)
I posted a video which apparently went over your head with nothing sinking in.
Yes, you quoted from the Bible. You also gave your Satanic interpretation. You worshiped LBJ, Jimmy Carter, both Bush's, Clinton, and Obama because.... Romans 13, you claim.
You're too stupid to understand the Bible. That's giving you the benefit of the doubt.
You probably need an exorcism.
Hondo68 posted on 2018-03-04 12:06:15 Reply Private Reply
#35: Gatlin To: hondo68, A K A Stone (#18)
I use strong language in my posts from time to time in order to stress a point or ask a question and I condone that by everyone.
But to call me a “neo-Nazi” [Post #18] and refer to me as “Satan” [Post #7] are both malicious accusations by you that is way over the top and exceeds any bounds to human decency and civility.
It transcends all the barriers and bridges to effective dialogue and the reason I must place you on bozo quite often. I just tire of reading your incongruous and irrational crap.
Your post stands as a perfect symbol to reflect your troubled mentality and low moral character.
Gatlin posted on 2018-03-04 12:35:48 Reply Private Reply
#36: A K A Stone To: Gatlin (#35)
A K A Stone posted on 2018-03-04 12:45:42 Reply Private Reply
#37: Gatlin To: hondo68 (#34)
If by not “sinking in” you mean that I did not agree with him....then you are absolutely correct.
That is all that I did....ALL. I asked you once before to “show me” where.I now ask you again to “show me” where....and add PLEASE to the request.
That is a maliciously false accusation and has absolutely no correlation with your associated reference to “Romans 13, you claim.”You are making no sense.
Sonny Boy, the son of an Evangelical preacher-man in an Assembly of God Church may be called “stupid” but it can never be said that he doesn’t “understand the Bible.”“That's giving you the benefit of the truth.”
Gatlin posted on 2018-03-04 12:59:45 Reply Private Reply
#38: Hondo68 To: Gatlin, those that are, are ordained of God, A K A Stone (#6)
ESV is a bad translation, crappy new wave spin of the Bible. Even the KJV is somewhat better in not saying "governing authorities" but adding some light spin. "Higher Powers" is NOT necessarily Jeff Sessions, or even President Trump. "ordained of God"? That's the question.
KJV - less spin, but it was approved by the King of England.
Romans 13 King James Version (KJV)
13 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.
Romans 13 Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition (DRA)
13 Let every soul be subject to higher powers: for there is no power but from God: and those that are, are ordained of God.
Hondo68 posted on 2018-03-04 13:05:18 Reply Private Reply
#39: A K A Stone To: hondo68 (#38)
A K A Stone posted on 2018-03-04 13:21:09 Reply Private Reply
#40: Gatlin To: hondo68 (#38)
Gatlin posted on 2018-03-04 13:28:06 Reply Private Reply
#41: Hondo68 To: Gatlin, yukon approved, tater (#40)
Your ESV version is fake, approved by the Queen of the Yukon!
Hondo68 posted on 2018-03-04 13:40:30 Reply Private Reply
#42: Gatlin To: hondo68 (#38)
Gatlin posted on 2018-03-04 13:41:58 Reply Private Reply
#43: Gatlin To: hondo68 (#41)
You of course can provide proof of your claim....right?
Then please do so NOW ...
Gatlin posted on 2018-03-04 13:45:47 Reply Private Reply
#44: Deckard To: Gatlin, hondo68 (#40)
Hmmm...
Deckard posted on 2018-03-04 13:49:35 Reply Private Reply
#45: Gatlin To: Deckard (#44)
I never said I was a practicing Christian....did I?
I know the song well….thanks for posting it.
Gatlin posted on 2018-03-04 14:17:54 Reply Private Reply
#46: A K A Stone To: Gatlin (#45)
Did you give up your faith?
Do you no longer believe?
What does that even mean?
A K A Stone posted on 2018-03-04 14:19:46 Reply Private Reply
#47: Gatlin To: A K A Stone (#46)
It simply means that in my statement to Deckard, I merely pointed out to Deckard that he once again made another “quick-fire” assumption.
Nothing else was intended....and nothing else should be assumed. I simply shot-down his gross assumption.
Deckard had absolutely no basis from which to make the snide remark in his attempt to judge me by casting dispersions on my use of profanity.
If Deckard does not choose to use profanity, then that is fine with me. If however, Deckard sees something wrong with my using profanity and objects to it....they he should bozo me and butt out.
I will not discuss my religious beliefs on an open forum. I expect you to fully respect that.
Although, I will be pleased to continue the ongoing discussion on Romans 3:1-7…if you so desire.
You let me know….please.
