http://www.dogchurch.org/forum/ Fri, 03 Sep 2010 15:38:38 GMT FeedCreator 1.8.0-dev (info@mypapit.net) http://www.dogchurch.org/forum/thread/21

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's law. I have learned a great deal from you, and I try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind him that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate. I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the specific laws and how to best follow them.

When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev. 1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. How should I deal with this?

I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as it suggests in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev. 15:19-24). The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

Lev. 25:44 states that I may buy slaves from the nations that are around us. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans but not Canadians. Can you clarify?

I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination (Lev. 10:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?

Lev. 20:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear prescription glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging. ]]> no_email@example.com (Neeraj123) Wed, 10 Feb 2010 05:23:39 GMT http://www.dogchurch.org/forum/21#158 http://www.dogchurch.org/forum/thread/49
In other words, this pint-sized pet is master of his universe and fears nothing, characteristics that make him a most suitable pet for some people and the worst possible choice for others. But a sudden spurt of popularity as the Taco Bell dog has brought notoriety, and demand for the tough and intelligent dogs has increased.

The Chihuahua has always been popular as a pet for elderly owners and apartment dwellers, so in an era when many breed registrations are declining, the number of Chihuahuas registered annually has increased from 29,860 in 1991 to 38,926 in 1997, an average increase of 1133 registered dogs per year and an overall increase of 30.4 percent. The number is hardly equivalent to the registrations of Labrador Retrievers, the breed with a lock on the number one slot for the past several years, but it has been enough to move the Chihuahua from 16th in popularity to 12th. ]]> no_email@example.com (Neeraj123) Wed, 10 Feb 2010 05:22:27 GMT http://www.dogchurch.org/forum/49#157 http://www.dogchurch.org/forum/thread/22 /trænz?d??nd?r/) is a general term applied to a variety of individuals, behaviors, and groups involving tendencies to deviate from the normative gender roles.

Transgender is the state of one's "gender identity" (self-identification as woman, man, or neither) not matching one's "assigned sex" (identification by others as male or female based on physical/genetic sex). "Transgender" does not imply any specific form of sexual orientation; transgender people may identify as heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, pansexual, polysexual, or asexual; some may consider conventional sexual orientation labels inadequate or inapplicable to them. The precise definition for transgender remains in flux, but includes:

    * "Of, relating to, or designating a person whose identity does not conform unambiguously to conventional notions of male or female gender roles, but combines or moves between these."[1]
    * "People who were assigned a sex, usually at birth and based on their genitals, but who feel that this is a false or incomplete description of themselves."[2]
    * "Non-identification with, or non-presentation as, the sex (and assumed gender) one was assigned at birth."[3]

A transgender individual may have characteristics that are normally associated with a particular gender, identify elsewhere on the traditional gender continuum, or exist outside of it as "other," "agender," "Genderqueer," or "third gender". Transgender people may also identify as bigender, or along several places on either the traditional transgender continuum, or the more encompassing continuums which have been developed in response to the significantly more detailed studies done in recent years. ]]> no_email@example.com (Neeraj123) Wed, 10 Feb 2010 05:20:02 GMT http://www.dogchurch.org/forum/22#156 http://www.dogchurch.org/forum/thread/47 no_email@example.com (Neeraj123) Wed, 10 Feb 2010 05:19:06 GMT http://www.dogchurch.org/forum/47#155 http://www.dogchurch.org/forum/thread/46 no_email@example.com (Neeraj123) Wed, 10 Feb 2010 05:17:46 GMT http://www.dogchurch.org/forum/46#154 http://www.dogchurch.org/forum/thread/50 Charlie, the lovely chihuahua, is so so so adorable. here is part of the story, share with you all:
charlie saw snow for the first time last year. he didn’t know what it was at first, but he soon started to run and play with the other dogs in it. charlie loves to pose for pictures. everytime he sees me with the camera in my hand, he will stay still and pose to give mommy that special picture.

charlie is so tiny that he was already 9 months old when he finally was able to go up and down stairs. even now charlie can’t jump up onto the sofa and forget about him jumping off it. i have to lift him up onto it and then also put him down on the floor when he wants to get off. ]]> no_email@example.com (joyce123) Thu, 12 Nov 2009 10:57:23 GMT http://www.dogchurch.org/forum/50#153 http://www.dogchurch.org/forum/thread/49 no_email@example.com (joyce123) Thu, 12 Nov 2009 10:55:09 GMT http://www.dogchurch.org/forum/49#152 http://www.dogchurch.org/forum/thread/48
Michigan house littered with feces and trash where more than 110 live dogs, mostly Chihuahuas, were rescued this week. ]]> no_email@example.com (joyce123) Thu, 12 Nov 2009 10:44:29 GMT http://www.dogchurch.org/forum/48#151 http://www.dogchurch.org/forum/thread/47
I was always a big dog person & really was never fond of little dogs. However when wanting a new addition to our home, I did my breed research & found the Chihuahua to best suit my wants in a dog. Apparently they surpassed my expectations as we went from one to three Chihuahua's in 3 short months with absolutely no regrets.

