RR,
You are not to be believed. The definitions are not my own!
Since you didn't correct your own errors by looking up the words, I will do
it for you. Lazy!
adul•tery \ə-ˈdəl-t(ə-)rē\ noun
plural -ter•ies [Middle English, alteration of avoutrie, from Anglo-French
avulterie, from Latin adulterium, from adulter adulterer, back-formation
from adulterare] 15th century: voluntary sexual intercourse between a
married man and someone other than his wife or between a married woman and
someone other than her husband also: an act of adultery.
for•ni•ca•tion \ˌfȯr-nə-ˈkā-shən\ noun
14th century: consensual sexual intercourse between two persons not married
to each other—compare adultery.
As you can see the definition of fornication refers to the definition of
adultery, which clarifies and defines fornication more accurately.
Just as I said adultery is any person, married or unmarried having sexual
relations with a person who is married, while fornication is sexual
relations between two unmarried persons.
Eva Braun and Adolph Hitler before they were civilly married were
fornicators.
Tell me where this definition differs from the definitions above which are
from Merriam-Websters Collegiate Dictionary, Eleventh Edition, General
Editor, Frederick C. Mish, copyright 2003.
I don't see any objection to total control by a government on moral
grounds, totalitarian (adjective) is a new word, first used in 1926, 90
years ago.
to•tal•i•tar•i•an \(ˌ)tō-ˌta-lə-ˈter-ē-ən\ adjective
[Italian totalitario, from totalità totality] 1926
1a: of or relating to centralized control by an autocratic leader or
hierarchy: authoritarian, dictatorial especially: despotic
b: of or relating to a political regime based on subordination of the
individual to the state and strict control of all aspects of the life and
productive capacity of the nation especially by coercive measures (as
censorship and terrorism)
2a: advocating or characteristic of totalitarianism
b: completely regulated by the state especially as an aid to national
mobilization in an emergency
c: exercising autocratic powers: tending toward monopoly.
Of course there is the danger of the leader becoming a despot.
The argument which I won with you, and afterwards you blocked me was the
discussing where you said there was no record of a historical "Jesus of
Nazareth", you even said he was not mentioned in any contemporary history,
you said that even noted historian of the Jews. I said you were mistaken,
and quoted from the Histories of Flavius Josephus:
Chapter 3. (63) Now, there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be
lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works—a teacher of
such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many
of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ; (64) and when
Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned
him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him,
for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets
had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him;
and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this
day.
Not only is Jesus referred to by name but by his claim to be the Christ.
You were wrong. Similarly, you made claims that this or that was never
said in the Bible, particularly that Jesus never claimed to be God, and I
refuted you by showing you that when asked if he was God, he used the
"personal name of Israel's God": I AM THAT AM.
From http://www.apologeticsguy.com/2012/01/did-jesus-say-he-was-god/
"On another occasion, He used the personal name of Israel’s God–the name
revealed to Moses (Exodus 3:14)–to refer to Himself. And He even used the
Torah for context, so no one would misunderstand Him: “Before Abraham was,
I AM” (John 8:58).
This would be about wild as telling a Muslim, “I am your God, Allah.” Don’t
try that in Saudi Arabia! It’s no wonder the Jews tried to stone Him to
death. That was the exact penalty for blasphemy under the Jewish legal
system."
Usually you do not pay careful attention to what you are reading, or
somehow come up with the craziest notions, present them as well founded,
but very often, especially when over of us has a background in the subject,
you are exposed for what you are.
Humility and admitting you were wrong, is not your best asset.
73
DR
On Dec 16, 2016 7:22 PM, "Ron Ristad" <ristad@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
DR,
You seem to have your own definitions for words. I've been proven wrong?
About what? Because somebody else says something different, something that
you agree with, that means that I'm wrong?
Proof consists of forensic evidence: chemical analysis, dead bodies,
official records and statements made by people who are being accused.
Furthermore, our system of justice guarantees that any person being accused
of a crime has the right to face their accusers. If this is not done, then
they are judged to be innocent. There is a very good reason for this.
Not only that, but in no court of law I know of can you convict a dead
person of a crime. There is a very good reason for this too.
I have no interest in debating religious dogma but I found this on a
Catholic forum.
Following the assassination attempt upon Hitler in November, 1939, the Pope
(Pius III) sent him a personal note of congratulations on his miraculous
survival. Later that month, the Pope assured Menshausen, a German official,
that the Church did not oppose totalitarian regimes, and that he (Pius XII)
went out of his way to keep all of his declarations ambiguous so that no
finger could be pointed at Germany.
This shows that the RC Church supported Hitler at that time, at least.
http://www.loyno.edu/~history/journal/1983-4/shelton.htm
The blanket excommunication of Nazi's appears to be a legend. I am not an
expert in this area; I wholeheartedly welcome any refutation of this from a
reputable source, the Vatican itself included.
This site provides what appears to be a reasonably balanced (slightly
pro-Vatican) perspective on the problem - and it does claim that no Nazis
were excommunicated, though some Germans were excommunicated for their
advocacy of cremation(!):
http://www.religioustolerance.org/vat_hol12.htm
-----Original Message-----
From: "D.J.J. Ring, Jr."