Gatlin posted on 2018-03-04 15:12:10 Reply Private Reply
#48: Hondo68 To: Gatlin, Jack Chick, Texas Militia (#45)
Hondo68 posted on 2018-03-04 15:52:22 Reply Private Reply
#49: Gatlin To: hondo68 (#43)
How’s that going for you?
Gatlin posted on 2018-03-04 18:10:34 Reply Private Reply
#50: Gatlin To: hondo68 (#48)
Gatlin posted on 2018-03-04 18:15:45 Reply Private Reply
#51: Hondo68 To: Gatlin (#50)
Hondo68 posted on 2018-03-04 19:57:14 Reply Private Reply
#52: Gatlin To: A K A Stone (#29)
To see where this has happened, we need to look no further and consider Adolph Hitler’s opprobrious regime. It produced massive destruction and merciless huge numbers of deaths. We can understand that was never an authority in God’s service and therefore it was not necessary to submit to the authorities. (Romans13:5).
Whenever a government or any authority is no longer a force for the good of people and established order, but does become a power of evil and death, then it is no longer a Christian’s duty to follow and obey their authority. (Acts 5:29).
Gatlin posted on 2018-03-04 21:22:42 Reply Private Reply
#53: A K A Stone To: Gatlin, deckard (#52)
A K A Stone posted on 2018-03-04 21:37:09 Reply Private Reply
#54: Hondo68 To: Gatlin, A K A Stone, Fred Mertz, buckeroo, Deckard (#42)
Thank you for admitting that you were Cherry Picking, and lying about the Bible.
Why are we supposed to misinterpret the Bible, and sin until the retard Gatlin figures it out?
You can if you want, but I'm NOT!
Hondo68 posted on 2018-03-04 21:47:52 Reply Private Reply
#55: A K A Stone To: hondo68 (#54)
A K A Stone posted on 2018-03-04 21:52:39 Reply Private Reply
#56: Gatlin To: A K A Stone (#53)
Gatlin posted on 2018-03-04 21:55:28 Reply Private Reply
#57: Gatlin To: hondo68, A K A Stone, Fred Mertz, buckeroo, Deckard (#54)
Ephesians 4:31 ESV –
Gatlin posted on 2018-03-04 22:03:30 Reply Private Reply
#58: buckeroo To: Gatlin, A K A Stone (#56)
buckeroo posted on 2018-03-04 22:05:58 Reply Private Reply
#59: Hondo68 To: Gatlin (#56)
Some tough love was necessary to get you to pull your head out of your rear, even if only temporarily.
Hondo68 posted on 2018-03-04 22:06:13 Reply Private Reply
#60: Gatlin To: hondo68 (#59)
Gatlin posted on 2018-03-04 22:13:18 Reply Private Reply
#61: Gatlin To: hondo68 (#59)
Gatlin posted on 2018-03-04 23:13:58 Reply Private Reply
#62: Hondo68 To: Gatlin (#61)
Hondo68 posted on 2018-03-04 23:26:32 Reply Private Reply
#63: Fred Mertz To: hondo68 (#62)
Fred Mertz posted on 2018-03-04 23:30:43 Reply Private Reply
#64: A K A Stone To: hondo68 (#62)
The Catholic sex abuse will Outlast us all. It never ends.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/new-york-catholic-church-pays-clergy-sex- abuse-victims/
A K A Stone posted on 2018-03-04 23:42:26 Reply Private Reply
#65: Gatlin To: hondo68, Fred Mertz (#62)
This is a most interesting pronouncement you make here. However, the reason why you make this historical statement and how it relates to anything is a puzzlement.
It appears that among your other avenues of expertise, you are also now a self-declared authority on the subject of the Catholic Church’s survival for centuries. At least you seem to be proclaiming yourself to be as strongly evidenced by the posting of this meme.
With you being so highly knowledgeable on the matter of the “Catholic Church’s survival since 33 AD,” you can of course enlighten us lay people without professional or specialized knowledge on this particular subject....as to how the Catholic Church was able to survive the oppressive governments of Adolph Hitler and Benito Mussolini.
Begin first by showing how the catholic church survived Nazi Germany and explain the Vatican Concordat With Hitler's Reich: The Concordat of 1933. Feel free to start whenever you feel like it and take all the time you need. Should you have any trouble with this undertaking, perhaps your valiantly dedicated cheerleader, “Good one hondope–Fred” can assist you.
Gatlin posted on 2018-03-05 07:43:47 Reply Private Reply
#66: buckeroo To: Gatlin, hondo68, Fred Mertz (#65)
He was referring to the Roman Empire or governments during the Christian Church Reconciliation.
As always, you are off on a tangent using your nearly 2000 year later facts as a method of subduing relevant discussion.
buckeroo posted on 2018-03-05 21:17:32 Reply Private Reply