My pups are already great minding as a result and as an example of that as you can see, they are easily "pose-able" for photographs. )"

Unfortunately,I failed to post lots of photoes of my lovely Chihuahuas. But you can click to this websit chihuahua.dormitory, come on now, you can see our chihuahua babies which we are pround of and feel the happiness with us. ]]> no_email@example.com (joyce123) Thu, 12 Nov 2009 10:15:21 GMT http://www.dogchurch.org/forum/47#150 http://www.dogchurch.org/forum/thread/46
In english : http://video.antollma.org/NowTheTruth.html

En français: http://video.antollma.org/MaintenantLaVerite.html ]]> no_email@example.com (Antoll) Wed, 04 Nov 2009 06:13:46 GMT http://www.dogchurch.org/forum/46#149 http://www.dogchurch.org/forum/thread/45
Sun signs are very important in western astrology where as Vedic astrology lays more important towards Vedic astrology.

By one sign Vedic astrology many times differ from western astrology on the basis of sun sign.

The difference arises ‘cause in western astrology the zodiac is moving where as in Vedic astrology the zodiacs are considered to be fixed.

In Vedic astrology the predictions of one’s life are predetermined depending upon the karma or an action of the past life. What is the relevance of 'free will' is a matter of screens philosophical debate. But as per Vedic astrology 75% of what happens to a person or human being can be known with the help of astrology Horoscope India on human being’s karma. Vedic Astrology provides us with an insight in our quest to shape our destiny. ]]> no_email@example.com (KAMM11) Tue, 18 Aug 2009 04:22:32 GMT http://www.dogchurch.org/forum/45#148 http://www.dogchurch.org/forum/thread/14 Absolutely, all our models of God are idols of our limited imaginations. Whenever we talk or think about God, our words and thoughts must inevitably be tinged with our idolatry, our love or loathing for our own concepts. We can bypass our idolatry only by talking to God, i.e., in prayer or contemplation.

To facilitate this for us Christians, God makes himself available to us as Jesus the Anointed One, the Christ, to whom we can relate person to person, in whom we find one who has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows - and who has triumphed over them all. ]]> no_email@example.com (scooper) Thu, 09 Apr 2009 03:10:17 GMT http://www.dogchurch.org/forum/14#147 http://www.dogchurch.org/forum/thread/14
The  early Christians - and Christians today - have the same issue: how do I relate to something that is beyond the space-time energy-matter continua? Any description of God ... any word for God ... any reference to God of necessity must be symbolic.  To the engineers and scientists in the room, any reference to God is simply a model that corelates with the data and allows us to make predictions about the nature and behavior of God as long as we stay within the data.  The absurdity of what I just wrote is that modeling the un-modelable is impossible.  So, as with the blind Chihuaha, we bark in the general direction where we hear a noise. 

With that thought in mind, I suggest that focusing on our model of God - instead of God itself - is idolotry. The Christ - on the other hand - is someone to whom I can relate: the First Born of the Ressurected, He who sits at God's right hand, the Annointed One, the Messiaih, he to whom every knee will bow and every tongue will praise.  This I understand.  May He who has God's ear forgive me of my insults to Him and present me in his unblemished light when I stand in God's judgment.  Get it? ]]> no_email@example.com (Charles) Sun, 05 Apr 2009 16:43:43 GMT http://www.dogchurch.org/forum/14#146 http://www.dogchurch.org/forum/thread/23 Evolution from our previous Forum. Please comment using the reply links on this page. ]]> no_email@example.com (scooper) Fri, 13 Mar 2009 04:11:06 GMT http://www.dogchurch.org/forum/23#143 http://www.dogchurch.org/forum/thread/2
Gay Marriage