Sent: Dec 16, 2016 5:41 PM
To: "sparkscoffee@xxxxxxxxxxxxx"
Subject: [sparkscoffee] Re: Accuracy
RR,
Look up fornicator. It has nothing to do with being faithful to a woman.
If you are married and you have sexual relations with another, you are an
adulterer. If you are unmarried and you have sexual relations with
another, you fornicate, if you are unmarried and have sexual relations with
a married person, you are an adulterer.
Hitler during most of his life did not believe in God, he was a liar
(despite your protestations) and a fornicator. It doesn't matter if he was
faithful to the one woman in his life, they both were fornicators.
They were both married, he married Eva civilly, since he had excommunicated
himself by long-standing fornication and atheism, he couldn't get married
in the Catholic Church anyway.
RR, your major shortcoming is thinking you know something when you are
wrong and continuing to think what you think even after it has been proven
to you that you are wrong. The list of specifics is so large it could not
be posted here in this short email. Some might term the shortcoming
"Delusional". You might want to coin your own term for it since you seem
to delight in being so.
73
DR
On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 6:06 PM, Ron Ristad <ristad@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
DR,
Hitler could not marry Eva Braun because he was a Catholic and the
Catholic Church would not allow it. He could have had all the women he
wanted but he was faithful to one woman, Eva Braun, and therefore he was
not a fornicator.
As far as I know Hitler never lied. If you have any evidence that he did
then please share it.
I don't know that Hitler hated anybody. Think about it. In order to hate
somebody you have to put a face on it. Nobody hates millions of people they
don't know and have never met. That's ridiculous. I know that a lot of
people, especially Jews, hated Hitler.
You need to understand that Hitler's moral values were Christian moral
values, and these are different than Jewish moral values. Jews are
liars.This is what makes them so good at propaganda and as lawyers. They're
also great story tellers, which makes them good at writing fiction and
making movies. I've found that liars also make the best salespeople. The
problem I have with lying is that people who lie a lot believe their own
lies. I don't know if that is the result of telling lies, or if they are
unable to tell the difference between fantasy and reality.
Lying is an accepted practice in the Chinese and Japanese cultures as
well. Like Jews, those races have a higher average intelligence than white
people, so I am not being judgmental. Maybe I'm just not a smart as they
are. I just know that when people lie to me I fell that I can't trust them
and prefer not to have any dealings with them. But maybe that is just one
of my shortcomings.
-RR
-----Original Message-----
From: "D.J.J. Ring, Jr."
Sent: Dec 16, 2016 12:48 PM
To: "sparkscoffee@xxxxxxxxxxxxx"
Subject: [sparkscoffee] Re: Accuracy
According to "Eva Braun: Life with Hitler" Eva and he were lovers. That
means he was a fornicator. [Görtemaker, Heike B. (2011). Eva Braun: Life
with Hitler. New York: Alfred A. Knopf. ISBN 978-0-307-59582-9]
I don't know if priests who raped children will go to Heaven, they might
have sincerely repented of those rapes, and when they are judged found
worthy. Hitler might have done the same. The job of judging is that of
God. The job of discerning is ours to do.
It is widely acknowledge that Hitler's was a philosophy of hatred and lies.
So by that evaluation he was not a Christian because to be a liar and a
Christian are incompatible.
73
DR
On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 1:22 PM, Ron Ristad <ristad@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hitler went to a Catholic School. I don't know how much more of a
Catholic you can get.
If he is guilty of all the things that he has been accused of then I
suppose you could argue that he was not a devout Catholic by your
definition.
The point is that I was accused of making it up.
*It isn't possible to prove a negative*, There is no actual forensic
proof whatsoever that Hitler purposely murdered Jews, even though there
should be if it were true. Therefore I do not believe it and it is lie. I
do not agree with the things he did but it was a different place and a
different time and everything that I have been able to find out about him
from his own words is that everything he did he did for the German people.
If Hitler wrote about Christian morals then I have to believe he was a
Christian. He was not a drunkard, adulterer, fornicator nor did ever
physically abuse anybody.
How about all the pedophile Catholic priests that were/are protected by
the Vatican. Will they go to heaven? Why weren't they disowned?
I don't hate anybody but I do have a strong dislike for hypocrites.
-----Original Message-----
From: "D.J.J. Ring, Jr."
Sent: Dec 16, 2016 11:05 AM
To: sparkscoffee@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [sparkscoffee] Re: Accuracy
RR,
Hitler had been excommunicated from the Catholic Church by his own
actions.
Nowhere have I ever read that Hitter was a devout Catholic.
He may have been raised Catholic but his amount of devotion is a result
of personal choices and actions.
It's not unusual for someone whose live is steeped in sin - which is any
direction away from God - to distance himself from the Church which calls
every person to holiness and charity towards all.
Drunkards, adulterers, fornicators, piers, swindlers, verbal and physical
abusers will not enter Heaven.
73
DR