Spittle-Flecked, Hate-Filled Fundie Ramblings

Enjoy and comment on this page. ]]> no_email@example.com (scooper) Fri, 13 Mar 2009 04:06:36 GMT http://www.dogchurch.org/forum/2#142 http://www.dogchurch.org/forum/thread/22 here. If you care to add your thoughts, use the reply links on this page. ]]> no_email@example.com (scooper) Fri, 13 Mar 2009 04:01:33 GMT http://www.dogchurch.org/forum/22#141 http://www.dogchurch.org/forum/thread/2
You also have a hidden prejudice. You seem to think that we are all blank slates when it comes to developing our affectional orientations. I doubt this to be true. I use the term "affectional orientation," because I'm referring to whom you can fall in love with, not whom you can have sex with. I remember reading about a culture in which the rite for initiating its male youth into adulthood included copulating with a hole in a tree. I do not remember that any of the boys ever fell in love with the tree. The decision to have sex is much more accessible to our faculty of rational choice and free will than is falling in love. I think that heterosexuals tend to fall in love with members of the opposite gender, and homosexuals tend to fall in love with members of the same gender as themselves. I also know people who can fall in love with members of either gender - these people are called bisexuals.

Your argument seems to imply that you think all people are really bisexual. I doubt this is the case. If you confine yourself to physically gratifying actions, then you may have a point. But I was not referring to physically gratifying actions. I was referring to the capacity and ability to love.

In terms of the ability to love, I think there really are people who are nearly exclusively "homosexual." Again, I see no harm in extending to them the benefits of marriage and the disincentives of divorce. In fact, I think it beneficial to them and to society as a whole (especially in its discouragement of promiscuity, and the stability it provides for the children these couples legally adopt).

What diminishes marriage is the tolerance of couples living together without making the formal adult commitment of marriage. It is part of our culture's perpetuating adolescence into old age, in all its self-aggrandizing and self-defeating puerility. ]]> no_email@example.com (scooper) Sun, 08 Feb 2009 22:36:15 GMT http://www.dogchurch.org/forum/2#140 http://www.dogchurch.org/forum/thread/2
Your first premise is that a person can be a "homosexual."  I agree completely that a person can engage in homosexual behavior.  I agree that homosexual behavior stimulates the sympathetic nervous system and produces pleasurable sensations that gratify both physical and emotional deisires.  I agree that feelings of sexual desire can be aroused by a person with my same gender.  I agree that feelings of sexual desire can be supressed by a person of the opposite gender. Where I disagree is that homosexual behavior is inevitable in any particular human being.  The only thing we must do is die; all else is discretionary.  I know that this is pedantic, but until everyone admits that behavior is based on choice which is based on free will - however colored by circumstance and genetics - we cannot have a rational discussion on the topic. 

Your second premise is that marriage is nothing more than a social contract:  I agree to have an ongoing (monogamous) relationship in exchange for certain social benefits.  The presence or absence of copulation, procreation, and its attendant consequences are irrellevant.  The presence of absence of children is irrellevant.  How children are raised is irrellevant.  The diffuculties & nuances of heterosexual relationships are irrellevant.  The example I set with my behaior is irrellevant.  That all forms of sexual gratification are created equally (except - of course - polygamy, bestiality, statutory rape, and sexual assault / rape).  We will leave fornication, adultery, and divorce for another post.  If you define marriage as thus, again we have nothing else to discuss.  Your question is rhetorical.

If you think that maybe, just maybe, marriage just might possibly affect someone other than the two participants, then you must ask the question, what is best for these other participants?  Now, we can have a discussion.  The first part of this discussion must split the issue into secular and sectarian marriage.  Sectarian marriages by definition exist within the group of practicing believers and their orthodoxy.  Within very broad constraints this must be respected or you will court civil war.  The second part of this discussion then is left with civil unions.  What should our society promote in terms of civil unions?

I argue that society should promote civil unions that promote the development of children into responsible contributing members of our society  and that promote the maintenance adults as responsible contributing members of our society.  We do not want to promote anything that encourages sloth, disease, lust, greed, gluttony, anger, psychoses, pride, selfishness, or any of the other social curses.  To this end, I argue that monogameous heterosexual life-time civil unions provide the greatest benefit to the united couple, their progeny, and society at large.  I also argue that society should not condescend to or patronize those who wish to set their sights lower or create a "separate but equal" social group.  Next, to the Scooper's challenge, I argue making civil unions available to those who wish to publicly and proudly disply their predeliction for homosexual behavior makes it the equivalent of civil unons between those who engage in heterosexual behavior and thus encourages behavior that is not in society's best interests. It thus diminishes us all.

More to the true point of the challenge, I argue that discouraging homosexual behavior is not intrinsicly evil.  This is no different than society discouraging my sinful behavior - however enjoyable and socially popular it might be (I will save my confessions for my priest).  Two simple examples are divorce and alcholoism.  No one who has survived a divorce would wish it on their worst enemy.  No one who has survived alcholism would ask society to assent - much less consent or promote - its deleterious consequences.  And any believer or group of believers that rejects sinners from their midsts because of their choice of favorite sin is simply engaging their own favorite sin - pride. ]]> no_email@example.com (Charles) Sun, 08 Feb 2009 19:35:24 GMT http://www.dogchurch.org/forum/2#139 http://www.dogchurch.org/forum/thread/18
Our internal relationship with God is our faith.  When you remove all the covers, each person chooses their faith based on revelation from God. Yes, this revelation can be highly distorted by the medium through which it is received; yes, we can intentionally and unintentionally distort the revelation by our own predispositions.   Each person's faith can be compared to that which is "orthodox" within any community of practicing believers.  The antithesis of this is heterodoxy.  Fundamentalism is a faith that is based on a very narrow set of revelations and a very narrow interpretation of these revelations.  So far, so good.

The risk of evil that arises in fundamentalism is that of making this particular form of worship holy instead of the God to which it points.  This then encourages the pride, anger, and moral & intellecual sloth that is so readily characitured and so very offensive to outsiders.  However, this is no different than self-justified sin based on any other rationalism.  And the sinfulness of these fundamentalist messengers of God's revelation does not change the truth of God's message.   We are all hypocrites in the eyes of God, and our offerings are but "bloody rags" in comparison to His holiness.

Assuming for the sake of discussion that I have just communicated God's truth to you, what should you do with this bit of revelation?  Forgive.  Forgive these sinners who attempt to lead you astray in their vain attempts to lead you to God.  And ask God's forgiveness for judging them any differently than you pray for God to judge yourself. ]]> no_email@example.com (Charles) Sun, 08 Feb 2009 18:04:16 GMT http://www.dogchurch.org/forum/18#138 http://www.dogchurch.org/forum/thread/44
If anything like what you claim in your video were about to occur, I would have read about it in the Astrophysical Journal. The heavens are under constant scrutiny by professional and amateur astronomers, and the geological record of earth's temperature history is well known. There is nothing in the data that indicate the likelihood of any such phenomena as your video describes, in earth's past or near future, near meaning less than about 10 billion years. I must also point out that the continents are not "supported" by earth's crust - they are part of earth's crust, and because they are less dense than the mantle below them, they actually "float" on earth's mantle. Thus, they would not sink into the sea due to heating of the earth. Besides the oceans would boil away before the crust softened appreciably. The boiling point of water is many hundreds of degrees below the melting point of rock.

As for extraterrestrials, I bet that they exist, but that they wouldn't notice us, nor we them, even if we did have an encounter. They are probably just too different from us.

As for the religious belief that God does not exist, try this link.

You can take a deep breath and relax. Currently the biggest danger to humans on this planet is posed by other humans. As Einstein said, "Our technology has outstripped our humanity." Perhaps you can dedicate yourself to improving our humanity toward each other. ]]> no_email@example.com (scooper) Fri, 12 Dec 2008 02:34:36 GMT http://www.dogchurch.org/forum/44#137 http://www.dogchurch.org/forum/thread/44 http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x7lqwg_apocalypse-the-gre…

APOCALYPSE - The Great Lie ----- [ENGLISH]
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x7lqwg_apocalypse-the-gre…
Extraterrestrial World Contact (June 6th)
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x40n0q_extraterrestrial-w…
Get out of being mentally maninuplated
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x4gsrd_get-out-of-being-m…
Jesus CHRIST 666 The Antoll MA Code
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x3hswz_jesus-christ-666-l…

APOCALYPSE - Le Grand Mensonge ----- [FRANCAIS]
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x7lrcl_apocalypse-le-gran…

KARL JUNG - La synchronicité 666
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x7m9wj_karl-jung-la-synch…
2012 Vers la Lumière
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x3cvtq_2012-vers-la-lumir…
2012 L'Eveil au Point Zéro
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x6pn5y_2012-leveil-au-poi…
Rencontre avec le 666
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x74r5w_rencontre-avec-le-…
Contact Mondial avec les Extraterrestres (6 Juin)
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2ogtf_contact-mondial-av…
Jésus CHRIST 666 - Le Code Antoll MA
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x3hswz_jesus-christ-666-l…


APOCALIPSIS - La Gran Mentira ----- [ESPANOL]
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x7lz8d_apocalipsis-la-gra…
Jésus CRISTO 666 - El Código Antoll MA
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x3hswz_jesus-christ-666-l…

(TOUTES LES VIDEOS), (ALL VIDEOS), (TODOS LOS VIDEOS), ANTOLL MA
http://www.dailymotion.com/visited/Antoll_MA/1 ]]> no_email@example.com (Antoll) Thu, 11 Dec 2008 11:30:29 GMT http://www.dogchurch.org/forum/44#136 http://www.dogchurch.org/forum/thread/38 From the tone of your posts, I'm guessing that you are closer to this subject than you ever wanted to be. As for our stand, see the sidebar in our School. ]]> no_email@example.com (scooper) Thu, 07 Aug 2008 14:52:35 GMT http://www.dogchurch.org/forum/38#135 http://www.dogchurch.org/forum/thread/38 no_email@example.com (Becky) Thu, 07 Aug 2008 13:24:00 GMT http://www.dogchurch.org/forum/38#134 http://www.dogchurch.org/forum/thread/38
Thanks for all your thoughts and references! ]]> no_email@example.com (scooper) Thu, 07 Aug 2008 05:51:22 GMT http://www.dogchurch.org/forum/38#133 http://www.dogchurch.org/forum/thread/2
If we are to prosper as a society, then we need to encourage people to get married, to procreate, and to stay (happily) married. The question here is how gay couples getting married diminishes this. I believe gay marriage strengthens support for straight marriage (which is its prototype), and I'm still waiting for anyone to prove me wrong. ]]> no_email@example.com (scooper) Thu, 07 Aug 2008 05:48:07 GMT http://www.dogchurch.org/forum/2#132 http://www.dogchurch.org/forum/thread/18
As for Tom Paine, George Washington agreed with him that his high-minded philosophy was fine for some individuals, but he thought that one could not expect to maintain a nationwide civil society in the absence of religion.

Can we get back to the topic of Fundamentalism per se, or are Fundamentalism and Religion the same thing to you? ]]> no_email@example.com (scooper) Thu, 07 Aug 2008 03:57:40 GMT http://www.dogchurch.org/forum/18#131 http://www.dogchurch.org/forum/thread/2 no_email@example.com (Becky) Wed, 06 Aug 2008 23:46:02 GMT http://www.dogchurch.org/forum/2#130 http://www.dogchurch.org/forum/thread/38 no_email@example.com (Becky) Wed, 06 Aug 2008 22:49:39 GMT http://www.dogchurch.org/forum/38#129 http://www.dogchurch.org/forum/thread/38 I forget who said that all it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.  That is total BS. Good people will not sit back and do 'nothing'. Cowards, self-serving, coldhearted, greedy and unconcerned people will do nothing.

http://www.the7thfire.com/Politics%20and%20History/Pedopho… ]]> no_email@example.com (Becky) Wed, 06 Aug 2008 22:09:59 GMT http://www.dogchurch.org/forum/38#127 http://www.dogchurch.org/forum/thread/38
The best job in town for a sick pedophile is being a 'man of god'.  They don't work, get a free home, insurance, respect to the point of near worship, all the children they desire who have parents that have no clue but have taught them to trust and obey the preacher. No one suspects them for the low-life scum they are until a child's life has been destroyed. These monsters do not 'fall' they carefully choose and groom the children and know how to control them.  You most definately need to read this book. It is free online.

There is also an epidemic of child sex rings being operated from this nation. Next time you see a missing child flyer, look at that child and try to imagine the hell he/she may be going through. Child porno is flooding this nation via internet rings.  One detective reported videos with toddlers being raped while they screamed until they passed out. He said the 'shelf' life among abducted kids is about 2 years. As long as people choose to stay blind, there will be little hope for these precious children. I wonder where god is when children are being raped, sodomized, tortured and killed?  I worked in a school and then for a doctor and I have seen part of the ugly side. People debate over doctrine and few give a rats ass about this nations children...worse still, they really don't want to even know.

Here is the link for the book: http://ffrf.org/books/betrayal/#chap1 ]]> no_email@example.com (Becky) Wed, 06 Aug 2008 21:37:54 GMT http://www.dogchurch.org/forum/38#126